LETTERS [June 1997]

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1997:

Concern for Helping
Animals in Israel members have
been withholding contributions to the
United Jewish Appeal, Israel Bonds,
and other charities that channel funds
to Israel, in protest over the Israeli
government’s refusal to allow an
ambulance donated by CHAI to an
Israeli animal shelter to enter Israel
without payment of exhorbitant customs
duties. Ambulances for people
enter Israel duty-free, but a $40,000
customs duty was imposed on the
$26,000 animal ambulance. The
ambulance would replace mass
strychnine poisonings. Appeals from
Senators and Representatives, as
well as from many animal protection
and Jewish organizations have been
ignored. The Animal Protection
Division within Israel’s environment
ministry agreed to pay the customs
duties from their own shelter budget,
but the finance ministry insists that
the money come from Americans.

CHAI asks people who
withhold their contributions from
Israel over the mass poisonings and
denial of entry to the donated ambulance
to make their reasons clear, in
writing, and to notify CHAI of the
amount withheld. When the total
exceeds the $40,000 demanded in
customs dues, CHAI will notify the
finance ministry that their callousness
is costing them more than they
are gaining.
Cancelled pledges can be
invested in and donated to Israel
when the ambulance is allowed in
and the poisoning stops, or the
money can go to CHAI for
spay/neuter and humane education
campaigns in Israel.
––Nina Natelson
POB 3341
Alexandria, VA 22302

AWA proposal
I usually expect to get all
the details from ANIMAL
PEOPLE, but your brief mention in
the May issue of the proposed
change in the Animal Welfare Act
regulations didn’t cover much. I
heard that this was prompted by a
petition from the Doris Day Animal
League, and would make all breeders
doing more than $500 worth of
business subject to licensing and regulation,
the same as large-scale
commercial breeders, a.k.a. puppy
mills. What are the real who, what,
where, when, why and how?
––Tim White
Grand Marais, Minnesota

We learned of the pro –
posed regulatory change just before
going to press. White’s understand –
ing of it seems to be correct. It
results at least in part from the
growing trend toward brokers link –
ing backyard breeders together via
World Wide Web sites so that dozens
of small operations function, in
effect, as a single entity, doing busi –
ness independent of humane inspec –
tion. We have discovered web sites
where anyone with a credit card
could order animals of practically
any breed or species, no questions
asked and no guarantees offered.
Unfortunately, DDAL
apparently did not presolicit broadbased
support for the proposal,
which may therefore go nowhere..
The official comment peri –
od ended May 27, but might be
reopened if enough people so
request. To do so, send an original
and three copies of your statement to
Docket #97-018-1 Regulatory
Analysis & Development, PPD,
APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Rd.
Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-

Please remind readers that
monkeys and apes, like other wildlife,
should not be acquired as pets.
A few days ago, I read a
“Monkey for Sale” ad in a free local
magazine, which read, exactly as
“For Sale: Cecil, the
young spotted monkey, hairless, all
shots given, declawed, chafed and
potty trained, he is great for breed –
ing other rare spotted monkeys with.
Great investment. Serious inquires
only. Call (phone number)…”
To make a long story short,
Cecil has already been sold, and he is
“hairless” as a result of pulling out his
own hair, probably from a combination
of stress with nutritional deficiency.
Since there is no primate
classified as a “spotted monkey,” I
do not know specifically what type of
monkey Cecil is, or was, and neither
did the person who sold him, for
$500, to the first respondent to the
ad. The seller learned only the first
name of the buyer, had no knowledge
of the physical needs of nonhuman
primates, and had no concern
for the emotional health Cecil
deserves as a sentient, living creature.
Since the sole criteria for purchasing
Cecil was possession of
$500.00, it is unlikely that his situation
has improved.
I have placed an ad seeking
whomever purchased Cecil. If I cannot
persuade that person to relinquish
Cecil, then I will provide information
regarding proper captive non-human
primate care.
––Linda J. Howard
Weber City, Virginia

The Fund for Animals
Congressional Scorecard for the
104th Congress, published in your
April edition, rated Senator Ron
Wyden of Oregon a perfect 100.
However, according to the
December 6, 1996 edition of On
Center, the electronic newsletter of
the Oregon Regional Primate
Research Center, Wyden “has
promised ‘very aggressive support’
for the development of a research
park being planned by a consortium
spearheaded by Oregon Health
Sciences University and ORPRC.”
Personally, I would have
docked him a few points for his support
of primate vivisection.
––Rick Bogle
Prairie City, Oregon

