LETTERS [March 1996]

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 1996:

I just received your little
note of thanks for my donation and
information about ANIMAL PEOP
LE. I love all the characters and
suggest you consider writing a novel
about them.
More to the point, I really
appreciate you folks. As painful as
it sometimes is, I read ANIMAL
PEOPLE and learn. I sent notes to
all the participants in the Declaration
of Panama. The World Wildlife
Fund, Greenpeace, the Center for
Marine Conservation, and the
Environmental Defense Fund all
used to get contributions from me.
They certainly know why they don’t

I’m using your tests to tell
me who to donate to, and have started
supporting my local organizations.
The nationals get plenty. And
I’m becoming more vegan, which
after 58 years of meat-eating is quite
a challenge.
––Marty Hornstein
Studio City, California

Not that rich
I read with interest your
“Who gets the money?” feature in
the December issue of ANIMAL
PEOPLE. I was surprised to see
that the National Association for
Biomedical Research’s 1994 investments
were listed at $20,012,695––
ten times their actual level. It looks
as if an extra zero made its way into
the figure. NABR’s 1994 investments
were actually $2,061,409.
––Frankie Trull
Foundation for Biomedical Research
Washington, D.C.

A line of information per –
taining to another organization was
inadvertently entered twice, once in
the wrong place. Apologies to all

Phil Gramm
Please alert your readers
who are anti-hunting and vote that
Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) is a
member of the National Rifle
Association, and in a recent television
interview bragged that he is an
avid hunter.
––Virginia Gillas
Hermitage, Missouri

In 1987, then-Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge manager
Don Perkuchin arrested former
Representative Stan Parris (RVirginia)
for violating game laws.
Parris was convicted and fined. Phil
Gramm called U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service head Frank Dunkle,
now deceased, to protest; Dunkle
ordered Perkuchin to enforce game
laws only within the refuge itself,
and soon afterward transferred him
to the Okefenokee National Wildlife
Refuge in central Florida. Said
Gramm, “I simply raised concerns
about the wildlife refuge not being
managed well.”

Merritt Clifton’s public letter to
Jim Stallings of the Foundation for
Biomedical Research is excellent
and should constitute the national
agenda on biomedical research.
––Sam Calaby
Columbia, Maryland

Copies of this 14-page let –
ter are available for $2.00 postage
and photocopying cost, or on
request to ANMLPEOPLE@aol.com
by e-mail.

On a recent radio talk
show emanating from Los Angeles,
a very capable representative from a
well-known national animal rights
organization was invited to discuss
vivisection. So much time was
spent on hypothetical questions that
very little time was devoted to the
subject of animals used in research.
During the hour of the program I
heard, the host and callers dwelled
on such outlandish questions as, “If
a dog and a child were drowning,
which one would you save?” and
“Would you kill a person for killing
a chicken?” and “Can you justify the
statement that the barbequing of six
million chickens is equivalent to the
There must be a way to
debate vivisection without getting
trapped. How about refusing to
answer hypotheticals, explaining
that they are time-wasting, distracting,
and do not deal with facts?
Any suggestions?
––Peggy Moore
Corona del Mar, California

Let’s have a look at why
people give $25 dollars to their local
group but $250 to PETA? I’d really
like to see something like this,
maybe with a sidebar on the conglomeratization
of PETA, the New
England Anti-Vivisection Society,
Animals’ Agenda, and the
Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine; or the
Animal Legal Defense Fund, Doris
Day Animal League, et al. You
know this stuff better than anyone!
––D’Arcy Kemnitz
St. Paul, Minnesota

Inherit the Earth
We are a small group who
do much with nothing. Please see
our yearly financial report [Editor’s
n o t e : abstracted on page 12.] Local people who do not contribute
one cent to help us send us
Christmas cards from organizations
with money to burn. I will show
them the statistics you published on
group finances in your December
and January/February issues, and
ask them to help us instead.
––Carolyn Stephens
Inherit the Earth
Crawfordsville, Indiana

Web site
Have just finished partly checking out ANIMAL PEOPLE
online (>>http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/ap<<). I am impressed! It looks
great. I had some problems downloading the current issue, and some of
the more recent issues: got the message they weren’t “available through
this server.” But the others came up okay. Thank goodness, no distracting
and time-consuming wallpaper.
Absolutely the biggest thrill for me is that my work is online!
This is almost as exciting as getting published for the first time. Break
open the champagne!
––P.J. Kemp
Victoria, British Columbia

Thanks to Ferrell Wheeler, Don Graft, and the other volunteers
of the Animal Rights Resource Site, ANIMAL PEOPLE is indeed on the
World Wide Web now. Four of last summer’s issues became available on
February 1, with the complete set in preparation––possibly up by the time
you read this. That’s not all. We’ll also soon be offering the whole set in a
text-only online format for high-speed downloads, an even more accessible
format for people (like us) who live on deadline or whose computers don’t
have the memory for extensive Web-cruising.

