PMWS pork entering food chain

On 11 Jan 2007 04:41:02 -0800, wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.
So how many of these cases they have produced have resulted in RSPCA
prosecutions, or any sort of prosecution?

They are purely scam artists conning a gullible public for their own
financial gain

Count me as one of the gullible public.

No doubt about that! We can count you more than once in fact.
Do you believe that veg*nism helps or saves any livestock? If so,
we can count you again. Do you think "ar" terrorism does some
good? If so, we can count you yet again...

There is a big difference
between what the government with meat industry input considers cruel
and what most people of reasonable caring does. The very nature of
factory farming is cruel and I for one will never support it and will
continue to support those who are making an effort to improve their
condition.

Being veg*n doesn't do anything to help any livestock. "ar"
organizations *exploit* AW issues in order to obtain funding,
but the philosophies of "ar" and AW are completely different:
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
reasons.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There was a time when the only reason why I would not eat
meat was because of cruelty of factory farming. Realizing as how
difficult it is to change the practices of an industry protected by
wink-wink government regulations, I decided not to eat any meat no
matter how it was produced.

Nah. Meat grosses you out so you're trying to justify not eating it.

On 11 Jan 2007 02:58:28 -0800, wrote:

We send them money but probably not as much as they would like.

LOL!

The
reason we send them money is because we agree with what they are doing
and if we had more money we would send more.
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
.... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."

Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_...?headline=2833
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
The photos show the inside of PETA's van; the tackle-box "death kit"
(complete with syringes and lethal drugs); the trash dumpster where the
dead animals were found; and several animals buried the next morning
by local authorities.
[...]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63 percent --
of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia expected
those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
[...]
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
(USA Today, September 3, 1991)


INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
out or burn them down."
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
it."
(Vogue, September, 1989)

"I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
(Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)


ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause."
(Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)

Intersting PeTA facts

When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.

http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he said.

PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:

-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and firing on
a fishing vessel;

-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;

-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive

http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:30:53 -0000, "Jim Webster" wrote:


dh@. wrote in message ...
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:55:13 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:16:58 -0500, dh@. wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:34:25 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:18:55 -0000, "'Mike'" wrote:

wrote in message
glegroups.com...
. They are also
poisoning the public because of unhealthy conditions inherent to
factory farming.


???????????????????

Considering that there are more meat eaters in this country that
veggies,
can you please explain to me, why, if the meat industry is 'poisoning
the
public', the public in general are living a lot longer and as proof,
the
pensionable age is to be raised because of the shortfall in pension
funds?


Some are living longer, some arent. Many are dying far too early.
Cancers, CJD, Dementia etc.

Doesn't stuff like that kill vegans?

Only if they turned vegan too late.

LOL. Good one.

not really, given that there has only been 160 odd deaths nvCJD has been the
vegetarian scare story that just failed to happen
Wonder when they will publish the figures for those who have died from nut
allergy in the same period

Jim Webster
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . .

Peanut allergies account for 50 to 100 deaths in the United States each year.
Some youngsters must eat at a peanut-free cafeteria table or even in an
isolated room. Some airlines have stopped serving peanuts to safeguard people
allergic to even a whiff of the nut.

Peanut allergies have been rising in recent decades. No one is sure why, but a
new study found that baby creams or lotions containing peanut oil may lead to
peanut allergies.

Babies whose rashes or eczema were soothed by such creams were more likely
to become allergic to peanuts than those whose creams did not include peanut
oil, said Dr. Gideon Lack of St. Mary's Hospital at Imperial College in London.
.. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/condi...ut.allergy.ap/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:29:41 -0000, "Jim Webster" wrote:


dh@. wrote in message ...

I've sure noticed that veg*ns flop around about what they believe,
and try to pretend they aren't supporting things that they obviously
are (like terrorism), etc. And that they won't even acknowledge,
much less appreciate, the fact that some animal products involve
fewer deaths than some veggies. They usually if not always deny
such a significant aspect. That alone proves they are very selective
in what they allow themselves to consider, and also that they care
more about promoting veg*nism than they do about human influence
on animals.

I confess I don't really care.

You don't really need to but they are claiming to care more than
others, yet will usually deny that some types of animal products
contribute to fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products.
How many servings of beef could people get from the life and
death of a grass raised steer and whatever he happened to kill
during his life? Fewer servings of tofu are likely to involve far more
deaths imo. And the same is true regarding grass raised dairy
prodocts vs. soy milk or even more so rice milk.

I correct them when they tell lies about my industry,

What industry is that?

