Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Here's to Cerkowski

0 views

Skip to first unread message

dh...@nomail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2003, 8:54:16 PM6/29/03

>
>
>
> COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS
>
>
>
> INTRODUCTION:
>
> Just as some ethical vegetarians have misconceptions about
>people who farm, hunt, slaughter and use animals in research,
>some of the opponents (often known as "Antis") of the animal
>rights movement also have mistaken ideas about AR activists
>(ARAs) and their goals and organizations. This document is
>intended to address those misapprehensions as fairly as
>possible.
>
>
> THE "CULT" OF ANIMAL RIGHTS:
>
> Many Antis view ARAs as near-mindless followers of a few
>charismatic leaders and/or texts. They believe that AR dogma
>is delivered to activists who then accept and follow it
>blindly. While there may be a grain of truth behind this idea,
>it is on the whole mistaken for two reasons. First, the AR
>movement has *no* leaders who command the obedience, or even
>the complete agreement, of most ARAs. Even small AR groups
>are rife with conflicting opinions and dissent; ask a group
>of twenty ARAs a question about a basic tenet of their beliefs
>and you will get at least five (and sometimes twenty) different
>answers.
>
> The same kinds of factionalism and disagreement on theory
>and policy that plague grassroots movements in general can be
>found throughout the animal rights community. Every movement
>has people who lead, people who follow, and people who prefer
>to think and act as individuals. ARAs are no exception.

But there is the danger that people who want to promote
better lives for domestic animals in the future (Animal Welfare),
are unawarely contributing to "Animal Rights" groups instead.
People should be very careful who they send their money to,
because the goal of "AR" groups is to cause the extinction
of domestic animals, not improve their welfare. The
accomplishment of the "AR" goal would make welfare
improvements for domestic animals impossible.

> ANIMAL RIGHTS AS IRRATIONAL RELIGION:
>
>
> It is tempting to believe that people who think
>differently are irrational; that they blindly follow dogma
>without a moment's thought to the logical issues raised by
>their beliefs and actions. The philosophy of animal rights
>is based on rational consideration of the world as humans
>perceive it, just like many other schools of thought. While
>there are some ARAs who prefer to think in slogans and who
>never doubt themselves, many of us spend vast amounts of
>time considering and reconsidering our positions and the
>reasons that underlie them. While some sleep the Sleep Of
>The Just, many others lie awake, thinking and worrying.
>From Peter Singer and Tom Regan to anonymous student
>activists, the animal rights movement is as much a rational
>undertaking as most other human endeavors. Our conclusions
>may be different from the mainstream, but our basic
>perceptions and analytical processes are essentially the
>same.
_________________________________________________________
AVMA Policy on Animal Welfare and Animal Rights

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well-being, from proper housing and nutrition to preventive
care, treatment of disease, and when necessary, humane euthanasia.
The AVMA's commitment to animal welfare is unsurpassed.

However, animal welfare and animal rights are not the same. 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 food and fiber, and for research conducted
to benefit both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org./care4pets/morewelf.htm#rights
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
No one who accepts the philosophy of animal rights would be
satisfied with a continuation of our society's rapacious consumption
of farm animals, for example, even if these animals were raised in an
ecologically sustainable fashion, and were transported and
slaughtered "humanely". Animal welfarists, by contrast, are
committed to the pursuit of "gentle usage." They believe it morally
permissible to use nonhumans for human benefit, but think humans
should try to "minimize" suffering. Thus, whereas welfarists seek to
*reform* current practices of animal exploitation, while retaining such
exploitation in principle, rights advocates oppose all such
exploitation in principle and seek to *abolish* all such exploitation in
practice.
Recognition of the moral inviolability of individual animals
not only helps shape the ends that the animal rights movement seeks,
it should also help articulate the morally acceptable means that may
be used. And this is important. 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.
[...]

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and
Gary Francione
The Animal's Agenda (pp.40-43)
January/February 1992
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
"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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
09 Sep 2000 by Jonathan Ball
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.

19 Oct 2000 by Jonathan Ball
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration

02 Dec 2000 by Jonathan Ball
if domestic animals were to go extinct, there would be
no moral loss

2001-09-17 From: Jonathan Ball
"Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm
animals. And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm
animals would live in bad conditions.

27 Jul 2001 by Jonathan Ball
If they never live in the first place, there is no moral
loss to humans, animals or the universe.

