Thursday, November 29, 2012
Following PETA's release last week of disturbing whistleblower reports of 27 animal deaths during the filming of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, , where The Hobbit was filmed, to investigate and pursue appropriate criminal charges if warranted.
Five whistleblowers reported more than two dozen animal deaths during the production of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. They raised concerns not just once but repeatedly to both the head wrangler and the head of production about the unsafe housing conditions for animals and about Shanghai the horse, who was hobbled (his legs reportedly tied together when he proved to be "too energetic" for his rider). But their concerns were outright ignored.
With the exception of the hobbled horse, all claims of animal injury and death are directly related to how the animals were housed and fed. Jackson attempts to deflect these serious charges by talking about the use of animals during action sequences—even though these damning incidents did not take place when cameras were rolling. Two horses went over steep embankments and died (one was found with her head submerged in water), a horse sustained a severe injury after being put in with other horses despite known problems, sheep broke their legs in sinkholes, and chickens were mauled by dogs—all instances of extreme negligence. It seems to PETA that instead of vainly defending himself, Jackson should be giving a firm assurance that this will never happen again. He is the CGI master and has the ability to make the animals and other interesting creatures in his movies 100 percent CGI, and PETA calls on him again to do so.
When The Hobbit is released in December, audiences will see an adventure story set in a fantasy world. For the animals involved in the filming, however, the abuse and neglect that they experienced were far too real. Recently, PETA gave the Associated Press the exclusive on the . In all, five horses, a pony, and several goats, sheep, and chickens were allegedly maimed or killed.
According to whistleblowers from , the following occurred:
· A horse named Shanghai was hobbled (his legs were tied together so that he couldn't move) and left on the ground for three hours because he was too energetic for his rider. Afterward, in order to hide his rope burns for filming, his legs were covered with makeup and hair. Hobbling is an outright violation of the American Humane Association's (AHA) guidelines.
· One horse was killed and another horse was injured after being placed with two highly strung geldings, despite concerns that the geldings would be too aggressive.
· Another horse was killed after falling off an embankment in a severely crowded paddock.
· When the horses were moved to the stables, another horse died after being fed large amounts of food that he wasn't used to. The horse had shown signs of colic, an extremely painful illness.
· When the horses were moved back to the paddocks after this incident, another horse had the skin and muscles of her leg torn away by wire fencing.
· Several goats and sheep died from worm infestations and from falling into the sink holes that covered the farm.
· Numerous chickens were mauled and killed by unsupervised dogs or trampled by other animals when left unprotected.
How can something like this happen when the unit production manager was warned and the production was monitored by the AHA?! Furthermore, this movie was directed by Peter Jackson, a master at computer-generated imagery (CGI). In a movie that features CGI dragons, ogres, and hobbits, CGI animals would have fit in perfectly. Jackson could have made The Hobbit without using a single animal—and he should have.
Send a message to filmmakers that hurting and killing animals for a film is unacceptable and refuse to see movies that do. Urge Peter Jackson to hold himself and his crew responsible when it comes to animal safety on film sets. Use the button below to send him a message now!
CLICK HERE IF LINK DOES NOT WORK http://tinyurl.com/CBS-REPORTS-ON-HOBBIT-CRUELTY
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
USDA cites research lab lapses over many years
Nanette Asimov ~Updated 10:54 p.m., Sunday, November 25, 2012
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-research-animals-suffer-4065881.php#ixzz2DP2vT418
Petra, a rhesus monkey, endured chronic painful infection but was kept on a study for nearly two years. Photo: Jeremy Beckham, Courtesy Of USDA / SF
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-research-animals-suffer-4065881.php#ixzz2DP2YsyQf
The details are chilling, even gruesome.
Due to negligence or errors, laboratory mice at UCSF had toes removed without anesthesia. Several animals, including birds and a squirrel monkey, received little or no pain medication after surgical procedures. In one instance, a primate starved for weeks. In another, mice died of thirst. And for nearly two years, a rhesus monkey remained in a brain study despite chronic and painful complications.