Do it right: do it yourself
The tragedy of fundraising is not the small number of
gullible people who give millions to worthless causes. The
tragedy is the many people who care deeply about animals but
have been so alienated by animal groups that they don’t trust
If you are one of them and want to help animals but
don’t know anyone to trust with your money, set up your own
program. Focus on an issue that you are interested in, where
you believe you can make a difference.
Let’s take pet overpopulation as an example. Since
you are an animal lover, you probably already know all the
animals and their human companions living in your neighborhood.
Speak to low-income people. Offer to pay to have their
animals neutered. If you don’t want to deal with the owners
yourself, speak to your veterinarian. She will often have people
call and say that they cannot afford to have their pets fixed.
Give her donations to cover her fees in such cases. Request
financial statements showing how the money was used. Make
sure the vet’s rates are competitive. If they aren’t, find a different
vet. If you have the ability to give large donations, deal
with several vets and ask for reasonable discounts. Keep good
records. Follow sound business procedures. Give participating
vets literature encouraging their regular clients to neuter their
pets, too. Fit the program to your community.
This is how I started. I’m now applying for taxexempt
status so that I can solicit donations. I truly believe that
the vast majority of people love animals, and that if I can come
up with an effective program that can substantially reduce the
number of homeless dogs and cats in the rural, economically
depressed area in which I live, the community will support it
wholeheartedly. So many people desperately want to make a
difference. They want to stop animal suffering, and only significant
support from this majority will actually improve the situation
of animals in our society.
If my program doesn’t work, if it does not greatly
reduce pet overpopulation in my community, I will at least
know my money has not been squandered. I will know the
individuals, human, feline, and canine, who have benefitted.
––Rosemary Jacobs
Derby Line, Vermont

Make Yossi Sarid put muscle
where his mouth is
In your January/February edition, you wrote that
Yossi Sarid, minister for environmental affairs in Israel,
recently “barred traveling animal acts from entering the country.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Sarid’s pronouncement has not been
followed by the passage of any law, or anything else in writing.
When Mr. Sarid leaves office, there is nothing to prevent
circus acts from entering the country. Even while Mr.
Sarid retains his post, a circus act could choose to challenge
his pronouncement, since it is not backed by law.
Mr. Sarid has made pronouncements before that
have been ignored. For instance, following a hunger strike
by Ric O’Barry of The Dolphin Project, Mr. Sarid declared
that he would never allow dolphins imported from Russia for
a performing exhibit to be transferred to metal tanks. Mr.
O’Barry was on his strike because he claimed that being put
in a metal tank interferes with dolphins’ echolocation, and
that this could eventually kill them. Despite Mr. Sarid’s statement,
no sooner had Mr. O’Barry ended the hunger strike and
left the country than the dolphins were transferred to metal
tanks. Shortly thereafter, a spectator fed them lead weights,
causing the death of a dolphin. Another died later. Russia
demanded that the remaining dolphin be returned. She was.
Mr. Sarid said that no dolphins would again be allowed into
Israel. But again his pronouncement was not backed by anything
in writing.
Similarly, Mr. Sarid recently issued a statement
that all strychnine poisonings would be banned in Israel, a
goal Concern for Helping Animals in Israel has sought for
years. We were able to eliminate the poisonings in the municipal
pounds, and encouraged the government to use the oral
rabies vaccine as a substitute for poisoning in the fields and
streets. Field tests of the vaccine are underway, but meanwhile
the poisonings continue. Indeed, Dr. Amnon
Shimshony, head of veterinary services within the Ministry
of Agriculture, and the individual responsible for authorizing
the poisonings, sent a notice to all municipalities reaffirming
their right to continue poisoning. Mr. Sarid’s words are being
completely ignored. In a current case, 25 cats were found
poisoned in North Tel Aviv. We called Mr. Sarid’s office and
asked about his declaration no more poisonings. His assistant
said the only thing they can do is that if someone notifies him
well in advance of a planned poisoning, someone can call the
mayor and hope to persuade the mayor to cancel it.
People can help by writing to Mr. Sarid, asking him
to begin the process of putting his many pronouncements on
behalf of animals into law. His address is c/o POB 6324,
Jerusalem 91061, Israel.
––Nina Natelson
Concern for Helping Animals in Israel
Alexandria, Virginia