We don't get many people who are involved directly, which is
too bad imo. I would hope that most farmers provide their animals
with decent lives, though I certainly don't believe all do. I'm
opposed to battery cages for laying hens, but feel that the
open house method provides decent lives in general for the birds.
I don't know what to think about pigs never havingn been around
large pig farms, but just the fact that they are omnivorous
rooting animals pretty much guarantees that by nature they
would be frustrated and board when they can't root. I'm sure
that's been bred out of them as much as possible, but still
they want to do it. Grazing animals could be more easily satisfied
since they don't seem to have much of a hunting or digging
instinct. Though I eat chicken and turkey I do agree with Davis'
argument regarding least harm for wildlife and the natural
environment:
__________________________________________________ _______
The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.

S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
pp 440-450.

Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals.

Introduction
Although the debate over the moral status of animals has been
going on for thousands of years (Shapiro, 2000), there has
been a resurgence of interest in this issue in the last quarter of
the 20th century. One of the landmark philosophical works of
this period was the book by Regan (1983) called "A Case for
Animal Rights." In that book, Regan concludes that animals
do have moral standing, that they are subjects-of-a-life with
interests that deserve equal consideration to the same interests
in humans, and therefore have the right to live their lives
without human interference. As a consequence, he concludes
that humans have a moral obligation to consume a vegan (use
no animal products) diet and eliminate animal agriculture.
However, production of an all vegan diet also comes at the
cost of the lives of many animals, including mice, moles,
gophers, pheasants, etc. Therefore, I asked Regan, "What
is the morally relevant difference between killing a field mouse
(or other animal of the field) so that humans may eat and killing
a pig (or chicken, calf or lamb) for the same purpose? Animals
must die so that humans may eat, regardless whether they eat
a vegan diet or not. So, how are we to choose our food supply
in a morally responsible manner?" Regan's response could be
summarized by what may be called the "Least Harm Principle"
or LHP (Regan, Personal Communication). According to LHP,
we must choose the food products that, overall, cause the
least harm to the least number of animals. The following
analysis is an attempt to try to determine what humans should
eat if we apply that principle.

Regan's Vegan Conclusion is Problematic

I find Regan's response to my question to be problematic for
two reasons. The first reason is because it seems to be a
philosophical slight of hand for one to turn to a utilitarian
defense (LHP) of a challenge to his vegan conclusion which
is based on animal rights theory. If the question, "What is
the morally relevant difference?" can't be supported by the
animal rights theory, then it seems to me that the animal rights
theory must be rejected. Instead, Regan turns to utilitarian
theory (which examines consequences of one's actions) to
defend the vegan conclusion.

The second problem I see with his vegan conclusion is that
he claims that the least harm would be done to animals if
animal agriculture was eliminated. It may certainly be true
that fewer animals may be killed if animal agriculture was
eliminated, but could the LHP also lead to other alternative
conclusions?

Would pasture-based animal agriculture cause least harm?

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows
and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground
cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed
by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow,
disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest,
etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such
as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet)
kills far more animals of the field than would extensive
agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage
was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines.
So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing
beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead
of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew
and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse
population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha
preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease
was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of
10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean
production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US
(USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a
plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed
per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or
1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half
of that land (60 million) was converted to forage
production and if forage production systems decreased
the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50%
(5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

1. 60 million ha of traditional agriculture x 10 animals
per ha = 0.6 billion animals killed.
2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of
the field = 0.3 billion.

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to
include some forage-based animal agriculture would
result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field
instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a
result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally
obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not
a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of
fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to
die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers
quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals
killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those
are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows,
calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of
ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace
the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that
would need to be killed under this alternative would
still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion)
than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

In conclusion, applying the Least Harm Principle as
proposed by Regan would actually argue that we
are morally obligated to move to a ruminant-based
diet rather than a vegan diet.

References

Davis, S.L. 2000. What is the Morally Relevant
Difference between the Mouse and the Pig?
Pp. 107-109 in the Proceedings of EurSafe 2000;
2nd Congress of the European Society for
Agricultural and Food Ethics.

Francione, Gary L. 2000. Introduction to Animal
Rights: Your child or the dog? Temple University
Press. Philadelphia.

Regan, Tom. 1983. A Case for Animal Rights.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

Shapiro, L.S. 2000. Applied Animal Ethics,
pp. 34-37. Delmar Press.

Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald. 1993. The
effects of harvest on arable wood mice.
Biological Conservation 65:279-283.

USDA. 2000.
www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Census97/highlights.

On 10 Jan 2007 21:03:32 -0800, wrote:

Animal rights advocates are not terrorists
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . .
ANIMAL EXTREMIST / ECOTERROR CRIMES

FRUSTRATED BY THEIR FAILURE to sell their agendas to society at large,
animal rights and environmental extremists now seek to impose their views
through violence and terrorism. Responsibility for many of these crimes has
been claimed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front
(ELF), underground organizations that began in Britain and have now spread
to the U.S. The Federal Bureau of Investigation classifies both as "domestic
terrorist" groups.