01 Aug 2001 by Jonathan Ball
You don't have any way of measuring the psychic value
to the cow of the welfare improvement. You only know
that *you* feel better about it
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> THE ARA AS LUDDITE:
>
> The opposition of ARAs to the use of animals in
>medical and other research is often taken by Antis to be
>symptomatic of a general "science phobia". This, along
>with the frequently expressed desire for a simpler,
>more natural lifestyle, leads many Antis to believe that
>the animal rights movement rejects science and technology,
>and if allowed to implement its goals, will plunge the
>world back into disease-ridden squalor. This is not the case.
>While some ARAs may be Luddites to some degree, most aren't.
>It must also be noted that many true Luddites fully support
>the exploitation of animals, albeit in a more traditional
>manner. There is no direct link between the two
>philosophies, any more than there is a direct link between
>political Conservatism and anti-government militias.

Regardless of all that, let us not ignore what animal research
has provided for both human and nonhuman animals:
_________________________________________________________
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:

Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year.

Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin
dependent -- they would be dead.

60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure
from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure.

Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive
acute lymphocytic leukemia.

More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year
because cataract surgery would be impossible.

Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord
injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.

The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements
would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs.

7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now
preventable through phototherapy.

There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with
end-stage renal disease.

Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of
modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general
insensitivity to pain.

Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others
would join the two million people already killed by the disease.

Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died from
anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and more than 200 other
diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.

http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.

In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]

http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
For much more see:

http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/home.html
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
http://www.cix.co.uk/~embra/armyths.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> THE ARA AS CLUELESS URBANITE:
>
> Another common myth about animal rights activists
>(that conflicts somewhat with the previously mentioned
>one) is that we are all city dwellers, with no real
>experience of the natural world, and possessing opinions
>that are shaped more by the movie "Bambi" than by reality.
>Every person, and every movement, has a unique mythology.
>For every ARA who believes that hunters are all cruel,
>mindless brutes, there is probably a hunter who thinks
>that (s)he is a carnivore, complete with fangs for
>killing. Both groups need to examine our mythologies.
>
> Many ARAs live in rural areas, and many have direct
>experience with wildlife and with nature. Some of us have
>formal training in fields like biology and wildlife
>rehabilitation, and some of us are even former hunters.
>The 'city dweller' tag is a double-edged weapon, as many
>hunters also live in urban and suburban areas. If a hunter
>who drives to a wild area to hunt can be considered a
>repository of knowledge about nature, then an ARA who
>drives to wild areas to hike and camp deserves the same
>consideration.

It should also be taken into consideration that "ARAs"
want to eliminate human hunting, and leave wildlife
management to things which care nothing about humane
killing methods, or intentionally maintaining a particular
population size of prey animals:
_________________________________________________________
"Without hunting, deer and other animals would overpopulate and die of
starvation."
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature's way of ensuring that the
strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the
sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal
whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace-often the
large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting creates
the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in
population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate.

http://www.peta-online.org/fp/hunt.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Though the population controlling methods suggested above
may seem ethically superior to some people, we should keep
in mind that they do not deliberately allow baby prey animals
to reach the level of maturity that human hunters do before
attempting to kill them... The methods suggested above kill
baby animals and pregnant mothers, in contrast to human
hunters who avoid doing so. They also are completely
unconcerned with trying to apply humane killing methods, and
are therefore very likely to cause much more suffering for
animals than human hunters do. They also do not deliberately
provide the animals with periods of time when they don't
attack them, as humans do by observing hunting seasons and
by usually not hunting them at night.

> ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY AS A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS:
>
> Most of the larger AR organizations use direct mailings,
>both to raise funds and to get their message out to the
>largest possible number of people. Antis often look at
>the gross income generated by these mailings and proclaim
>that organizations like PETA and HSUS are 'in it for the
>money'. This view ignores the fact that most of the gross
>income from bulk mailings goes to pay for *more* bulk
>mailings, and that the actual funds raised are fairly
>modest.
_________________________________________________________
With a $46-million budget and 4.1 million members, the Washington,
D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the
largest animal rights organization in the country. Founded in 1954 and
staffed by 200 employees, HSUS is sometimes confused with local
humane societies that find homes for unwanted cats and dogs. But
according to its own literature, "we are not . . . affiliated with any local
animal shelters or humane organizations."1

Indeed, HSUS’s image as an animal welfare organization no doubt
helps account for its popularity with animal lovers, who pay annual
membership dues of $10.00 (individual) and $18.00 (family). Yet
HSUS is an animal rights organization, as much as the better-known
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) examined in the
July 1997 Alternatives in Philanthropy.

