<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:lang="en">
<title>Friends of Animals</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/" />
<modified>2006-09-19T19:49:44Z</modified>
<tagline>Friends of Animals is a non-profit, international animal advocacy organization, incorporated in the state of New York since 1957. Friends of Animals works to cultivate a respectful view of nonhuman animals, free-living and domestic. Our goal is to free animals from cruelty and institutionalized exploitation around the world.</tagline>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1</id>
<generator url="http://www.movabletype.org/" version="3.2">Movable Type</generator>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2006, orabona</copyright>
<entry>
<title>A Life and Death Without Dignity—NYC Advocates Seek Ban on Horse Carriages</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/september/a-life-and-death-wit.html" />
<modified>2006-09-19T19:49:44Z</modified>
<issued>2006-09-19T19:45:54Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.644</id>
<created>2006-09-19T19:45:54Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Horses</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>A Coalition including Friends of Animals, and other groups whose goal is to enact a ban on horse-drawn carriages, once again urges Mayor Bloomberg and the <span class="caps">NYC</span> Council to pass legislation to end the exploitative carriage horse industry. </p>

<p>We ask the public to boycott carriage horses until they are officially disallowed.</p>

<p>After a string of accidents this year, the latest tragedy occurred September 15th, when a horse named Juliet collapsed in Central Park at 9:30pm, while pulling a carriage.  Onlookers were horrified as Mr. Provenzano, the driver of the carriage, began striking Juliet repeatedly in the flank with a whip in an effort to get her on her feet again.  Claiming he was acting on advice from his veterinarian, the driver continued whipping the horse&#8212;as onlookers yelled at him to stop. A police officer also ordered Provenzano to stop the beating. </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Yet officers from the mounted unit arrived at the scene and allowed Provenzano to continue whipping Juliet. Eventually a rug was brought over, which Juliet was placed upon, and she was then dragged into a police trailer and taken to the  West Side Livery Stables at 38th St.—finally dying at 5am after several hours of treatment.   The <span class="caps">ASPCA </span>is currently investigating to ascertain why and how Juliet died, and if this is a criminal case of cruelty.  Results of the necropsy are expected within a few days.  </p>

<p>Purchased by Provenzano last year for just $1700, Juliet, likely a former farm horse, had been pulling a carriage for at least 17 years. The stable in which she died was effectively her prison.</p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">WHY BAN HORSE</span>-DRAWN <span class="caps">VEHICLES</span> IN <span class="caps">NEW YORK</span>?</strong><br />
 <br />
Many modern cities have ended the tradition of animal-drawn vehicles. Why? These animals do not belong in commercial activity that forces them to compete with heavy traffic or be exposed to harsh elements.  This is as true in New York City as anywhere in the world.</p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">WHY NOT JUST ALLOW ANIMAL</span>-DRAWN <span class="caps">CARRIAGES</span> AT <span class="caps">CENTRAL PARK</span>?</strong></p>

<p>Keeping commercial horse activity adjacent to Central Park, as Council Member Tony Avella has proposed, fails to acknowledge that horses would still travel a congested corridor en route to the Park &#8212; also a route for emergency vehicles to and from St. Vincent’s Midtown Hospital and Roosevelt Hospital, and a conduit to the Lincoln Tunnel and the West Side Highway.  </p>

<p>Edita Birnkrant, a founding member of the Coalition, explains, “Accidents have occurred in Central Park as well as in the streets. Public safety is at risk in the park, which is filled with bicyclists, runners, children and pedestrians. Enough, enough, now! We can’t wait for yet another tragedy to occur before the Mayor and City Council take this issue seriously.”</p>

<p>Regulating the industry will not stop public safety problems. And regulations seek to sustain a disrespectful practice that needs to be ended in order for New York City to join Toronto, Paris and London as leaders in more enlightened attitudes about nonhuman animals.</p>

<p>The Coalition has drafted legislation which would effectively phase out this industry and seeks to have an adoption program for the horses so they do not go to kill auctions</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Pomegranates are Wonderful; Animal Testing Isn&apos;t</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/september/pomegranates-are-won.html" />
<modified>2006-09-08T01:05:03Z</modified>
<issued>2006-09-08T00:46:56Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.643</id>
<created>2006-09-08T00:46:56Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Animal Testing</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p><strong>Friends of Animals Boycotts Juice Company</strong></p>

<p>Friends of Animals members and supporters have spoken. And they don&#8217;t want animal testing in their pomegranate juice.</p>

<p>The group called for a boycott of <span class="caps">POM</span> Wonderful brand juices until the company and its profits cease to be implicated in animal research or testing.</p>

<p>According to an April 2006 report in The New York Times Magazine, <span class="caps">POM</span> Wonderful owners Lynda Resnick and Stewart Resnick have funded $15 million in research on the health benefits of pomegranate juice.  Friends of Animals members were stunned to learn that some of this money went to animal testing. </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p><span class="caps">POM</span> Wonderful has supported tests published in June 2005 on the effects of the juice on brain injuries in mice and on erectile dysfunction in rabbits.</p>

<p>&#8220;POM Wonderful should and can be mindful of the health of all species, not just our own,&#8221; said Friends of Animals president Priscilla Feral. </p>

<p>&#8220;Why not simply support and cite studies on human populations?&#8221; asked Feral. In 2005, Dr Dean Ornish published a paper in the American Journal of Cardiology, looking at blood flow to the heart in 45 patients with blocked arteries who were given a placebo or pomegranate juice. </p>

<p>&#8220;Until <span class="caps">POM</span> Wonderful makes a public commitment against animal testing, we&#8217;ll encourage people to choose a different juice.&#8221;  </p>

<p>Please contact <span class="caps">POM </span>to notify them of your pledge to boycott <span class="caps">POM </span>products at:</p>

<p><span class="caps">POM</span> Wonderful<br />
11444 West Olympic Blvd.<br />
Los Angeles, CA 90064</p>

<p>Phone:  (310) 966-5800</p>

<p>Email:  <a href="mailto:customerservice@pomwonderful.com">customerservice@pomwonderful.com</a></p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Capers in the Churchyard, Reviewed by Chris Kelly</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/september/capers-in-the-church.html" />
<modified>2006-09-01T19:10:19Z</modified>
<issued>2006-09-01T18:45:22Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.642</id>
<created>2006-09-01T18:45:22Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I finished the book at 3 am -- It was a page-turner -- I just couldn&apos;t put it down.