Tools for Research

Marie Carosello, producer of the film Tools for Research,
has a rare disease of the immune system and is dying. She is still owed
$39,000 in connection with Tools for Research, and is struggling to survive
on a small Social Security check. Please help her. Her address is
104 Banks Street, San Francisco, CA 94110.
––Judy Fine & Ruth Levy
Healdsburg, California

“I mortgaged my house and put my inheritance into Tools for
Research,” Carosello told ANIMAL PEOPLE in 1992. “It still owes
me $42,000, which I’ll undoubtedly never get back.” Court documents
pertaining to related litigation indicate that in addition to her own
investment, Carosello received $15,000 toward the production cost
from the New England Anti-Vivisection Society. Work began in 1980,
but was repeatedly delayed by disputes among Carosello and others
who worked on Tools for Research, as well as by the difficulty of
obtaining footage from inside research facilities. Finally, in 1982,
Carosello fired two crew members who allegedly distributed copies of
the original “rough cut” to both NEAVS and the National AntiVivisection
Society. Months later, Carosello learned that both organi –
zations were screening the “rough cut,” including a section she hadn’t
been able to obtain permission to use, depicting primate experiments by
the notorious maternal deprivation researcher Harry Harlow. The pre –
mature release had apparently also substantially reduced Carosello’s
ability to recuperate her costs. Represented by Joyce Tischler, founder
and executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Carosello
sued NEAVS and NAVS for violation of copyright. The case was settled
out of court in June 1983. Carosello and NEAVS relinquished all
claims against each other, and NAVS paid $250 for one copy of the
final print. Tools for Research was thereafter distributed without the
Harlow material. It won nine film awards by 1985, when amendments
to the Animal Welfare Act made portions of it obsolete.

Potty environmentalism
I regard your May editorial, “Potty environmentalism,”
as a historical document of consequence.
This is a long overdue analysis, and a well
deserved kick in the butt of the bloated egos still at
the helm of the so-called environmental movement.
I despise them for scuttling so many opportunities to
really advance the cause, and for selling out to the
powers that be for nothing more promising than a pat
on the back or a call from a flunky or maybe even the
Flunky in Chief at the White House. How stupid and
small can you get? The enviros are profoundly
bureaucratized by now, and therefore grotesquely
compromised. Look at what they did after the
wholesale betrayal by Bush in Rio de Janeiro. Or the
givebacks by the Clintonites, always wrapped in a
curtain of misleading fireworks. With their resources
and public capital they should be showing much
more in terms of tangible gains. Instead, most of
their gains seem to be written on water. Pitiful. I
sent a copy of “Potty environmentalism” to a friend
at The New York Times op-ed section. Since they
often consume acres of space on stupid yada yada,
they can’t argue that this is not up to their standards.
––Patrice Greanville
Fairfield, Connecticut

People of color
I was delighted that you pointed out the
dearth of people of color in the animal protection
movement, especially in leadership positions. I
know you also raised this issue several years ago,
and the apparent indifference among the movement’s
national leadership is deeply troubling.
––Ed Duvin
San Rafael, California

Tried to burn seal plant
I am writing you in response to an article
from your June 1996 edition that I found on your
web site. Apparently you find the tactics of the
Animal Liberation Front unacceptable? Or maybe
you just think more thought and care should be taken
during actions? Either way, I didn’t particularly like
your article. You went on to discuss me and my
arrest last year in Newfoundland, mentioning a suspected
link between my activity and that of the
Justice Department [a clandestine organization
which in 1996 mailed 68 letterbombs––editor’s
note]. Yes, I was arrested in Newfoundland with an
incendiary device, and yes, I intended to torch the
seal plant, but I have not been, nor will be a part of
the Justice Department. I do not condone violence
against people, and whether sabotage of property is
violent, I’ll leave for you to decide––I already have.
As for the seal plant, do you think I would light the
thing on fire if there were people inside. The plant is
closed 10 months of the year. Several large groups
have been trying for decades to stop the seal hunt,
but they still haven’t succeeded. Would you still
think the same if I had succeeded in destroying the
plant, which is the main seal plant in Canada, and a
quarter million seals were not bashed over the head
to provide fur coats and potions for the impotent? I
would be interested to hear your opinions on any
such matters.
––Frank Arnold
Victoria, British Columbia