A Chronicle review of laboratory inspection reports by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's animal welfare division, and an examination of UCSF's internal list of incidents, reveal that in the seven years after UCSF paid more than $90,000 to settle federal findings that its researchers violated the Animal Welfare Act, incidents of animal neglect or mistreatment have persisted.
Some were violations of the federal law, which covers mammals larger than rodents. Other incidents involved the many other animals protected by research protocols that demand humane treatment of all creatures, from reptiles to rats.
UCSF has one of the largest medical research programs in the country and relies on hundreds of thousands of animals as its researchers try to develop treatments for diseases of all kinds. Last year, 85 percent of its lab animals - nearly 800,000 - were rodents, fish, amphibians and reptiles, the university said. UCSF also used 98 primates, 162 birds and 467 rabbits.
The USDA enforces the Animal Welfare Act at research institutions around the country, usually with one unannounced visit a year. The inspectors look for violations, which can trigger a second unannounced visit to see if they're fixed. Repeated violations can lead to fines.
Inspectors also issue citations if an institution fails to follow research protocols established by its own animal oversight committee. The panels are charged with minimizing lab animals' pain and suffering.
Researchers are also required to report negligence or errors to their animal oversight committees, which at UCSF has led to experiments being canceled and employees being retrained or fired.
University officials declined to be interviewed on matters concerning animal welfare. Instead, they responded in writing to questions relayed through a spokeswoman.
"The university takes very seriously the care and use of the animals it studies, beginning with ensuring that as few animals as possible are used in research," spokeswoman Barbara French said in a statement.
She said UCSF uses computer models and cultured cells for research if it can. If those won't work, researchers turn to animals.
"Every proposed study undergoes rigorous review" by UCSF's animal oversight committee, French said. Additionally, four full-time staff members make sure researchers and technicians comply with requirements for humane treatment.
The university has had no federal penalties imposed since 2005. But inspectors have cited UCSF repeatedly since then for violating the Animal Welfare Act or for violating its own research protocols.
UCSF's size cited
Asked why problems persist, French said that "failures to follow policies, guidelines and protocol can occur" at large medical or research programs. Considering its size, UCSF has had few incidents, she said.
Some of the federal citations have involved dirty or contaminated conditions, such as machinery oil leaking into cages awaiting animals. Others were for causing unnecessary pain and distress to animals.
This year, for example, inspectors cited UCSF for poor monitoring of eight voles, a type of rodent, in a degenerative brain disease study.
Researchers were supposed to record signs of disease before euthanizing the animals "at the earliest point possible" to avoid unnecessary suffering. But an inspector found that no one monitored the infected voles over a weekend. Three died of brain disease without yielding any data for the study, and all may have suffered unnecessary "discomfort, distress and pain," federal inspectors said.
It was a repeat violation. That and other violations led federal inspectors to make a second, unannounced visit in June that produced no further citations.
David Sacks, a USDA spokesman, declined to compare UCSF's performance with that of other institutions, saying that even one violation can be more egregious than many less-serious ones. He called the Animal Welfare Act a baseline and said institutions "have to follow protocols to the letter."
"The goal is for these facilities to adhere to these regulations every day," Sacks said. "Then we know that those animals at a minimum are receiving humane care and treatment."
In 2005, UCSF was required to pay $92,500 to settle violations cited by the USDA from 2001 to 2003. Veterinarians weren't providing proper care for many animals, including primates, sheep, lambs and rabbits, inspectors found, and UCSF's animal oversight committee wasn't properly reviewing or approving research protocols.
The penalty was among the largest ever imposed for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
"It's a very substantial monetary penalty," Sacks said. "In terms of our enforcement actions, we want them to match appropriately with the nature of the violations."
Not everyone agrees that the penalties are large enough to be a deterrent.
"You would think that UC would clean up its act and not have these deficiencies anymore. But $92,000 is chump change for them because these research grants bring in millions - it's the cost of doing business," said Lawrence Hansen, a neuropathologist at UC San Diego who sued UC in 2007, saying state money was being used to support animal cruelty. A Superior Court judge called it a federal issue and dismissed the case.