Doris Day Animal League
We agree with you wholeheartedly about not supporting
organizations that do not use their funds to help the animals.
From time to time, I have included information to this effect in
our own literature. However, there is a question in our minds
as to where the line should be drawn where educational purposes
are concerned. For instance, the Doris Day Animal League,
whom you have reported as using nearly all their funds for
“educational” mailings that include fundraising appeals, have
put out some excellent information about spay/neuter and
neuter/release. While this information does include an appeal
for a donation (we don’t intend to send one), we wouldn’t really
consider it fundraising. In cases of this kind, is there any
way of telling what portion of the funds are used in a manner
that actually does good, and what portion are simply used to
bring in more money?
There is no question about the organizations that use
their funds to pay their executives unrealistic salaries and
expense accounts, or build themselves expensive homes. I
broke my affiliation with HSUS a long time ago for just this
––Guila Manchester
Humanitarians of Florida
Inverness, Florida

It’s hard to be completely worthless. However,
American pet owners are already overwhelmingly convinced of
the need to neuter, and those who donate to animal protection
groups and thereby get on mailing lists are even more con –
vinced. Those who aren’t neutering pets these days are mostly
the poor, the illiterate, the obstinate, and immigrants who are
perhaps fluent in other languages but not in English. Since
they aren’t already on animal protection mailing lists, few will
ever see the Doris Day Animal League literature. Meanwhile,
projecting from the National Pet Alliance findings in San Diego
County, reported on page one, the 1994 DDAL direct mail
budget, if spent on neutering instead of literature about neuter –
ing, could have prevented 41,000 animal control euthanasias.

Finna & Bjossa
I just received your December issue. Unfortunately,
you repeated an error in a wire service article that indicated we
were looking for a home for Bjossa, our female orca. We
were actually exploring the possibility of finding a new home
for Finna, the male, and locating a companion for Bjossa,
who will stay here. While we could find a home for Finna,
there wasn’t a companion available for Bjossa. Given this,
our Board of Governors has directed staff to develop a number
of alternative plans to improve our existing killer whale habitat.
Finna and Bjossa will stay together at the Vancouver
––Marissa Nichini
Public Relations Director
The Vancouver Aquarium
Vancouver, British Columbia

The Vancouver Aquarium, a world leader in marine
mammal conservation research and quality of educational pre –
sentation, has one noteworthy defect, acknowledged by exec –
utive director John Nightingale and senior marine mammolo –
gist John Ford, who would like nothing better than to fix it:
an orca tank just 25% of the size of the Sea World standard. It
could easily be expanded to par by using adjacent space for –
merly occupied by the defunct Stanley Park Zoo––but the same
activist groups who forced the closure of the zoo, after funds
were already appropriated to turn it into a badly needed facili –
ty for injured native wildlife who couldn’t be returned to the
wild, have kept the aquarium from getting permission to
expand. The argument against expansion is apparently that
keeping the orcas in substandard space may turn public opin –
ion against the aquarium, forcing it to close, too, releasing
all the marine mammals (also including belugas, sea lions,
and sea otters, none of them good candidates for release––for
which reason Earth Island Institute has reportedly inquired
into the availability of the orcas as companions for Keiko at
the Oregon Coast Aquarium.)

Amphrite & Thetis
What a joy it was to my heart to read that Amphrite
and Thetis, the former Steinhart Aquarium dolphins, were
finally moved to a new home in San Antonio. How fortunate
for them that my letter in September 1994 went to the right
people. I am deeply grateful that you followed up on my
observation of their pitiful existence.
If any of your associates could give an update as to
how they are doing, it would be most appreciated.
Thanks to your articles on where the money goes, I
am revising my list of donations so that the money will be
going to the charities that do the most good for the animals and
not into the pockets of the executives.
How about more in-depth articles on recruiting and
teaching children to hunt with the blessings of the government?
We need to make everyone aware of this subversive
tactic to infiltrate our homes with guns.
I have four grown children and grandsons. They all
have animals and not one of them could even think of picking
up a rifle and killing an animal. Maybe this is because, as a
young mother, I never allowed even a toy gun into my house.
Once again, my heartfelt thanks.
––Janice Garnett
Venice, Florida