Following is a sampling of recent animal rights / ecoterror crimes. A selection
of particularly costly crimes is available in the Farmers for Safe Farms flyer
Animal Rights and Eco-Terrorism : The Price We Pay in PDF format.

The following chronology covers the period 2000 to the present.
.. . .

http://www.furcommission.com/attack/index.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

dh@. wrote in message ...
On 10 Jan 2007 23:41:26 -0800, wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Jim Webster wrote:

snip

I confess I don't really care. I correct them when they tell lies
about
my
industry, but as far as I am concerned if they don't want to eat
meat,
fine,
there are an increasing number of people out there who do
Terrorism is merely terrorism, and we have jails for people who
commit
that
sort of offence

It must have been a careless admission that you are with the meat
industry. I long wondered why some people attack animal rights
advocates and those who speak out against cruelty to animals on
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. I also suspected that the intensity of
those attacks are driven not by any conviction but by pure self
interest of those who profit from the horrible suffering of animals
produced by factory farming. Animals as living, feeling, suffering
creatures mean nothing to the likes of you who try to justify your
cruelty on helpless animals for your profit margin.

yawn
I'm honest,

Was it honesty or just a careless slip?

which is more than can be said about those animal rights
activists who were paid by an Irish meat factory group to protest
against
live exports out of ireland.

That would also be deplorable.

fortunately most people out there know that the sort of person who digs
up
your granny if you don't agree with them is not the sort of person you
can
trust to tell you the truth on anything else either

I don't care about your or anybody else's personal life but I have
for some time been wondering about the canned posts some people are
putting out and they did look like meat industry shills to me.

You have no idea what it would look like if anyone were officially
representing the meat industry. I doubt anyone is doing it.

One has
to wonder why some people would personally attack you and call you
names just because you express your concern for animals unless they are
connected to the meat industry.

Your attack on National Georgraphic was maniacal, uncalled for
and dishonest. You have no way of knowing whether or not what
they did looked staged, and there's no reason why they would stage
it. Your desire to deny reality messed up your ability to think. Other
people don't want your problem with reality to screw up things for them,
so it's not any wonder at all but just something else about reality that
you can't comprehend.

I love animals

People who farm animals can care about them too, and so can
people who consume them. Don't forget that it's the consumers
of animal products--NOT vegans!--who make it possible for the
animals to exist at all. When they have decent lives of positive
value the consumers are just as much the reason for that as they
are when the animals have lives of negative value.

and it bothers me that they suffer and the least I can do is to
make sure that they do not suffer on my account.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

For some reason, there are a number of people on
this list who hate people for showing concern for animals. Is that
because they know that what they are doing is wrong and must silence
those who remind them of it?

· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.

Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·


Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:14:50 +0000, "(o)(o)" wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:26:09 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

And people should care about that exactly why?

People who have a vested interest in the meat industry are more likely
to lie about what goes on the factory farms and slaughter houses.

and people making a living out of the animal rights movement have a
vested
interest in spinning more horror stories to ensure that contributions
keep
rolling in

What stories are fabricated?

What stories are being referred to, if any?

no, it's because they get fed up of a lot of ignorant saddos repeating
out
of date information

I do not trust those with vested interests in making a living off of
animal cruelty.

the don't trust animal rights propaganda because they are all making a
living out of manufacturing tales of animal cruelty to get in money from
supporters

What tales are manufactured?

What tales are being referred to, if any?

Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

dh@. wrote in message ...
On 11 Jan 2007 04:41:02 -0800, wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


I only wish that it was true but unfortunately there is nothing to
make
up about all the horrible cruelty associated with factory farming.

but the only evidence you have is what comes from those who make a
living
out of selling that story
These who somehow neglect to mention that all farms get cross compliance
inspections from government agencies on a regular basis, and also they
neglect to mention that if they have a case, then the RSPCA will be
round
there pretty damn quick to deal with it, and the RSPCA enthusiastically
prosecutes.
So how many of these cases they have produced have resulted in RSPCA
prosecutions, or any sort of prosecution?

They are purely scam artists conning a gullible public for their own
financial gain

Count me as one of the gullible public.

No doubt about that! We can count you more than once in fact.
Do you believe that veg*nism helps or saves any livestock? If so,
we can count you again. Do you think "ar" terrorism does some
good? If so, we can count you yet again...

There is a big difference
between what the government with meat industry input considers cruel
and what most people of reasonable caring does. The very nature of
factory farming is cruel and I for one will never support it and will
continue to support those who are making an effort to improve their
condition.