"I don't disapprove of the use of all animals in research, as long as the animals don't suffer," said Hansen. "What they're doing to these monkeys is so inherently cruel and painful that it's impossible to do it without causing a great deal of pain and suffering."
Concerned that the federal law is too weak to protect lab animals from unnecessary harm, animal rights groups try to monitor their welfare by combing through inspection reports.
Rhesus in pain
This year, one such report about a rhesus monkey at UCSF caught the attention of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
According to the report and UCSF's account, the female monkey that UCSF researchers named Petra arrived at the lab in March 2008. In December, researchers studying Parkinson's disease implanted a device in the monkey's skull so that gene therapy could be delivered directly to her brain.
The device remained in place for seven months and was removed in July 2009. As is common practice, said UCSF, the veterinarian left screws in the monkey's skull.
Soon the monkey became lethargic and picked continually at the spot on her head. The veterinary staff treated her with antibiotics and painkillers. That didn't work, so a month later veterinarians tried to repair the wound surgically. That didn't work either, and in September they removed the screws.
It still didn't help. Her wound still unhealed, the monkey remained in the study. A year later, in October 2010, the veterinarians and principal researcher tried again to figure out the cause of the monkey's persistent wound. This time they found a piece of acrylic that had been left in her head from the 2008 implant.
A federal inspector arrived unannounced days later and snapped a photo of a miserable-looking monkey, a wide, red wound at the top of her head. Researchers euthanized Petra three weeks later, on Nov. 16, 2010.
The inspector returned in January 2011 and reviewed the records.
"Allowing an animal to remain on a study for almost two years while undergoing repeated invasive treatments for chronic complications of the study is not consistent with the intent of this section of the Animal Welfare Act," the inspector wrote. "Keeping an animal on study under these circumstances does not avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, or pain to that animal."
The inspector also cited UCSF for failing to remove foreign material, a violation of the research protocol. Although the university says its study led to a clinical trial now under way, the inspector made it clear that Petra should not have been involved once her distress was evident.
"There are many thousands of animals suffering every day, and on top of that, you have UCSF failing to provide many of them with adequate veterinary care when they're sick," said Justin Goodman of PETA, which is calling on the National Institutes of Health to require UCSF to return the $2.1 million grant that funded the study in which Petra was involved.
The National Institutes of Health require grant recipients to adhere to the NIH's own lab animal welfare policy, but won't discuss or confirm active cases.
Once concluded, however, all reports become part of the public record.
Overall, UCSF hasn't been cited for the kind of vast systemic violations that happened a decade ago. But many of the violations do echo that period, including failing to adequately observe animals after surgery, giving them too little water or food, and neglecting to keep their enclosures clean.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
|COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VOTE ON TUESDAY 11/27/12 CALL/EMAIL THEM TODAY!!!!!|
The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) of Bernalillo County, NM has an EXTENSIVE record of Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violations, including a federal fine for the negligent deaths of numerous animals http://
This lab also killed 300 primates and 100 dogs simply because they were 'no longer needed' http://
Please contact the Bernalillo County Commissioners and make it clear that the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute MUST NOT be exempted from county animal cruelty laws!
One Civic Plaza NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102
Art De La Cruz
Simon A. Kubiak
Wayne A. Johnson
Maggie Hart Stebbins
Michael C. Wiener
“The Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute is among the most criminal in the US, repeatedly killing animals through sheer negligence and incompetence,” said Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T., Executive Director, SAEN. “LRRI is a serial killer. This facility needs more regulation, not less..."
“LRRI is not only cruel to animals, they are a danger to the people of Albuquerque,” added Budkie. “One of the citations issued against LRRI by the USDA was for a primate escape. LRRI routinely conducts experiments involving, anthrax, the plague, etc. Do the people of Albuquerque want animals infected with anthrax and/or the plague running loose on the streets?”