Relocating the Pacific whitesided dolphins Amphrite
and Thetis to more spacious quarters and the company of oth –
ers of their species was accomplished through the efforts of
many people, lincluding negotiatorPam Rockwell, of the
Ethical Studies Department at the San Francisco SPCA;
Steinhart Aquarium executive director Bob Jenkins, who
agreed days after his hiring that the dolphins needed better
facilities; and Glenn Young, marine mammal curator at Sea
World San Antonio, who tells us they’re doing fine, having
immediately been accepted by the younger dolphins there and
having lost much of the stiffness they exhibited in San
Francisco, now that they have much more room to swim.

Only 2nd-richest
In your December editorial, you alluded to
Greenpeace International being the richest organization in your
“Who gets the money?” charts this year. At a total budget of
$145,000,000, it’s far under the $306,679,337 of The Nature
––David A. Gill
Canton, Ohio

Going to the dogs
Recently public critics
including some legislators have been
re-examining the legalization of lotteries
and casino gambling, asking
if the revenue they raise for states
and cities is worth the tragic problems
they create for gambling
addicts and their families. Such
reappraisals fail to note, however,
that many states have for even
longer sanctioned and profited from
horse and dog racing. These forms
of gambling too destroy families and
ruin lives, both human and nonhuman.
Each year thousands of broken-down
race horses go to slaughter
and as many as 40,000 worn-out
racing greyhounds are killed at an
early age. Because state governments
accept and expect a percentage
of the monies wagered, they
must bear responsibility for this carnage.
Legislators and others speak
with forked tongues when they
oppose some forms of gambling
while condoning animal racing. We
have an obligation to speak out
against this hypocrisy whenever possible.
––Greta Marsh
Lanesboro, Massachusetts

Throughout my time in
humane work, I have tried to establish
more humane conditions in animal
shelters. I often get a little bitter
when I read of $7 million spent to
relocate one whale when across the
U.S. we euthanize unwanted or
unclaimed pets by all too often
hideously cruel methods. Why is it
that we so adore our pets that the
adorn calendars, cards, and advertisements,
yet forsake them when
they go behind the doors of animal
control departments? The mighty
Humane Society of the U.S., which
has no shelters, sanctions as
“humane” intracardial lethal injections
to conscious animals, yet the
American Veterinary Medical
Association does not––so when I
point out to a shelter that intracardial
injection is cruel, they immediately
cite the HSUS approval. I am currently
working to obtain a bill to
make humane procedures mandatory
for all euthanasias performed in
––Beverly Frost
Sky Valley, California

Spanish edition?
In 1987 I set up the Cuban
Society for the Protection of
Animals and Plants. Currently I
serve as president ad honorem.
ANIMAL PEOPLE is in our view
one of the finest publications devoted
to animal issues anywhere.
Throughout much of Latin America
it is hard to publish anything like
this. We lack the resources and the
expertise, and most importantly,
also the ability to get advertising to
pay for the effort. In view of this,
we respectfully suggest to you that
you publish at least a couple of
pages in Spanish every issue, and
distribute same throughout the
Spanish-speaking world.
––Rafael Oliver Diaz
Asociacion Cubana Para La
Proteccion de Animales
Habana, Cuba

We’d do it if we could do
it. If we had the means, we’d have
an office and an edition for every
continent. And a Spanish edition
would be top priority

No enforcement
Since January 1, Butte
County, California, has had no
anti-cruelty enforcement, thanks to
the passage of AB-1571. In
California, anti-cruelty officers are
appointed by nonprofit humane societies.
In the past, appointees have
had to take a two-unit college course
in search, arrest and seizure, and if
they are to carry guns, qualify in a
recognized firearms training course.
Now required are 20 hours of college
classes, which focus on identification
of disease, injury, and
neglect in domestic animals and
livestock, plus another 40 credit
hours of courses relating to the powers
and duties of a humane officer.
For working or retired people, about
six units per semester is considered a
full course load. This means five
years of study will be required to
qualify for appointment as an anticruelty
officer––usually a volunteer
position. No such requirement
exists for the appointment of animal
control officers, who are usually
required to have only a high school
diploma or GED, plus the ability to
lift 50 pounds.
This all seems to be of little
public interest, and has received
minimal media coverage. Yet with
well over half the homes in the U.S.
having pets, and with the association
of cruelty to animals increasingly
recognized as a harbinger of violence
toward humans, one would
think that the virtual elimination of
anti-cruelty enforcement by humane
societies should be a matter of broad
concern. If such extensive training
is essential for answering cruelty
complaints, the same requirements
should be extended to animal control
Meanwhile, if you see
cruelty in California, don’t call a
humane society: call the elected
––Lewis R. Plumb
Paradise, California

