Why no photographs?

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May 1996:

That this feature appears without illustrations in itself illustrates one of the
most difficult aspects of the research debate: in the absence of openness and honesty
about just what is going on, it is difficult to fairly and accurately interpret much of the
evidence. ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton wished to show this point with
two photographs, shocking at a glance, and definitely depicting situations unacceptable
to people who care about animals, which nonetheless may not have shown the atrocities
they seemed to show, a possibility Clifton postulated after blowing them up to four
times their original size for study on a computer screen.
ANIMAL PEOPLE publisher Kim Bartlett vetoed inclusion of the photos in
keeping with our policy against using photos which may be too painful for people who
care about animals to to view while also reading potentially disturbing text.
The photographs in question depicted rhesus macaques, and were apparently
taken at the Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center in Madison, or predecessor
facilities, at some point prior to the founding of ANIMAL PEOPLE in 1992. They
were mailed to us anonymously, among a group of eight related photos, without explanation,
in response to our first publication announcement.

Read more

Editorial: Peace talk

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May 1996:

One of our cover stories this month deals with the ongoing process of strategic disengagement,
on both sides, from the 200-year-old battle over animal use in laboratory
research––not as a matter of either side abandoning goals, but as a matter of recognizing
that common goals may be achieved more readily if the conflict is less intense.
ANIMAL PEOPLE over the past year has advanced 10 suggestions for strategic
disengagement in a manner which would simultaneously meet the major practical demands
of the animal rights community and the major needs of biomedical research. They are based
largely on inclinations already evident among both activists and researchers.
ANIMAL PEOPLE does not pretend that these suggestions can resolve the
inescapable conflict over the rightness or wrongness of animal use per se. But they might
form a mutually acceptable protocol for progress.

Read more

EDITORIAL: Peace talk

From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  May 1996:


One of our cover stories this month deals with the ongoing process of strategic disengagement
, on both sides, from the 200-year-old battle over animal use in laboratory research ­­not as a matter of either side abandoning goals, but as a matter of recognizing that common goals may be achieved more readily if the conflict is less intense.

ANIMAL PEOPLE over the past year has advanced 10 suggestions for strategic disengagement in a manner which would simultaneously meet the major practical demands of the animal rights community and the major needs of biomedical research. They are based largely on inclinations already evident among both activists and researchers. Read more

Vouching for it by Karen Johnson

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 1996:

San Jose, California, is on the
verge of proving either that the fastest, most
cost-effective means of reducing the homeless
cat population is through providing free
neutering vouchers––or that meddlers will
dismantle any program, no matter how well
it works, to advance bureaucracy.
As described in the April 1995 edition
of ANIMAL PEOPLE, San Jose enacted
the free voucher program in October 1994.
After a slow start, it took off in February,
1995, following favorable coverage by the
San Jose Mercury-News. For 16 months it
enabled hundreds of people who feed outdoor
cats, often people of limited means, to get
the cats “fixed.”

Read more

Editorial: Animal rights, Republicans, and Original Sin

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 1996:

“Four new trends will greatly affect the course of environmental politics in the
1990s,” writes Competitive Enterprise Institute director of environmental studies Jonathan
Adler in his recently published opus, Environmentalism at the Crossroads. “They are: the
growing influence of deep ecology and its radical preservationist policy prescriptions; the
environmental ‘backlash,’ as represented by the property rights and wise use movements;
the emergence of the environmental justice movement and the tensions it has created within
organized environmentalism (as members of racial and ethnic minorities demand representation);
[and] the challenge to conventional environmental policies by free market environ –
mentalism.”

Read more

Editorial: Trust

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 1996:

Building a humane world begins with building trust, the basic understanding that
permits peaceful interaction among living beings. Whether sharing a watering hole,
stroking a cat, or shaking hands on a deal, it starts with establishing mutual confidence that
vulnerability will not bring attack. Even infants must be able to trust their mothers before
they learn to reciprocate love; if infant trust is betrayed by neglect or violence, as the late
vivisector Harry Harlow showed through some of the most appalling experiments ever executed,
the capacity to engage in reciprocal relationships of any kind is lastingly impaired.
Trust in itself does not preclude violence, as even the most trustworthy humans
and animals may sometimes bite when they shouldn’t, but a climate of trust at least precludes
cruelty, since to do intentional harm is to erode trust.

Read more

Cutting euthanasias without conflict

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 1996:

SAN DIEGO––Can population control euthanasias be halted?
Do homeless cats breed in the woods?
New studies by the National Pet Alliance and ANIMAL PEOPLE say yes to both
questions––and confirm that the keys to success are first, going where the homeless cats are
to do neutering, and second, working to enable renters to adopt cats.
Political conflicts erupting in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Montgomery County,
Maryland, demonstrate meanwhile that harassing ordinary pet keepers with regulations and
extra fees may lower euthanasia numbers at cost of creating an eventually self-defeating backlash
against enforcement of any animal control or animal protection laws. In both cities, animal
advocates are digging in to protect nationally noted breeding control ordinances,
acclaimed when passed, but easy targets for newly elected fiscal conservatives, who recently
took over both civic administrations with a pledge to cut bureaucracy. The Fort Wayne city
council is contemplating closing the public animal control agency and contracting services

Read more

Editorial: The King, the Duke, and who gets the money

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 1996:

North Shore Animal League president John Stevenson spends more money on animal
sheltering, neutering, and adoption promotion than anyone else ever. He spends more,
too, to help other animal shelters, through North Shore’s Pet Savers Foundation subsidiary.
To support $33 million a year in animal rescue work, Stevenson further spends $10 million on
fundraising––more than any other hands-on animal care organization.
Stevenson strongly favors donor accountability and strict public oversight of
fundraising, to ensure that charities do the work they claim to be doing. The North Shore and
Pet Savers IRS Form 990 filings are among the most detailed of the many we monitor. But,
as a nationally respected expert on nonprofit law long before assuming his present post, who
spends much commuting time contemplating how to make charities in general more honest,
Stevenson admits to being perplexed by donor attitudes. The most important number in the
annual ANIMAL PEOPLE charts on animal protection spending, he believes, should be not
the percentage of receipts an organization spends to raise more money, but rather the amount
of money actually spent to fulfill charitable purposes.

Read more

High-Tech Activism

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, December 1995:

High-Tech Activism
The high cost of losing vs. the economics of victory
by Steve Hindi
president, Chicago Animal Rights Coalition

In 1992, the Forest Preserve District of DuPage
County, Illinois targeted thousands of “surplus” deer for
slaughter by sharpshooting and by rocket-netting followed by
captive bolt dispatch. While we opposed killing healthy deer
by either method, sharpshooting at least theoretically offered
the possibility of instant death. Rocket-netting was an entirely
different matter.
Rocket-nets are explosive devices that literally blast
a heavy net over groups of deer drawn to a baited site. People
who live nearby often call rocket nets “howitzers,” as their
roar can be heard for miles. The stress to the victims cannot
be overestimated, as the explosives detonate just a few feet
from the victims as they feed. Rocket-netting also causes a
high incidence of unintended injury, as frightened deer hurt
themselves trying to escape.

Read more

1 33 34 35 36 37 48