- for the full article please visit: http://
• USDA Investigative and Enforcement Services Settlement Agreement - 24 Jun 2011
• USDA Inspection Report - 24 Mar 2010
• Facility seeks aid to continue animal research
• Animal Abuse Abundant in Spite of AAALAC Accreditation
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
~I borrowed this from personaldietingmentor.com
"I've become more and more motivated to keep confronting those that just don't do enough for animal rights! According to a Google search on the phrase animal rights, I find three similar definitions that cover a broad range of ideas. "Rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans;" "The concept that animals are entitled to certain fundamental rights such as the right to be spared undue suffering;" and "The rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes." What I get out of it all is that they are not ours to do with as we please. This sounds just like slavery! The human mind and its ability to find legitimacy in the most inhumane places has never ceased to amaze me. Is it just the insatiable need to have more than the next guy or is it a true feeling of inadequacy to have to always be in control of everything? I'm sure it's probably a little of both.
I find that more people would rather stand on the sidelines and "not get involved." I hate that saying! I know from first hand knowledge that not enough people stand up to the inequities in life, let alone stand up to the bullies in life! I remember bullies in grade school, but kids never killed themselves because they couldn't stop from being bullied. Everyday, I hear groups calling for greater accountability and for "smaller government." I am not exactly sure what a smaller government is, but I know there needs to be a change. The ironic part of our governmental system is that it is a republic. Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a democracy. In a democracy, everyone is required to cast their vote and contribute to the decision making process. Democracy can only work when everyone is involved. A republic is a system of government by which a representative is elected that is a reflection of his constituent’s wants, feelings, and desires. This representative is elected on the premise of doing "the people's work." Without getting into an involved political science discussion, in a republic, we also have the ability to recall (vote to remove from office) someone that is not meeting the needs for those whom elected him into office... I feel that there is not enough of this accountability occurring.
This brings me to my thesis of this paper. Vegan-ism is defined as eliminating the practice of consuming animal products including eggs and milk, not using animal derivatives, and not using animals for testing and experimentation purposes. I argue that vegans not only abstain from those practices, but that vegans are advocates for animal rights as well. Since animals cannot speak for themselves and vegans have the broadest understanding of animal abuses, hidden animal ingredients in non-food based items, if vegans do not speak for the animals, then who will? It turns out that vegans always have the opportunity to tell others what veganism is all about, why they have chosen to live a vegan lifestyle and in so doing encourage others to do the same. Here is where a divide typically occurs, though. There are some vegans that will never back down from a chance to present the facts about the health risks associated with the consumption of animal products, inform about animal farming practices, and discourage medical, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and biological testing on animals. The majority of vegans do not do this, however. Their default position is that no one wants to be told that what they are doing is wrong and that nobody wants to "hurt anyone's feelings." Without a doubt, animals that share many of the same physiological characteristics as humans: central nervous system, autonomic nervous system, digestive system, reproductive systems and are able to see, smell, taste, feel, and hear just as humans do. So how does a vegan that claims that they do not consume animals nor encourage animal abuse feel that allowing their family and friends to do so warrants no response and no continued action towards prevention? A vegan's ultimate goal is to eliminate all suffering and killing, but when that is not possible, to minimize its impact to the greatest extent possible. If the vegan feels that animal abuse is unjustified, is not the act of confrontation the lesser of the two, easier? Standing up to the abuser causes no violence to them, no suffering, no abuse, and no death. Words are less painful and less lethal as well.
A vegan that does not eat animals but still uses animal products is a vegetarian... One can't go along for the ride while others rob a bank and not expect to share the responsibility. One cannot get into a car sober and let the one that has been drinking to drive and not expect that they could die... and one can't let others sell drugs out of one's home and think they cannot be held accountable to the authorities. Pacifism describes one that feels opposed to the violence, but doesn't do anything about it. Pacifists are described as: "Someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes;" "One that follows a doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable;" and "One that believes that war and violence are morally wrong, regardless of the circumstances." There is nothing in this description about one would do to end the violence. There is no action other than what one believes in. There are no animal rights pacifists!
Some could say that they practice, passive-resistance, that they fight against the cruelty but without confrontation, but that would be inaccurate for these individuals as well. Passive-resistance is described as: "The practice of achieving socio-political goals through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political non-cooperation, and other methods, without using violence;" and "Non-violent opposition to authority, especially a refusal to cooperate with legal requirement."