Being veg*n doesn't do anything to help any livestock. "ar"
organizations *exploit* AW issues in order to obtain funding,
but the philosophies of "ar" and AW are completely different:
__________________________________________________ _______
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and
conceptual
reasons.

. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the
pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition,
disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal
rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights
advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for
the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
There was a time when the only reason why I would not eat
meat was because of cruelty of factory farming. Realizing as how
difficult it is to change the practices of an industry protected by
wink-wink government regulations, I decided not to eat any meat no
matter how it was produced.

Nah. Meat grosses you out so you're trying to justify not eating it.

Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

dh@. wrote in message ...
On 11 Jan 2007 02:58:28 -0800, wrote:

We send them money but probably not as much as they would like.

LOL!

The
reason we send them money is because we agree with what they are doing
and if we had more money we would send more.
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no
ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
WAVY-TV's coverage in Norfolk included heartbreaking details from the
manager of the supermarket whose dumpster became an impromptu pet
cemetery. "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs
... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ...
last
week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they
drove
straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30
seconds."

Authorities told WNCT-TV in Greenville, NC that they've discovered more
than 70 dead animals in the last month that may be connected to PETA.
[...]
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_...?headline=2833
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
The photos show the inside of PETA's van; the tackle-box "death kit"
(complete with syringes and lethal drugs); the trash dumpster where the
dead animals were found; and several animals buried the next morning
by local authorities.
[...]
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs,
cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters.
That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern
shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
In a July 2000 Associated Press story, reporter Matthew Barakat described
government reports showing that PETA itself killed 1,325 -- or 63
percent --
of the dogs and cats entrusted to it in 1999. The state of Virginia
expected
those animals to be placed in adoptive homes. Only 386 of them ever were.
[...]
http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-4.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than
truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
DAN MATHEWS, Celebrity Recruiter for PeTA

"We're at war, and we'll do what we need to win."
(USA Today, September 3, 1991)


INGRID NEWKIRK, FOUNDER, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals
out or burn them down."
( National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997)

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against
it."
(Vogue, September, 1989)

"I know it's illegal [trespassing], but I don't think it's wrong."
(Montgomery County, MD, Journal Feb. 16, 1988)


ALEX PACHECO, CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT
OF ANIMALS (PETA)

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause."
(Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)

Intersting PeTA facts

When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at
the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted,
PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary
Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this
individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was
using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000
on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction
of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California,
Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent
$ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times
greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of
that year.

http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
PETA's sympathies for ELF actions were apparent in a recent speech by
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich.

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets,
slaughterhouses,
these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow," he
said.

PETA payouts to radicals willing to carry out such crimes include:

-- $5,000 to Josh Harper, who was convicted of assaulting police and
firing on
a fishing vessel;

-- $2,000 to Dave Wilson, convicted of firebombing a fur cooperative;

-- $7,500 to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical
executive

http://www.cdfe.org/peta_fox.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:30:53 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


dh@. wrote in message ...
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:55:13 +0000, Geoff wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:16:58 -0500, dh@. wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:34:25 +0000, Geoff
wrote:

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:18:55 -0000, "'Mike'" wrote:

wrote in message
oglegroups.com...
. They are also
poisoning the public because of unhealthy conditions inherent to
factory farming.


???????????????????

Considering that there are more meat eaters in this country that
veggies,
can you please explain to me, why, if the meat industry is 'poisoning
the
public', the public in general are living a lot longer and as proof,
the
pensionable age is to be raised because of the shortfall in pension
funds?


Some are living longer, some arent. Many are dying far too early.
Cancers, CJD, Dementia etc.

Doesn't stuff like that kill vegans?

Only if they turned vegan too late.

LOL. Good one.

not really, given that there has only been 160 odd deaths nvCJD has been
the
vegetarian scare story that just failed to happen
Wonder when they will publish the figures for those who have died from nut
allergy in the same period

Jim Webster
__________________________________________________ _______
. . .

Peanut allergies account for 50 to 100 deaths in the United States each
year.
Some youngsters must eat at a peanut-free cafeteria table or even in an
isolated room. Some airlines have stopped serving peanuts to safeguard
people
allergic to even a whiff of the nut.

Peanut allergies have been rising in recent decades. No one is sure why,
but a
new study found that baby creams or lotions containing peanut oil may lead
to
peanut allergies.

Babies whose rashes or eczema were soothed by such creams were more likely
to become allergic to peanuts than those whose creams did not include
peanut
oil, said Dr. Gideon Lack of St. Mary's Hospital at Imperial College in
London.
. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/condi...ut.allergy.ap/
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish