“Talk about animals,” Goodwin tells PETA

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000:

DALLAS––Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade founder J.P. Goodwin, 27, who was among the most militant animal rights activists of the 1990s, told the world on June 4 via the online forum that recent tactics of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are off target, ineffective, and at times “a betrayal of the cause.”

Began Goodwin, “Extra recently did a piece glorifying eating meat. They claimed many celebrities, such as Sarah McLaughlin, had gone back to eating meat, partly as a backlash against ‘political correctness.’ Perhaps there would be no backlash,” Goodwin suggested, “if current vegetarian campaigns focused on compassion for animals rather than impotence, Jesus, models in lettuce, and just about every single other thing possible except animal suffering.

“CAFT opposes goofy stunts, such as the PETA ‘Got beer?’ campaign and pie throwing, which completely overshadow animal suffering,” Goodwin continued.

Read more

Can shelters co-exist with upscale homes?

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000:

For a number of reasons the site of our current shelter is not suitable, and about 10 years ago the municipality agreed to give us a new plot of land more accessible to city residents. It is in a ravine zoned for light industry. The shelter is to be built at one edge, beside a forest which is to be preserved. Bureaucracy here moves slowly, however, and as the development of the ravine and our shelter was approaching a final okay, another group of developers announced their intent to build luxury housing above the ravine. The housing developers are opposing construction of the shelter.

We understand that the municipality will be much more likely to give us the go-ahead if we can show that other successful shelters border on residential zones. Can you tell us of any ?

Read more

SOMETHING THAT WORKS IN LOS ANGELES

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000:

It has been my experience
as a director for three major
humane societies and animal control
agencies over the past 35 years
that there are two basic approaches
to animal welfare: you can attempt
to compel compliance through
punitive measures, or you can
encourage compliance by creating
incentive programs.
I have found that incentives
work better than punishment,
although the punishment option
needs to be available because some
pet owners simply will not comply
with the most basic animal care
laws unless they are forced to do so.

Read more

Editorial: No-kills have no cause to smirk

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000:

“Too many animal control departments and humane societies which still hold animal
control contracts have a vested interest in doing what they have always done,” ANIMAL PEOPLE editorialized in May 2000. “Going a different and more successful way would
mean accepting some of the blame for causing barrels to fill, day after day, with furry bodies.
Complain though many animal control and humane society people might about the stress of
killing, they still find killing animals easier than doing what is necessary to stop it.”
But proponents of no-kill sheltering had no cause to smirk. Unfortunately, even as
too many conventional sheltering organizations resist change, too many no-kill advocates conduct
themselves and their own operations as cases of arrested development––and in some
instances deserve arrest on criminal charges for warehousing animals in filthy, noisy, overcrowded
kennels, where they enjoy neither a good life nor any prospect of adoption.
Those people may be a minority of the no-kill community, but they are a conspicuous,
ubiquitous, and problematic minority, collectively constituting the strongest case that
opponents of no-kill sheltering such as PETA and the Humane Society of the U.S. can make.

Read more

Fighting animal control canon in the wild west

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000:

KANAB, Utah; ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico
––A statewide animal care-and-control coalition headed by the
Best Friends Animal Sanctuary of Kanab, Utah, on June 22,
2000 received $1.3 million from Maddie’s Fund, as first
installment of $8 million to be paid over the next five years in
grant assistance toward making Utah the first U.S. state to practice
statewide no-kill animal control.
The Utah coalition qualified for Maddie’s Fund help,
Maddie’s Fund executive director Richard Avanzino told ANIMAL
PEOPLE, by enlisting the participation of 54 animal
control agencies, 18 no-kill organizations, two traditional shelters,
52 private-practice veterinarians, and 70 veterinarians
who were already participating in neutering voucher programs
administered by 14 different organizations.

Read more

Editorial: Small primates on a limb

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 2000:

“Culture,” says the National Geographic Desk Reference, “provides the identity that links members of one society together and can also divide those members from other cultures.” In other words, culture is the learned behavior that separates the sheep from the goats, and also determines in which order the sheep and goats march. Culture could be defined as a collective term for the variety of social, economic, and political methods that humans use to form and maintain what we would recognize in other species as a dominance hierarchy.

Culturally entrenched cruelties resist abolition because the evolution of culture itself is often driven by the motives underlying the cruelty, so much so that the whole cultural selfidentification of some societies becomes preoccupied with establishing who may abuse whom. The more basic the society, meaning the most absorbed in constant struggle for both personal and collective survival, the more likely it is to be organized around “might makes right,” like a tribe of chimpanzees––and the more likely the culture of the society will consist chiefly of activities meant to remind members of their rank. The hazing practiced by social clubs and athletic teams serves such a purpose, for example, and is seldom far removed from cruelty because it is central to a culture whose whole purpose is defining the dominance of the incrowd or the winners, and excluding others from the exhalted inner circle.

Read more

PETA in the US and abroad

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May 2000:

NORFOLK, Va.; NEW DELHI–– Sacred cows really have little in common with real cows.

Real cows give milk, are increasingly often factory-farmed in the U.S., frequently wander the roads in India without enough to eat, and in either nation follow most of their own offspring to slaughter as soon as they are economically unproductive––although in India the slaughtering tends to be illegal.

Sacred cows stand between real cows and public perception. They occupy billboards, pushing an image of health and contentment, between depictions of children and celebrities wearing white “mustaches.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals founder Ingrid Newkirk and People for Animals founder Maneka Gandhi during spring 2000 each tried to erase the “mustaches,” on behalf of suffering real cows––and were each promptly accused of atrocity.

Read more

Editorial: Self-defeat in Los Angeles

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May 2000:

On March 22, 2000, the Los Angeles City Council at urging of the Coalition to End Pet Overpopulation adopted what In Defense of Animals spokesperson Bill Dyer called “the nation’s strongest spay/neuter ordinance.” It boosts the licensing fee for unaltered animals from $30 to $100. Owners of unlicensed, unaltered dogs found at large––if identified––will get two warnings to license over a 60-day span, before being fined up to $500.

Los Angeles Animal Services Department manager Dan Knapp and local activists celebrated victory. They should have mourned a self-inflicted defeat, not least because the new ordinance killed any chance a local coalition might have had at funding a five-year drive toward no-kill animal control with help from the $200 million Maddie’s Fund.

As Maddie’s Fund executive director Richard Avanzino reminded, on the eve of the L.A. vote, “Maddie’s Fund does not pay for government programs, including state and local animal care and control mandates.”

Read more

Bush, Gore, and muzzling

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May 2000:

AUSTIN, NEW YORK, WASHINGTON D.C.––Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush is an unabashed friend of wise-use wiseguys, an avid hunter, and was Safari Club International’s 1999 “governor of the year.”

Vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Albert Gore aided and abetted the 1993 resumption of Norwegian commercial whaling, the May 1999 resumption of Makah whaling after a 72-year hiatus, and the October 1999 resumption of international elephant ivory sales after a 10-year suspension––and is reputedly chief architect of the Invasive Species Council, the cabinet committee named in February 1999 by President Bill Clinton to pursue the extermination of non-native wildlife.

But Bush and Gore have distinctly different levels of tolerance for criticism.

Read more

1 24 25 26 27 28 48