As Paul Watson pointed out in our March
1994 edition, after the ALF firebombed a Chicago
department store, fires often spread, doing uninten –
tional harm. As the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE
knows first hand, as a former volunteer firefighter,
a firefighter can never presume there are no peo –
ple––or animals––inside a burning building; more
firefighters are killed or injured in the search for
possible victims who might be rescued than in any
other manner. As history records, nonviolent
protest did halt the greater portion of the Atlantic
Canadian seal hunt––the offshore hunt––from 1984
through 1994. The halt came just before the first
major outbreaks of ALF arson and vandalism. The
public relations firm Thomas Grey Inc. in 1986
advised the Canadian government that the seal hunt
and the fur trade could best be defended by allowing
such violent actions to turn public opinion against
the animal rights cause. Thus it seems scarcely
coincidental that the revival of the offshore seal hunt
came in a year that the ALF claimed twice as many
arson and vandalism incidents than ever before, nor
that verified arson and vandalism incidents hit a new
peak during the year preceding the 1996 escalation
of the sealing quota to the pre-1984 level.

Suffocating in the pile
We founded the Wyandott County Humane Society over 12 years
ago. We didn’t do it because we loved animals; we did it because the local
pound sold animals to a Class B animal dealer, who has had his license suspended
numerous times since then. This same dealer helped kill and haul
away the animals he didn’t buy, using T-61 (now banned) given by intercardial
injection. The animals were thrown in a pile to suffocate as the pile
grew bigger. This was better than what awaited those who were taken.
We started with the idea that we would never turn any animal
away. Our purpose was to prevent suffering, not prolong lives. As we grew
as an organization, we heard other groups rave about their high adoption
rates, only to find that most of the animals were not neutered. Ours are
always done before leaving the shelter. We also have found a fair number of
other shelters’ adoptions are the object of our cruelty investigations.
The current controversy over euthanasia both intrigues and offends
us. The thought of animals with no place to go but the local pound appalls us
beyond belief. The thought of being able to find a loving, caring home for
every animal, while appealing, flies in the face of everything we have seen
for the last 12 years. We accept 4,000 animals a year from a community of
less than 22,000 people.
Every afternoon as we walk through the shelter making the decisions
on how to make room for the animals who have come in that day, we
ask ourselves how much longer can we continue? The answer is always the
same: until there are no more who are unwanted. We are convinced that
public education is and has been a waste of resources. We have spent thousands
of dollars on “education” and yet the number of animals arriving at our
door increases every year. We are convinced that only legislation and severe
penalties will make a difference.
We challenge, even defy, any of your so-called no-kill proponents
to spend a few months living with us, at our shelter, doing what we do every
day, and leave here with the same point of view. Somewhere, there is room
for discussion of the future, but we resent being made to feel worse than we
already do simply because some people want to declare the battle won and go
home. The battle not only isn’t over, we’re losing.
––Dave & Lynda Balz
Wyandot County Humane Society
Upper Sandusky, Ohio

The way to stop losing is to learn to win. The way to prevent dogs
and cats from suffering is to prevent surplus births, not to kill ever
more––and to focus on killing instead of neutering is to guarantee that highvolume
killing will continue. The San Francisco SPCA got out of animal
control killing in 1984, and spent 10 years doing high-volume neutering
before becoming able to introduce the Adoption Pact that made San
Francisco the first no-kill city.
There are plenty of other examples to emulate, even there in Ohio,
where the state as a whole averages under 40 animals received at shelters
per 1,000 residents, according to 1992 data, whereas the Wyandot County
Humane Society receives 182 animals per 1,000.
U.S. animal shelters now average one animal received per 10
households. Wyandot County Humane receives one per 1.5 households.
Even if Wyandot County Humane killed animals only at the U.S.
average pace, it would still be killing at three times the rate of the shelter
with the next highest rate per capita that we’re aware of, among more than
1,100 communities for which we have recent data.
Such numbers indicate colossal failure. If spending thousands of
dollars on public education isn’t getting enough animals neutered to lower
the numbers, obviously the educational approach needs to be changed.
Equally obviously, dramatic gains are possible. In 1962, doing
animal control for New York City, the American SPCA received 250,000
from a human population of six million, or 43 animals per 1,000 human resi –
dents. Virtually all of those animals were killed, but such progress has been
made, almost entirely through public education, only recently augmented by
a growing volume of low-cost neutering, that in 1996 New York City took in
only 5.5 animals per thousand human residents and killed just 40,000.
Only two major North American cities, San Antonio and Montreal,
are still taking in and killing animals at a higher rate than New York City did
in 1962, while intakes per capita have also dropped below 10 per 1,000
humans in Calgary, San Francisco, Seattle, and San Diego.


I really enjoy getting all the information your
publication has to offer, but after reading your April edition,
and a particular article in which one group criticized
another, I felt compelled to write. I have been doing animal
welfare work for about 25 years, and I think I’ve just
about seen and heard it all. I am sich to death of the
infighting, bickering, backstabbing, constant jabs at one
another, finger-pointing, and tattling on each other that
goes on in this movement. This group hates that group.
This group does all the work, and that group does none.
Blah blah blah. It reminds me of kindergarten.
Recently I found out how much money one
national organization took in for one event, and I nearly
fainted. But if I spent all my energy being upset about it,
I’d have none left for animals. Let’s get our act together
and bring this movement into the 21st century by focusing
all our energy on making this world better for animals and
people, whichever way each of us chooses to do it. And
this means you too, ANIMAL PEOPLE!
––Susan L. Gundich
Cleveland, Ohio

We’ve been hearing such simplistic appeals for
“movement unity” for nearly 30 years––but the truth is,
people working to improve the world for both animals and
people often have sharply conflicting ideas about how to do
it, and one program frequently cancels out another. For
instance, there is very little point in working to stop hunt –
ing on the one hand and donating to the World Wildlife
Fund and National Wildlife Federation on the other, whose
fundamental purpose is perpetuating hunting. It is difficult
to make headway with a low-cost neutering program if a
major shelter in the community insists on adopting out
unaltered animals. Fundraising for local humane work is
often undercut by mass mailings from the Humane Society
of the U.S., National Humane Education Society, and
other organizations whose materials tend to persuade
donors that they are supporting a national umbrella for
local shelters, when in fact none of the money helps any
other entity. Effectively advancing a cause includes accu –
rately and unflinchingly identifying who does what, then
thrashing out differences in the court of public opinion, so
that resources go exactly where donors mean them to go,
to do as donors intend. Animal and habitat protection cur –
rently receives just 1% of U.S. charitable contributions––
and half, we estimate after seven years of reviewing major
organizations’ IRS Form 990 filings, is either wasted or
diverted, often in support of ideas opposite to those the
donors think they are supporting.

I was pleased to read the
exposes of The Nature Conservancy’s
animal-killing projects in
your March and April editions.
For several years my students did
a lot of work to raise money to
adopt acres of rainforest through
TNC. We were horrified to learn
from PETA in 1993 about the
atrocities that TNC commits in
Hawaii. I immediately wrote to
them and asked if there was another
vicious organization by the
same name. They sent me an 8-
page fax, claiming that they not
only snare animals, but also poison
them, trap them, shoot them,
spear them, etc. It was a long
time ago, so I don’t remember
exactly what they wrote, but it
came across as if they were proud
and bragging. I sent them back a
one-sentence reply: “Please take
our name off your mailing list.” I
felt sick knowing how much
money we sent them.
––Arlette Liewer
The Netherlands

United Animal Nations
I would like to correct
some of the factual content of your
recent reportage of Belton Mouras’
resignation. I was an HSUS
California Branch and Animal
Protection Institute staffer in the
1960s, and later served on the API
board, but have never been a United
Animal Nations staffer as stated. I
served on the UAN board from 1987
to 1990. Mouras called on me in
1994 to again assume a board seat,
and to write and produce a series of
six brochures as a consultant. For
the past two-plus years, I have
chaired the UAN board.
The two “major” bequests
you mentioned were news to all of
us. We received one welcome but
by no means major bequest in
December 1995, and a year later
received notification of another in
the same amount, but it is unfortunately
tied up in family litigation.
The direct mail appeal at
the end of January was our annual
scheduled donor renewal mailing,
and yes, it was successful, because
more and more people are becoming
aware of the work we do.
Deanna Soares, our executive
director, and the UAN board
do not and never have intended to
restructure UAN solely around support
of the Emergency Animal
Rescue Service. We’re very proud
of EARS, but we are also deeply
involved in all aspects of the horse
slaughter issue, and several others.
Although Terri Crisp lives
in Santa Clara, she and her family
have long planned a move to the
Sacramento area as soon as possible.
But never did administrative authority
for EARS rest anywhere but at
our headquarters.
UAN withdrew from the
Summit for the Animals in
December 1996 with Mouras’ full
participation, indeed initiative,
after a year in which we tried but
ultimately failed to arrive at a firm
agreement with the Summit executive
committee to relieve us of some
of the administrative and financial
burdens we had assumed for 10
years. For example, the Summit
took 27% of the time of our lone
program staffer.
––Jeane Westin
Board Chair
United Animal Nations
Sacramento, California