This is absolutely the best book ever written on animal rights, what works and what does not. I rarely get speechless, but I don&apos;t know where to start (or stop) praising Lee Hall for outlining the path we must follow to achieve true abolition of humanity&apos;s custom of enslaving any beings defined as non-human. 

But Capers in the Churchyard  is much more than that.... </summary>

<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p><strong>Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror, by Lee Hall</strong></p>

<p><strong>Reviewed by Chris Kelly</strong></p>

<p>I finished the book at 3 am &#8212; It was a page-turner &#8212; I just couldn&#8217;t put it down.</p>

<p>This is absolutely the best book ever written on animal rights, what works and what does not. I rarely get speechless, but I don&#8217;t know where to start (or stop) praising Lee Hall for outlining the path we must follow to achieve true abolition of humanity&#8217;s custom of enslaving any beings defined as non-human. </p>

<p>But <em>Capers in the Churchyard </em> is much more than that. To quote Hall, &#8220;The advent of animal rights philosophy would mean the most comprehensive peace movement ever known. Not only would it turn swords into ploughshares; it would dedicate those ploughshares to an agriculture of peace.&#8221;</p>

<p>This book will clear away the convoluted notions that proliferate within the advocacy community. It will allow the reader to appreciate the simplicity and effectiveness of nonviolence.</p>

<p>Lee Hall is hope personified.</p>

<p>Chris Kelly </p>

<p><em>Chris Kelly is a vegan grandparent in Texas.  Kelly, along with Carsten Schlovien, is known to many long-time animal advocates for facilitating Internet animal-rights fora such as the Great Ape Standing and Personhood list-serv and the early &#8220;AR-Views&#8221; list. </em></p>

<p><em>Capers in the Churchyard </em> is now available through the Friends of Animals Store (international orders can be placed through Amazon.com).</p>]]>

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Country Singer Indicted for Killing Tame Bear</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/august/country-singer-indic.html" />
<modified>2006-08-18T15:11:39Z</modified>
<issued>2006-08-18T14:58:49Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.641</id>
<created>2006-08-18T14:58:49Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>

<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>Singer Troy Lee Gentry, of country duo Montgomery Gentry, and professional hunting guide Lee Marvin Greenly have been indicted for conspiring to violate the Lacey Act.</p>

<p>The authorities allege that in 2004 Gentry paid Greenly $4,650 to shoot a tame black bear named “Cubby” in an enclosure and then, after doing so, falsely tagged the bear as free-living rather than tamed.  </p>

<p>Gentry had the bow-and-arrow killing videotaped. The government claims the tape was doctored to create the appearance of “fair chase” hunting situation.  </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>A statement released by Johnny Dorris on Gentry’s behalf claims the “bear occupied its own habitat (consisting of several acres of woodlands) on a game preserve owned by the codefendant. Troy shot the bear with a bow and arrow from a tree stand mounted on the private game preserve.” </p>

<p>While Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources frowns on shooting captive bears, the department actively promotes black bear hunting, and, according to the department, 3,391 bears were killed in 2004. </p>

<p>You can contact Troy Lee Gentry at:</p>

<p>Troy Lee Gentry<br />
c/o Johnny Dorris<br />
Hallmark Direction Co.<br />
713 18th Ave. S.<br />
Nashville, TN 37203</p>

<p>The state-sanctioned killing of the 3,391 bears in legal hunts is no less significant than the killing of Cubby. </p>

<p> </p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Save the McNeil River bears from trophy hunters</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/august/save-the-mcneil-rive.html" />
<modified>2006-08-16T15:52:41Z</modified>
<issued>2006-08-16T15:42:38Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.640</id>
<created>2006-08-16T15:42:38Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>

<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>Tell Alaskans you want them to retain the buffer zone that protects the bears in the McNeil River Sanctuary.</p>

<p>Email <a href="http://gov.state.ak.us/govmail.php ">Governor Frank Murkowski </a>.</p>

<p>Email the <a href="mailto:info@anchorage.net, atiamedia@gci.net, info@AlaskaTIA.org">Alaska visitors Bureaus </a>.</p>

<p>More contacts at <a href="http://www.travelalaska.com/contact/contacts.aspx ">TravelAlaska.com </a>.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/eveningnews/main1894769.shtml ">Relaxing With Alaska&#8217;s Big Brown Bears</a></p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p><strong>Bears And People Get Up Close At Sanctuary, But Will The Animals Know To Fear Hunters?</strong><br />
<span class="caps">MCNEIL RIVER,</span> Alaska, Aug. 14, 2006 </p>

<p>(CBS) The spectacle plays out each summer at the world&#8217;s premier bear-viewing area: Alaska&#8217;s massive brown bears posing, wrestling and filling up on migrating salmon in the McNeil River State Game Sanctuary. </p>

<p><span class="caps">CBS</span> News correspondent Jerry Bowen reports there&#8217;s not a more camera-friendly group of brown bears in the world, because over time they&#8217;ve become very accustomed to having human visitors watch what they do. </p>

<p>And it&#8217;s a tough ticket. A lottery system grants admission to just 10 visitors a day, totaling just 200 for the entire summer. </p>

<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s overwhelming,&#8221; says Steve Roberts, who came from Minneapolis to see the bears. &#8220;You just don&#8217;t know which way to look. It&#8217;s a three-ring circus.&#8221; </p>

<p>Some people wait years for their chance to visit the sanctuary. Cheryl Parker, of Fairbanks, Alaska, found herself taken with a skinny girl bear who was trying to catch salmon: &#8220;There&#8217;s a girl out here who&#8217;s a tiny thing, and it takes her a while to get that fish. But once she gets it, she tears off with it.&#8221; </p>

<p>The sanctuary is located a float plane ride over Cooke Inlet on the Katmai Peninsula, just past the still-steaming Augustine volcano. Once there, it&#8217;s a four-mile hike to experience the ultimate bear tale. </p>

<p>Close encounters are common, and, as Bowen discovered, unnerving. </p>

<p>A young bear looked to Bowen for a little help with other, bigger, bears who wanted his fish. Guides shooed him off, but retired sanctuary manager Larry Aumiller said it&#8217;s another sign these are not your average bears. </p>

<p>&#8220;They&#8217;re so confident and so unconcerned about what we&#8217;re going to do, they&#8217;re relaxed enough to play,&#8221; Aumiller says. &#8220;It&#8217;s great.&#8221; </p>

<p>Therein lies the problem. McNeil&#8217;s bears may be too relaxed for what&#8217;s about to happen, when, one year from now, adjacent buffer zones that protect them will be opened to trophy hunters. It&#8217;s led Aumiller to retire, because he fears he&#8217;s set the bears up for disaster. </p>

<p>He says, &#8220;When you finally get there, and they finally trust you, and you know that trust is going to be violated, I don&#8217;t know how to describe it except to say it&#8217;s heartbreaking.&#8221;</p>

<p>©MMVI, <span class="caps">CBS</span> Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. </p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Salem Vegan Society Interviews Lee Hall</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/july/salem-vegan-society-.html" />
<modified>2006-07-10T18:55:15Z</modified>
<issued>2006-07-10T18:48:25Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.638</id>
<created>2006-07-10T18:48:25Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Vegetarianism</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>This July marks the release of a thought-provoking new work by Lee Hall, legal director of Friends of Animals. <u>Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror</u> defines animal rights, discusses dominant definitions of terrorism, and provides on-point analysis of relevant laws and campaigns. </p>

<p>Hearing that the book takes a look at these timely issues through a decidedly vegan lens, the <strong>Salem Vegan Society</strong> invited Hall to speak about the book. </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Here are a few quotes from the interview. </p>

<p><strong>On free-range farming:</strong></p>

<p>“It’s ethical game-playing. Trendy grocers want us to pay a premium to get those ‘less objectionable’ animal products. Even VegNews had a recent article calling eggs from hens in sheds (rather than conventional cages) ‘egg-cellent news’ for hens. What nonsense. This is all about humane advocates promoting very egg-spensive products.”  </p>

<p><strong>On non-violence:</strong></p>

<p>“A truly vegan animal-rights movement would necessarily be non-violent, and it is no accident that Donald Watson, throughout a rich life that lasted most of a century, never wavered on this point. Watson was a conscientious objector to war. Notably, Watson never said that war could be made humane.”  </p>

<p><a href="http://www.salemvegan.org/viewpoint.htm">Click <span class="caps">HERE</span></a> to read the full interview.</p>

<p><u>Capers in the Churchyard</u> is the new book from Nectar Bat Press, with Foreword by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. <a href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&amp;Store_Code=FOA&amp;Product_Code=Capers">Receive a complimentary Friends of Animals membership</a> when you order directly at the <span class="caps">FOA</span> Web site. International orders are available at Amazon.com.</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Salem (Massachusetts) Vegan Society interviews Lee Hall</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/july/salem-massachusetts-.html" />
<modified>2006-07-03T21:17:02Z</modified>
<issued>2006-07-03T17:51:26Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.637</id>
<created>2006-07-03T17:51:26Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Animal Rights</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>This July marks the release of a thought-provoking new work by Lee Hall, legal director of Darien, Conn.-based Friends of Animals.</p>

<h2>Capers in the Churchyard:Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror</h2>

<p>Written by Lee Hall with Foreword by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson</p>

<p><u>Capers in the Churchyard</u> defines animal rights,  discusses dominant definitions of terrorism, and provides on-point analysis of relevant laws and campaigns. Hearing that the book takes a look at these timely issues through a decidedly vegan lens, the Salem Vegan Society invited Hall to provide us with an interview. Here it is, as printed in the July 2006 issue of <em>Viewpoint</em>, a regular online publication of the Salem Vegan Society (Marc Delaney, ed.). </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p><strong>Salem Vegan Society (SVS):</strong> Lee, we recently told readers about <u>Dining With Friends</u>, a vegan cookbook you co-authored with Priscilla Feral. How did you go from writing for a vegan cookbook to producing a book on activism and anti-terrorism law just in the past year? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Actually, although it’s not immediately obvious, the two books do have a common nexus. In <u>Dining With Friends</u>, Priscilla and I discuss the key importance of the way we eat, the health of the planet, as well as our own health. We talk about how vegan living is direct action on behalf of all other life on the planet, and it’s direct action we can participate in every day. </p>

<p>Rather than eat animals from less objectionable farms - and we can assume that “less objectionable” means that the animals be given more space than would be the case at the typical factory farm - we suggest veganism. Not only does it spare animals a life of being someone’s consumer good, but it also makes sense for nature and the animals who really can have the opportunity to live free lives.  </p>

<p>Advocates of free-range farming seem to think that space for purpose-bred chickens, cows, and pigs is infinite. It’s not. Taking up more room for animal commerce makes no sense at all, from an animal-rights perspective. Veganism, in contrast, makes perfect sense. </p>

<p>So I wanted to explain that veganism - not militancy - is direct action, and that veganism - not free-range farming - respects animals and is the environmentally sound way to live. The Sierra Club won’t say that.  </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong>  Have you asked them to? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> I have. Veganism simply isn’t being advocated by the wealthy non-profits. Free-range is very big these days, and of course many of these groups’ members can afford to shop for expensive, organic fish, cheese, and flesh foods. On a planet of finite space and resources, that trend isn’t sustainable. And it’s ethical game-playing. Trendy grocers want us to pay a premium to get those “less objectionable” animal products. Even VegNews had a recent article calling eggs from hens in sheds (rather than conventional cages) “egg-cellent news” for hens. What nonsense. This is all about humane advocates promoting very egg-spensive products.  </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> Why would advocates act in ways detrimental to their cause? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> That’s what the whole book is about. The short answer is that a good many of their supporters or potential supporters don&#8217;t want to upset their lives by going vegan and being part of the work of actually behaving as a true social movement. So rather than scare off such individuals, activists give them what they call a &#8216;soft sell.&#8217; Of course, that automatically relegates vegan activism to the margins, and that’s a serious problem. I think the reason goes much deeper, psychologically, than developing the soft sell. I think it has to do with the way activists themselves think about other animals and about themselves. I discussed this with two psychologists when I was researching the book, and I concluded that both violence and the soft sell are detrimental techniques; and, moreover, that they work in tandem. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> Activists unknowingly sabotaging activism? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Yes. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong>  Do you offer a way out of these patterns? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Yes, a start. What happens when activists get lost en route to some place? Do they sit there in the road? Do they keep going the wrong way? Or do they turn around and get on the right road? </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> Can mainstream groups learn to be supportive of this solution?  </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Some environmental and civil rights groups have been supportive of serious grassroots activism. The environmental justice movement comes to mind. But with veganism, it’s clear that vegan activism is going to get a foothold only when people who are serious about it begin to promote it and educate people on the issues. Veganism is not about negotiation with industries regarding which kind of confinement we want to pay for. This is why Donald Watson, who co-founded the original Vegan Society in 1944, said veganism is about abolishing whole industries and striving to replace them with entirely with new, life-affirming ones. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong>  You seem to be finding a trend that’s as much a part of the environmentalist groups as the animal-welfare groups. </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Some wildlife-protection groups actually say nothing at all about the connection between animal use and environmental problems. Those that mention animals carefully limit their concerns to factory farming. But all animal farming pollutes terribly and is directly related to the deforestation that’s killing the global biocommunity. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> So the plight of species, as it relates to our farming practices, is essentially being ignored by the nature advocacy community? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Yes, and this can be even more striking. As I describe in the book, and as my co-workers at Friends of Animals - notably Daniel Hammer - point out, animal and environmental advocates are now experimenting with chemicals meant to sterilize free-living animals when there’s some conflict between our interests and the interests of other animals in their habitat. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> What do you think of the view that eliminating the use of some animals as production units, but continuing to use their &#8220;essence,&#8221; if you will, their cells, could be to our advantage as humans? The talk about lab-grown meat comes to mind.  </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> When advocates praise the research on lab-grown meat - putting aside that this research is being done right now through vivisection of goldfish and other animals - it seems to me they’re abdicating their role as vegan educators. <span class="caps">NASA </span>is supporting this research on lab-grown meat.  </p>

<p>So where is this all going? The physicist Stephen Hawking says that to survive Earth’s destruction, we must make plans to travel to the moon or to Mars within the next few decades. If scientists think that such a scenario is a real possibility, we can imagine saving agribusiness by preserving a few tissue biopsies so that we can set up lunar meat labs. Magic - animal agribusiness without animals.  And what’s to become of the free-living animals? Would they be left to die? Perhaps a few would be transported to zoos on Mars?  </p>

<p>I think it’s clear that this disposable planet idea, cobbled together in a few decades, is the essence of terror. On the other hand, a few decades of veganism could turn the damage around. If we can’t address the problems we’ve created right here on Earth, it seems preposterous to think that we can create a decent society somewhere else.  </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> So the idea of living in harmony with nature is a key part of your view of animal-rights theory. </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Indeed. And bringing that into the discussion of terrorism, we should note that arson and bombs have never been about harmony with nature. Militancy, this trendy concept that tells activists that it’s time to declare “war” against the “animal-abusing scum” and show no mercy - it&#8217;s the same aggressive, competitive, controlling, might-makes-right thinking that&#8217;s dragged our society into this whole mess. It made us insist, in all sorts of scenarios, that we are Us, and they are Them; that they’re outside our moral community, and we’re superior to them. It moved us to come up with the tools to make us mighty against all the other life, justified in killing off anything and anyone apparently in the way of the progress of mankind, or whatever it&#8217;s been called for the past 10,000 years since domestication began.  </p>

<p>At the core of vegan understanding is the avoidance of dreary patterns of violence, for violence underlies the very trouble that we came here to transcend. A truly vegan animal-rights movement would necessarily be non-violent, and it is no accident that Donald Watson, throughout a rich life that lasted most of a century, never wavered on this point. Watson was a conscientious objector to war. Notably, Watson never said that war could be made humane. Yet that’s exactly what most of society did in the 1940s.  </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> What is the significance of the churchyard in your book title? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> A family-run farm in central England supplied guinea pigs to product-testing companies such as Huntingdon Life Sciences. As the farm was located in a small, country village, it seemed a relatively easy target for closure. Over the course of several years, activists became increasingly frustrated with the owners of this farm and their refusal to relent to the pressure of the campaign. Eventually, the entire village became a target. One day, remains were dug up from a nearby gravesite and taken away. The body was that of Gladys Hammond, who was related to the farm owners by marriage. The family’s resolve began to crumble. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong>  They closed the farm? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Not exactly. They stopped breeding guinea pigs and resumed full-time dairy farming. And now, as you can imagine, most people in the area take a dim view of the leadership potential of animal advocates. In fact, throughout Britain, animal advocacy is facing a severe backlash, and it’s not limited to there. Animal advocacy, just like animal testing, is global.  So is law enforcement today. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong>  What happened to the grave-diggers? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Four people pleaded guilty - not to grave-digging, but to using the digging as part of a blackmail campaign. Laws in Britain, and here, now allow for serious jail time for conspiracy. That way, the government may avoid having to prove personal culpability for specific illegal acts. As these cases play out, the laws continue to expand government authority. </p>

<p><strong><span class="caps">SVS</span>:</strong> Should part of animal-rights law be about defending those accused of violent acts or intimidation? </p>

<p><strong>Lee Hall:</strong> Defendants need representation when charged under the criminal laws, and our constitutional rights need defending. So lawyers are needed to do such work. I’m not sure, though, why animal-rights lawyers would be specialists in these areas. I think there’s a misconception that cases involving claims of property damage, organized intimidation and so forth are advancing radical positions. Making oneself and others vulnerable to law enforcement is not radical; nor is domineering conduct radical. This point is underscored by today’s economic reality, with prisons connected to private profits and county budgets, and with prison companies now operating as multinationals. When activists go into these places, they become raw materials for yet another industry built on caging living individuals.  </p>

<p>In brilliant contrast, veganism makes a truly radical appeal: We can, and we must, reject oppressive methods in order to bring about a society that renounces domination and control of other animals, and enables us to live according to our true potential.  So I set out to show how and why this should guide activism, with regard to any industry in existence, anywhere in the world.  </p>

<h5>&nbsp;</h5>

<p><u><em>Capers in the Churchyard</u>, by Lee Hall, is the new book from Nectar Bat Press, with Foreword by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. Readers may order directly, and receive a complimentary membership with Friends of Animals, by <a href="http://store.friendsofanimals.org/cookbook.html">ordering through this site</a>. International orders are also available, through Amazon.com.</em> </p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Whole Foods CEO Mackey Endorses Cato Book</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/june/whole-foods-ceo-mack.html" />
<modified>2006-07-01T15:46:31Z</modified>
<issued>2006-06-30T17:32:38Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.636</id>
<created>2006-06-30T17:32:38Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Vegetarianism</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s an excerpt from <strong>“Whole Foods <span class="caps">CEO</span> Mackey Endorses Cato Book - No More Corporate Crime Prosecutions” </strong>by Russell Mokhiber</p>

<blockquote><p>Most people who shop at Whole Foods are liberal yuppies.</p><p>They have enough money to spend $9 on a pound of cherries.</p><p>They believe that shopping for groceries at Whole Foods instead of Safeway or Food Lion or Giant or Wal-Mart is the politically correct thing to do.</p><p>They probably believe that the President and <span class="caps">CEO </span>of Whole Foods is a liberal like themselves.</p></blockquote>

<p>To see the full article by Mokhiber, published recently at <em>Commondreams</em>, see: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0629-21.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0629-21.htm</a></p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>You heard it here first. Regarding John Mackey, readers are urged to revisit what we said one year ago:</p>

<p><strong>Friends of Animals&#8217; Corporate Spin Alert:  Whole Foods Market and the Artifice of Compassion</strong></p>

<p>For the consumer with everything, now comes the &#8220;Animal Compassion&#8221; brand. Wall Street analysts say &#8220;the plan to sell more humanely harvested steaks and chicken breasts will help the bottom line,&#8221; but Whole Foods Market hopes to make the purchase of animal products seem like a charity donation.</p>

<p>The chain is working with animal welfare groups to create the ideal environments and conditions, they say, to support every animal&#8217;s needs.</p>

<p>Friends of Animals president Priscilla Feral responded, in an open letter to the grocery&#8217;s <span class="caps">CEO, </span>&#8220;What matters most here is that we have the ability to decide whether to keep bringing other animals into existence simply to be sold as food, while using up land and water resources that could be left to animals who really could have free and full lives.&#8221;</p>

<p>Making animal products look good is an affront to animal advocacy. It also thwarts principles of good health, of addressing world hunger, and of preserving the global environment before it&#8217;s too late.</p>

<p>A third of the world&#8217;s surface is already taken up with animal grazing. Expanding the space we allot for confined animals may worsen the situation for free-living animals.</p>

<p>And free living is the very essence of animal rights.</p>

<p>We think it&#8217;s time to question the idea that progressive activism is compatible with the corporate search for niche markets in animal products. For more, our full article is freely available at:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/summer-2005/whole-foods-market.html ">http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/summer-2005/whole-foods-market.html </a></p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Animal Circus Ban Proposed in New York City</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/june/animal-circus-ban-pr.html" />
<modified>2006-06-16T16:57:20Z</modified>
<issued>2006-06-16T16:23:22Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.635</id>
<created>2006-06-16T16:23:22Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Circus</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<h2>Friends of Animals and Advocates Gather at City Hall</h2>

<p><span class="caps">NEW YORK,</span> New York&#8212;On Tuesday, June 12th, the steps of City Hall were filled with animal advocates calling to ban animal acts in circuses in New York City.</p>

<div id="photo" style="width: 291px; margin-top: 0; margin-right: 0; float: right;"><img src="/img/2006_circus-protest_02.jpg" alt="2006 Circus Protest, NYC" height="480" width="291" /><div class="caption">Photo of Grant Aleksander, Council Member Rosie Mendez, and Nellie Mckay at City Hall</div></div>

<p>Council Member Rosie Mendez revealed her newly proposed legislation to the press, and a crowd of supporters including Friends of Animals, the League of Humane Voters of New York City, and several other groups and residents of New York City. </p>

<p>Council Member Mendez, a Democrat who represents the 2nd Council District of Manhattan, spoke with conviction about her dedication to getting her legislation banning wild animals from circuses in New York City passed in the City Council, and roused the crowd with her progressive stance against animal exploitation.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Broadway’s Nellie Mckay also passionately addressed the press in support of the ban, as did television star Grant Aleksander, and representatives of several animal advocacy organizations.</p>

<p>John Phillips, executive director of League of Humane Voters of New York City, who organized the press conference, gave on overview of the exploitation of wild animals in the circus, and Edita Birnkrant, <span class="caps">NYC</span> Campaign Coordinator for Friends of Animals spoke to the press and crowd of supporters about the experience of the animals in the wild versus in captivity in the circus.</p>

<h3>Recommended Action for Residents of New York City:</h3><ul><li>Urge your Council Member to support the legislation banning wild and exotic animal acts in <span class="caps">NYC. </span> Let them know that in an enlightened society no animals would be expected to do tricks for the public.</li><li>You can find out who your Council Member is, and get their contact information by going to: <a href="http://www.nyccouncil.info/">http://www.nyccouncil.info</a></li><li>You can also find the council member representing your district, and information on their voting record through the League of Humane Voters of New York City, <a href="http://www.humanenyc.org/">http://www.humanenyc.org</a></li><li>Contact <span class="caps">NYC</span> Mayor Michael Bloomberg at www.nyc.gov or call 311 and leave a message telling him you strongly support the effort to ban wild animals from circuses in New York City.</li></ul></p>

<div id="photo" style="width: 485px; margin0 auto;"><img src="/img/2006_circus-protest_01.jpg" alt="2006 Circus Protest, NYC" height="337" width="485" /></div>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>UI Taking Down Parakeet Nests</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/june/ui-taking-down-parak.html" />
<modified>2006-06-06T18:40:59Z</modified>
<issued>2006-06-06T18:35:46Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.634</id>
<created>2006-06-06T18:35:46Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Monk Parakeet</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<div id="posted" style="border:0px;">By Ken Dixon, published in <a href="http://www.connpost.com/">The Connecticut Post</a>  on June 6, 2006</div><h3>Utility claims nonviolent program means suit should be dismissed </h3>

<blockquote><p>In addition to the 103 nests targeted last fall, UI spokesman Albert Carbone said UI took down another 16 nests at the request of customers.  Surviving birds have started rebuilding 39 nests in West Haven, Stratford, and Bridgeport, but not Milford.</p></blockquote><p><span class="caps">NEW HAVEN</span>—The United Illuminating Co. is now tearing down monk parakeet nests without capturing or killing the birds, lawyers for the utility told a Superior Court Judge on Monday.

<p>But an animal rights group still intends to pursue its lawsuit to prevent the type of catch-and-slaughter program that destroyed 179 parrots in 103 nests last November and December.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Judge David Skolnick seemed skeptical of UI’s position that because it is not eradicating bird colonies right now, a lawsuit filed by the Darien-based Friends of Animals Inc. should be dismissed.</p>

<p>“United Illuminating is not capturing or killing monk parakeets,” said Jonathan Freiman, a Hartford attorney representing the utility, whose surprise program, with assistance from the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Department of Agriculture, stunned bird lovers in the state and across the nation last year.</p>

<p>“United Illuminating has no plans to capture or kill monk parakeets,” Freiman said, adding that the utility took out newspaper advertisements to provide public notice last year in the weeks before the extermination program began in mid-November.</p>

<p>But Freiman, stressing that the case should be dismissed because it is not “ripe,” admitted that snaring and killing the birds could resume someday.</p>

<p>“It is not a promise to never again capture or kill a monk parakeet,” he said.  “This is purely a hypothetical dispute on something that might happen in the future.”</p>

<p>“All this is saying is that at the moment, there are no plans to capture monk parakeets?”  Skolnick asked.  “Right?”</p>

<p>Freiman said that UI has been looking at new methods to shoo the birds from utility poles, but can’t guess whether a solution might be found over upcoming months or years.</p>

<p>UI says the parakeets’ large stick nests built high on utility poles pose a hazard, and blames them for several fires in recent years.</p>

<p>“We’re talking about birds that won’t listen to UI or anybody else,” said Derek V. Otis, attorney for the Friends of Animals.</p>

<p>“They reproduce, eat and nest.  This is a controversy even if they’re not killing now.”</p>

<p>Freiman announced that UI has sought nonviolent solutions to the nests and that the utility is monitoring the rebuilding going on among surviving birds that imprinted the utility poles as their homes.</p>

<p>“Depending on the size, nests are currently being removed on an ongoing basis, Freiman said.  “The company has every hope that routine maintenance will solve the problem.”</p>

<p>At the time of the $125,000 program’s inception last fall, neighbors complained that UI had deferred maintenance on poles for eight years or more, letting the nests grow to immense proportions, sometimes covering electric transformers.</p>

<p>The utility suspended its program after the Friends of Animals filed a request for an injunction last year.  After a Dec. 6 hearing, during which UI announced it would no longer capture birds, the FoA withdrew its initial lawsuit.</p>

<p>Reports of nests causing fires and power outages have varied.</p>

<p>Earlier this year state law-makers were told the birds had caused five or fewer fires, but dozens were detailed in the hundreds of pages of documents UI filed in defending its case against the Friends of Animals.</p>

<p>William J. Cook, director of project management and design for <span class="caps">UI, </span>was prepared to testify Monday, but Otis claimed that there was little way to confirm the utility’s records and that if the judge allows the case to proceed, he will depose UI witnesses and experts on the state’s parrot population.</p>

<p>Priscilla Feral, president of the nonprofit Friends of Animals, said she’s encouraged by the judge’s interest.</p>

<p>“I feel like we’ve got a shot at this,” Feral said outside the courtroom.  “But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change the state statute to protect the parrots, because I’m worried they’ll be back at it next fall.”</p>

<p>UI crews captured generations of the green parrots, which have lived in the region since the early 1970s, during night visits to nests in West Haven, Milford, Stratford and Bridgeport last fall.</p>

<p>Captured birds were turned over to <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Department of Agriculture personnel, which immediately asphyxiated them in carbon-dioxide chambers and kept the carcasses for research.</p>

<p>Albert Carbone, spokesman for <span class="caps">UI, </span>said after the hearing that “a half dozen” stick nests, reconstructed on southwestern Connecticut utility poles after last fall’s eradication program, have recently been torn down without capturing or killing the tenacious birds.</p>

<p>In addition to the 103 nests targeted last fall, Carbone said UI took down another 16 nests at the request of customers.  Surviving birds have started rebuilding 39 nests in West Haven, Stratford and Bridgeport, but not Milford, Carbone said.</p>

<p>Otis, in an interview, said UI’s nonviolent tactic to clear its poles from parrot nests “sort of admits our case.”</p>

<p>The judge did not set a date for a decision on UI’s motion to dismiss the Friends of Animals’ case.</p>

<p>Legislation aimed at protecting the birds was approved in major committees of the General Assembly this year, then died on the House calendar last month before a floor debate could be held on the issue.</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Sanctuary Under Siege</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/june/sanctuary-under-sieg.html" />
<modified>2006-06-06T18:41:35Z</modified>
<issued>2006-06-02T18:43:39Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.633</id>
<created>2006-06-02T18:43:39Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Chimpanzees</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<h3>Concocting a Lawsuit Against a Texas Refuge, Welfare Advocates Throw the Ball at the Wrong Goal</h3>
 <br />
<p>For 23 years, a small group of chimpanzees, natives of equatorial Africa with an intense natural urge for motion and freedom, were kept in Ohio and used in cognition experiments. </p> 

<p>When the project&#8217;s funding dried up, and the University decided to divest itself of the research subjects, the Texas sanctuary Primarily Primates stepped forward to accept the chimpanzees. </p>

<p>The nine chimpanzees were taken out of the Ohio lab on the 27th of February. The experimenter, chained to the laboratory door in an angry display against the University, protested the end of the research opportunity, and quickly found allies to help attack the sanctuary. Some animal advocates joined in the pile-on &#8212; even going so far as to insist they should sue the refuge, and then touting this attack as a landmark case. Great Ape Standing &amp; Personhood provides a report, including observations sent directly from the sanctuary by leading animal rights advocate Priscilla Feral. <a href="http://www.personhood.org/news/primarily_primates.html">Read the report by Great Ape Standing &amp; Personhood here.</p>]]>

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>National Survey Finds States Unprepared for Pets in Disasters</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/may/national-survey-find.html" />
<modified>2006-05-17T22:03:01Z</modified>
<issued>2006-05-17T21:58:54Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.632</id>
<created>2006-05-17T21:58:54Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Disaster/Emergency Relief</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p><span class="caps">DARIEN,</span> Conn . &#8212; Friends of Animals (FoA) and Best Friends Animal Society urge state governments across the country to provide effective disaster planning for pets.  A national survey conducted by Friends of Animals to evaluate emergency plans for pets found preparations to be woefully inadequate in most states.  </p>

<p>Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals, stated: &#8220;Even as the 2006 hurricane season approaches, few states have come up with any specific plan to rescue and provide shelter for pets.  Given the severe problems caused when pets were barred from transport and shelters during Hurricane Katrina, it is imperative that states focus on addressing pets in evacuation and sheltering plans.” </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Adds Feral, “Each of the 50 states informed us about current state plans that address animals in disasters.   Florida has considered the importance of safely bringing animals out of homes when disaster strikes and has a system in place. But 11 states, including Michigan and Kansas, have not even stated an interest in the matter of pet evacuation and sheltering. And a majority of states that purport to have plans, such as Alaska and Virginia, only briefly mention pets.”</p>

<p>A federal Pet Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act has been introduced in Congress to compel states to act.  The bill would make federal assistance dependent upon the state having a disaster plan that considers the needs of pets in transport and sheltering.  The proposed legislation imposes no specific directives or criteria, leaving the details to state planners.</p>

<p>When it comes to the essential aspects of disaster planning, FoA urges state planners to follow the recommendations of the Best Friends Animals Society, a Utah-based sanctuary with experience accompanying units of the 82nd Airborne during the hurricane Katrina rescue effort.   According to Francis Battista, a founder of Best Friends, &#8220;An effective plan must provide for evacuating pets with their families, as Florida does, all the way to their temporary shelter or evacuation city. Temporary human shelters should have companion shelters for housing their pets.&#8221;</p>

<p>Adds Battista, &#8220;In a major disaster such as Katrina, the need far exceeds the capacity of local animal agencies. There is no shortage of willing and capable volunteers, but an effective system of training, organizing and deployment is lacking. This was a source for much confusion following Katrina.&#8221; </p>

<p>To facilitate the development of plans, FoA has created “<a href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/animal-disaster-plans/">Animal Disaster Plans of <span class="caps">U.S.</span> States</a>,&#8221; available online.  It shows, in easy-to-read terms, the status of state preparations, complete with copies of all available plans. This database will assist and inform the media and advocates regarding mitigation, preparedness, rescue and recovery of animals. It will be updated as states address pets in evacuation and sheltering plans.</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Update from Spain: Amnesty International and Catholic Church are taken aback</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/may/update-from-spain-am.html" />
<modified>2006-05-04T16:51:59Z</modified>
<issued>2006-05-04T16:48:55Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.631</id>
<created>2006-05-04T16:48:55Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Animal Rights</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>Recently the human rights group Amnesty International spoke against the idea of according basic rights to honhuman great apes now being considered by Spain&#8217;s governing Socialist Party. </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Amnesty International correctly observed that the rights of many humans in the world are yet to be respected. The group also correctly understood that advocates are actually asking for basic rights for nonhuman apes, acknowledged by the United Nations &#8212; not just improvements in the conditions in which humans hold and use other great apes. </p>

<p>What Amnesty International misses is that respecting the &#8216;personhood&#8217; of great apes does not diminish human rights. Moreover, such a change would help humanity to preserve the environment instead of destroying it, and it would open more general discussions of animal rights in Spain. </p>

<p>The Catholic archbishop Fernando Sebastian denounced the apes&#8217; rights proposal, reportedly declaring, &#8220;Too much progress becomes ridiculous.&#8221; </p>

<p>More information available at the <a href="http://www.personhood.org/main/index.html">Great Ape Standing &amp; Personhood website</a>.</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Horse Advocates Seek Carriage Ban</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/may/horse-advocates-seek.html" />
<modified>2006-05-03T19:23:19Z</modified>
<issued>2006-05-03T19:19:02Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.630</id>
<created>2006-05-03T19:19:02Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Horses</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<p>For Immediate Release<br />
Contact: Edita Birnkrant, Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages <br />
Tel:  917. 940.2725</p>

<h2>Calling for Decency and Public Safety, Horse Advocates Seek Carriage Ban</h2>

<p><span class="caps">NEW YORK,</span> NY — A coalition including Friends of Animals and others striving to ban horse-drawn carriages once again urges Mayor Bloomberg and the New York City Council to pass legislation that would end the dangerous carriage horse industry in New York City. </p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>The latest accident occurred on Friday, April 28th on Central Drive near 64th St. in Central Park:  A frightened horse bolted into a 71-year-old bicyclist, who was hospitalized with injuries, as well as the driver of the carriage, who sustained an injured knee.</p>

<p>Occurring only three months after the tragic accident in January that severely injured a carriage driver and left a horse dead, the incident shows that public safety and decency are compromised by carriage horses in the streets.</p>

<h3>Why ban horse-drawn vehicles in New York?</h3>

<p>Many modern cities &#8212; Toronto, Paris, London, and others &#8212; have taken an enlightened approach, ending the tradition of animal-drawn vehicles.  Animals do not belong in commercial activity that forces them to compete with heavy traffic or be exposed to harsh elements.  These reasons apply as strongly in New York City as they do anywhere in the world. </p>

<h3>Why not just allow animal-drawn carriages at Central Park?</h3>

<p>John Phillips, Executive Director of League of Humane Voters, and a founding member of the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages, explains, “Central Park is filled with bicyclists, runners, children and pedestrians, in addition to cars and taxis—no place for carriage horses. We can’t wait for yet another tragedy to occur before the Mayor and City Council address this problem seriously.”</p>

<p>Horses travel to and from the stables located on 9th and 10th Avenues, between W. 37th and W. 52nd Streets.   Keeping commercial horse activity adjacent to Central Park, as Council Member Tony Avella’s recently proposed legislation seeks to do, fails to acknowledge that horses would still travel this congested corridor &#8212; also a route for emergency vehicles to and from St. Vincent’s Midtown Hospital and Roosevelt Hospital, and a conduit for many vehicles going to the Lincoln Tunnel or the West Side Highway.  The horrific accident in January happened on this very route back to the stables from Central Park.</p>

<p>Avella’s legislation focuses on regulating the activity and not ending it. The historical urge to reform the horse-drawn carriage industry is a dangerous pattern.</p>

<p>Regulating the practice won’t stop public safety problems. And it seeks to sustain a disrespectful practice that needs to be ended. </p>

<p>The Coalition has drafted legislation to effectively phase out this industry and seeks to have current horses adopted to protect them from kill auctions.</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Wolf control effort fails to hit target</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2006/may/wolf-control-effort-.html" />
<modified>2006-05-03T17:54:17Z</modified>
<issued>2006-05-03T17:49:22Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.friendsofanimals.org,2006://1.629</id>
<created>2006-05-03T17:49:22Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"></summary>
<dc:subject>Wolves</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.friendsofanimals.org/">
<![CDATA[<div id="posted" style="border:0px;">By Tim Mowry, published in <a href="http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3303253,00.html">Fairbanks Daily News-Miner</a> on May 3, 2006</div>

<p>The high price of fuel is just one reason the number of wolves taken in the state&#8217;s aerial wolf-control program this winter was lower than expected, according to state wildlife officials.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>While they still have two days to report wolves taken before the program ended on April 30, aerial gunners had reported taking 153 wolves in five areas of the state this winter as of Tuesday. State wildlife officials were aiming for a harvest of up to 400 wolves.</p>

<p>Bad weather, a court ruling that halted the entire program for a week in January and a closure in Game Management Unit 16B west of Anchorage during the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race also conspired against aerial wolf hunters.</p>

<p>&#8230;</p>

<p>It didn&#8217;t help that hunters lost two prime weeks to suspensions in the program in Unit 16B. The program was shut down for a week in January as a result of a court ruling in a lawsuit by Connecticut-based animal rights group Friends of Animals and it was halted for another week in early March for the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, which runs through Unit 16B.</p>

<p>&#8230;</p>

<p>Friends of Animals, which has led the attack against the state&#8217;s predator control program, will keep up the fight, executive director Priscilla Feral said.</p>

<p>The group is considering another lawsuit depending on what the state Board of Game does in a special meeting May 12-14 in Anchorage. The Game Board will be taking up several proposals it tabled during a March meeting in Fairbanks that would expand or add areas to its current wolf-control program.</p>

<p>&#8220;We will continue to intervene,&#8221; Feral said.</p>

<p>Friends of Animals has been running ads in several major magazines, as well as the nation&#8217;s largest newspaper, <span class="caps">USA</span> Today, to bring attention to Alaska&#8217;s wolf-killing program, Feral said.</p>

<p>&#8220;If you shoot wolves to save moose and then you shoot the moose, you&#8217;re either out of your mind or in Alaska,&#8221; the ad says above a pack of wolves in a snowfield.</p>

<p>(Full story: <a href="http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3303253,00.html ">http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3303253,00.html</a>)</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>

</feed>