The problem with this is that we have to go back to their default position of, "I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings," and "I don't want to get involved." Passive-resistance is about being involved to make change. Telling someone that you disagree with their point of view and leaving it at that does nothing. No social change ever came about from one saying, "I don't like that behavior." That is only the foundation of opposition, but changes do not occur unless there is movement. For example, going to Sunday dinner and not eating the animal products demonstrates that you don't eat animal products. Not going to the Sunday dinner can be your passively demonstrated way to not partake in that event. Not going to the horse races demonstrates that you don't want to be a partner to animal abuse, but it also demonstrates that you don't want to partake in the festivities with those individuals because of the behaviors they do. The point is that you have to do something and the other has to know that you are doing it! It has to be visible and it has to be memorable or your protest goes unnoticed.
Lastly, there is activist. We are familiar with the terms, human rights activist and animal rights activist. An activism can be described as: "Intentional action to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change;" "One who is politically active in the role of a citizen, especially one who campaigns for change and one who is conspicuously more active in carrying out any occupational or professional functions;" and "The attitude of taking an active part in events, especially in a social context." Sitting back, just providing information, being subtle, being passive-aggressive, and being passive-resistive is not being vegan. They are not compatible. While vegans want peace for all living creatures, since 95% of the
is not vegan, taking a passive approach does nothing for change. No one would be
passive about their children skipping school or stealing, no one would be
passive if being accused of a crime they didn't commit, and no one would be
passive if their life was in jeopardy.
That is the point. The majority are doing so much damage to the planet,
that while the planet will recover when all of us are gone, there is little hope
for recovery while we are ravening it!
Additionally, since there are so few of us, we can't afford to let some
people do things one way as others say, "I am going to do things my own
way." The argument is not about what we
want to do or how you and I feel about any of this, but it is about how the
animals feel about it. They don't want
to be abused, they don't want to be cooped up, caged up, corralled up and fenced
up... and they definitely don't want to
be murdered, raped, and abused! United
There has to be consistency! If you don't believe in animal cruelty, then you have to prove it. Your actions will speak volumes more than your words in this case as actions are killing our animal cousins. It is going to take actions to challenge action! It is going to take facts to challenge myths and it is going to take courage to overcome cowardness!"
Posted by libertyandjusticeforanimals at 11:16 PM
Monday, November 19, 2012
Clifford Carroll Cell (620) 767-5053 Home (785) 466-1405
1667 S 1400 Rd Council Grove, KS 66846-8770
Clifford Carroll is raising his children to trap and kill wildlife, never telling his kids that the animals that they barbarically trap, shoot, stomp, stab etc. feel the same fear and pain that they do, or that they love their lives like they do.
Hunting is a stubborn holdover from our country's racist past. While many still consider it an annual rite of passage for white children to stalk through rural communities with loaded guns, it is a crime for a minority child to possess a gun in his urban neighborhood. A gun remains a traditional right for many boys in white, rural America, a tradition that would get a Latino boy killed or imprisoned in our cities. That we allow, even encourage, one segment of our population to run amuck with guns, while imprisoning others, is blatantly racist.
In a year when many cities are struggling with a disturbing reemergence of gun violence, America must rethink the continued glorification of guns and killing. The cruel reality of hunting blurs the message we deliver to our children about guns and violence in this country. We cannot simultaneously discourage gun violence and encourage hunting. Both cruelty and compassion are contagious, and it is our responsibility to plant the seeds of a compassionate culture for future generations. Children who learn to empathize with animals are much more likely to become empathetic adults. There is nothing good that comes from the murder of vulnerable creatures. Hunting teaches it is acceptable, even admirable, to kill a defenseless creature. Hunting is the opposite of caring.
We should celebrate when our children plant their first tree or spend their first day volunteering at a homeless shelter -- not when they gun down their first defenseless animal. [excerpt from the article Hunting -- It's bad for animals, it's bad for America by Kelly Overton]
The highly touted and farm-oriented 4-H program is a skillful brainwashing program for preparing farm youth to accept the slaughter of their “pet” project animals each summer for money. Each 4-H youth that raises a cow, sheep, goat or hog, competes for trophies. Then the animals are auctioned to local businesses that donate heavily to assure nice cash profits. Thus the children, through group and social pressure, are forced to surrender for slaughter the living creature they raised and loved for nearly a year.