I’d like to update you re
Rocky Mountain Humane Investing
vs. Working Assets, described in
your January/February edition.
Working Assets has made significant
progress regarding their holdings
in companies that do animal
testing. They have eliminated some
of the disputed companies, due to
RMHI pressure, and have formed a
positive shareholder activism department
to press for positive change in
the companies that do animal testing
in which they continue to invest. It
is their belief that you have more
leverage as a shareholder than not.
––Brad Pappas
Rocky Mountain Humane Investing
Denver, Colorado

I read your newspaper all
the time, and I hate so much of
what I read. I write, I talk, and it
isn’t enough. Last Saturday in
church I prayed for guidance. That
night, I dreamed that on a special
day, say March 10, everyone
prayed that all animals who are
abused, mutilated, kept in pens,
starved, experimented on, or subjected
to any other kind of horror,
would die. Only God would know
where all these animals are. Wow!
Is that wild faith! But I guess that is
what we need. It might stop some
animals from hurting more.
––Virginia Denton
Brooksville, Florida

Duramed does not use PMU
Duramed Pharmaceuticals would like to clarify a gross
inaccuracy in the July/August edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE.
Following are the facts about Duramed’s Abbreviated New Drug
Application, currently before the Food and Drug Administration
for generic conjugated estrogens:
• Duramed’s product is not derived in any way from
horse urine. Instead, its estrogenic compounds are synthetically
produced in one of the most high-tech environments in the pharmaceutical
• Duramed is bioequivalent to Premarin because it contains
the same estrogenic components and reacts the same in the
human body.
• Because Duramed’s product is not made from horse
urine and does not hurt horses in any way, upon approval it may
greatly decrease the amount of Premarin produced and eventually
decrease the number of PMU farms.
––Melissa Fragnito Kinch
Public Relations
Duramed Pharmaceuticals
Cincinnati, Ohio

We were misled by early wire service reports describing
the Duramed drug as a “generic” rather than “synthetic” alter –
native to Premarin––and are quite pleased that the Duramed
drug includes no animal products or byproducts.

Good words for Gillette
In mid-January Reuters reported that PETA produced
an advertisement in which a group of 60 actors pledged to boycott
Gillette products. I remembered your June 1995 article regarding
how many people smear Procter & Gamble and shouldn’t. I think
you are right about Procter & Gamble––yes they still test on
35,000+ animals per year, 90% of whom are used to test medical
products, but while we would like to see that number be zero
where legally possible, they do spend large amounts of money on
alternatives and have been a leading player in alternatives development
over the last decade and a half.
I also think the record deserves to be set straight about
Gillette. In 1994, the latest year in which statistics are available,
Gillette did not kill or injure even one solitary animal to test cosmetic
products. They only used 53 animals for non-medical consumer
products, and 2,311 for legally mandated drug product
testing. Comparatively speaking, that’s pretty good for a $6 billion
company. Further, Colgate-Palmolive, a $7.6 billion company,
only used a total of 1,457 animals in 1994 for all purposes.
Even Gillette and Colgate-Palmolive are very small
compared to Procter & Gamble, but comparing animals killed to
gross sales dollars, Gillette and Colgate are doing even better at
reducing animal use.
I get tired of animal groups yelling and screaming and
boycotting companies when they apparently have not done all
their homework and are not “laying all the cards out on the table.”
I think our focus as animal protective organizations in this regard
should be to 1) provide accurate data regarding animal use and
money invested in alternatives; 2) encourage continued reductions
in animal use and increases in alternatives funding, specifically
in vitro alternatives, where possible, and 3) focus on
acceptance of and implementation of a validation and regulatory
process for alternative tests. Focusing on these issues would be a
more productive use of the limited dollars that animal protective
organizations have to work with, and most likely to prevent animals
from being used and killed in product testing.
––Karen E. Purves, M.A.
Animal Advocate
The Animal Protection Institute
Sacramento, California

Print Friendly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.