“Major” may be relative.
We were informed that each bequest
was for an amount greater than the
ANIMAL PEOPLE annual budget.

Farmers exempted from cruelty laws

Tennessee’s new legislation relating to
farm animals, described in your May edition, is
a unique and disturbing development in the recent
history of state amendments that limit the application
of anti-cruelty statutes. As you correctly
noted, 29 states presently exempt “normal” or
“customary” farming practices from anti-cruelty
statutes. Most of these anti-cruelty exemptions
are very recent. For example, Idaho, Iowa,
Michigan and Wyoming amended their statutes in
1994, and Connecticut in 1996. Indeed, in the
last 12 years, 18 states have amended their anticruelty
statutes to prohibit application to such
“normal farming practices.”
However, Tennessee passsed such a
“usual and customary practices” exemption in
1989. Such an exemption is quite diffierent from
the new law, which I believe is a first. As ANIMAL
PEOPLE noted, under the new legislation,
no one in Tennessee, not even a law enforcement
officer, is allowed to investigate any livestock
practice, customary or not, unless a “county agricultural
extension agent or a graduate from an
accredited college of agriculture with a specialty
in livestock” examines the animal and determines
whether there is probable cause to prosecute.
Thus, no cruelty prosecution or investigation is
possible unless a member of the agricultural profession
determines that cruelty has occured, even
if the cruel act is neither customary or normal.
Moreover, a law enforcement officer cannot enter
a farm to investigate without such an official.
Consequently, Tennessee is now a step
beyond other states that have exempted “customary”
or “normal” farming practices. In these
states, humane officers or law enforcement
agents can still investigate and prosecute activities
that are not “customary” or “normal,” without
approval from the agricultural industry.
While this distinction is somewhat fine,
it is, I believe, extremely important. I have been
informed that other states are considering legislation
along the lines of the new Tennessee law.
––David J. Wolfson, Esq.
Animal Legal Defense Fund
North Potomac, Maryland

Please visit our homemade web site at
It tells the story of Sylvia, our 13-
year-old tabby, who is recovering from cancer
surgery. Her cancer, post-vaccination fibrosarcoma,
was the direct result of her upper respiratory
vaccination. Our pages have just been
updated with an article from the Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association, and
a fact sheet containing the very latest information
available from some of the leading experts,
several of whom are distinguished members of
the Feline Sarcoma Task Force.
We are not trying to scare animal
lovers away from vaccinating cats, but are trying
to educate them as to the risk of vaccinations,
to make educated choices.
––Jeff Kremer
Cruz Bay, Florida

AHA fund use
In your May article about Ed Sayres
leaving the American Humane Association, you
quoted a secretary who also left the AHA, after
one year there, who said that income from our
direct mail program is funneled into our child
protection division. In fact, all donations given
to the AHA specifically for animal protection are
used solely for the benefit of animals. This
includes contributions through our direct mail
program, trust funds, bequests, major gifts, and
other forms of donations.
The fundraising apparatus for our
Children’s Division is quite different from that of
our Animal Protection Dvision. The Children’s
Protection Division is primarily funded though
contracts and grants from state and federal governments,
and private foundations, for projects
related to training and evaluation of child welfare
delivery services, and to public awareness.
The Animal Protection and Children’s
Division work together on our efforts to win
recognition of the link between violence to animals
and violence to children. These programs
are funded by both foundation grants and private
donations. As an animal person, I am excited
about the potential of this issue to convince the
public that it is important to take animal abuse
seriously, and thus promote stronger anti-cruelty
laws and demand better enforcement and greater
penalties for those convicted of animal abuse.
––Carol Moulton
Associate Director
Animal Protection Division
The American Humane Association
Englewood, Colorado


Print Friendly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.