After a few consecutive years of doing this, and building a nice nest egg of cash for college, these kids eventually learn to kill farm animals without conscience. The objective thus turns to money.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
I want to cut her smile off of her face with a sharp machete!
Posted by libertyandjusticeforanimals at 3:12 PM
Saturday, November 17, 2012
"Sport-hunting is typically an annual game for cowards, losers, sexually inept idiots, and morally
Teaching his son the have no compassion or empathy and to become a serial killer himself
Mark Crook, DOB 4-11-1983
Home Phone: 540-358-4141
Address: 606 Hopkins St
Narrows, VA 24124-1012 Email: email@example.com
Serial Killers always keep souvenirs
The smug look of a serial killer
Serial Killer at work in his basement
One of his victims
Tools of the trade
Serial Killers often pose in pictures with their victims as they are so proud of the pain and anguish they have caused
It is the disconnect i think that bothers me the most that he feels nothing for this raccoon suffering in this steel jaw leg hold trap that is factually excruciatingly painful
This person is a monster in my book!
Mark Crook, DOB Birthday 4-11-1983
Home Phone: 540-358-4141
Address: 606 Hopkins St
Narrows, VA 24124-1012 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please send him literature and information about why he should stop this sadistic sport and how he is training his kids to do be sadists also, after all how do you separate the killing of innocent lives because one speaks and one doesn't? Please be respectful if you contact
This Article was taken from issues.cc
Sport-hunting is typically an annual game for cowards, losers, sexually inept idiots, and morally awkward outcasts. There will be the argument of killing what you eat when less than 40% of sport-hunters murder defenseless animals for meat. Trust me, they ARE defenseless. They have hooves and horns, where you have guns and knives. Traditional sport-hunters are obviously at a superior weapon advantage which makes the entire game a sadistic excuse for blatant murder. It's the equivalent of going into someone's yard and shooting their chained up dog. The thrill? Chasing the animal through the forest and hunting them down to put a bullet or an arrow through their fleshy hide.
It's known as a sport but it isn't, not at all. A sport involves opponents and a point to the game. Sport-hunting involves rummaging through shrubbery for a clear shot at an unsuspecting animal. There's no sport in killing something that is ultimately powerless against you. Sport-hunting is the direct way for unappreciated rednecks to feel accomplished over doing something that is considered macho. We do not live in the troglodyte era anymore, and overpopulation has absolutely nothing to do with it. If I were to go out and sport-hunt human beings, I could use the excuse of overpopulation and it would be completely true. I'd also be incarcerated, if caught, but that's another story. Whereas, sport-hunting animals is legal and subject to nothing more than a slap on the wrist if a cowardly dumb-ass kills something on the endangered list.
If you're a sport-hunter, you're immediately a complete waste of life and you deserve to be mauled by those defenseless deer you so covet to kill. I genuinely pray that a bear rips you to shreds and there's no one around the woods to mourn your camouflaged, testicular impaired death; because mark my words, those who sport-hunt have no balls to speak of. The people who go out to sports stores and buy every bit of camouflage and ammunition known to man, with the intention of sport-hunting; probably in a group with other Neanderthals.
The sad thing is; people, especially men, will comment on how much fun it is to act like they've got no sense and shoot something in the forest. They'll make bogus statements about how their prey bled and how great they feel for snuffing out another innocent life. Sadist motherfuckers. They'll get their children involved in sport-hunting and teach them that it's okay to kill something for fun, leaving it to rot. Those kids will grow into the replicas of their fathers and the cycle continues. You're not a hero and you're not proving anything when you kill something that you deem inferior to yourself. You're just a wretched creature deserving of a bullet to the forehead. I know there will be several people who will make up some excuse as to why sport-hunting should stick around, but the fact remains that you're simply too heartless to know any better.