As that issue emphasized, donors who wish to support organizations
that help animals must understand the difference between animal rights
and animal welfare. Animal rights organizations, which emerged in the
early 1980s, seek to end the use and ownership of animals. Animal
welfare organizations, on the other hand, have existed for decades
and seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
[...]
http://www.capitalresearch.org/ap/ap-1097.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
The animal rights movement, virtually unknown to Americans
just 15 years ago, has grown from a handful of small, all-volunteer
groups to several hundred nonprofit organizations, many well-funded
and professionally staffed. With an estimated 10 million supporters
and combined budgets of over $200 million, animal rights groups have
targeted biomedical researchers, livestock and poultry farmers,
hunters and trappers, and others whom they accuse of animal abuse.
This article examines one of the most successful animal rights groups,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PeTA.
[...]
http://www.capitalresearch.org/ap/ap-0797.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>A few million dollars may seem like a lot, but
>it is a pittance when compared with the tens to hundreds
>of millions of dollars available to groups that are
>funded by industries that use animals or manufacture
>the tools and weapons used in animal research and hunting.
>Salaries in AR organizations are typically quite modest,
>and most activists are either completely unpaid, or make
>poverty-level wages. This is definitely not a wealthy
>movement.

Of course people should also consider *how* a group
spends the donations it receives:
_________________________________________________________
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.

http://altpet.net/petition/arquote.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> A related criticism is that groups that advocate animal
>rights spend only a small portion of their available funds
>to help animals in shelters or on the streets. This tactic
>is effective - until one realizes that if money is spent
>on 'band-aid' approaches that don't attempt to change the
>status quo, then the status quo will continue, and more
>animals will suffer in the long run.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
That's right, the Associated Press reports that the
animal lovers at PETA believe it's more ethical to
whack dogs and cats than to keep them in a cage. As
a result, the same people who weep for cows and
chickens and rats are annihilating animals right and left.

All animal shelters struggle with the problem of finding
homes for unwanted pets. Many do a better job than
PETA.

The AP reports that PETA killed 1,325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year, more than half of all the animals it
took in. Odds of survival were much better over at the
Norfolk SPCA, where fewer than a third of the
animals were put down.
[...]
http://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/op0801dou.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Animal welfare
>groups do a good job of trying to help animals that are
>currently suffering. The mission of animal rights groups
>is to change society's attitudes about using animals, in
>the hope that future suffering will be greatly reduced.
>The two approaches are complementary, and AW and AR
>groups and activists each benefit from the presence of
>the other, despite our disagreements.
_________________________________________________________
"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.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> THE ARA AS TERRORIST:
>
> Everyone involved in the debate about animal rights
>is aware of the existence of the Animal Liberation
>Front, and of similar organizations that use destruction
>of property, and sometimes threats of violence against
>people who exploit animals, to achieve their ends. The
>media has also widely publicized the tactic, sometimes
>used by anti-fur activists, of splashing red paint on
>fur coats while people are wearing them. This has led to
>a general perception of the animal rights activist as
>someone who practices, or at least supports, violence.
>In fact, the typical ARA does nothing more menacing
>than write letters, debate online, or stand in a picket
>line holding a placard. Many animal rights activists
>are also *human* rights activists who abhor violence
>against any conscious being. The typical ARA is more
>likely to financially support human charities than
>the ALF. Even the Animal Liberation Front, while
>using extreme and controversial tactics, has expressed
>a commitment to avoid direct harm to human beings.
>ARAs as a group do not hate children, or people in
>general, and do not wish to grant animals more
>(or even comparable) rights than humans. We simply
>believe that animals have the right to be considered
>as more than a means to human ends.
_________________________________________________________
September 21, 2001 UK:
Ashley Broadley Glynn Harding, the mail bomber
who sent 15 letter bombs to animal-related businesses and individuals over
a three-month period last winter, was sentenced to indefinite detention in
mental hospital. Additional court ordered restrictions mean that Harding will
not be released until the Home Secretary is satisfied that he poses no risk to
the public. The bomber's mail terror campaign injured two adults and one
child, one woman lost her left eye, the child scarred for life. At trial, evidence
indicated that he had intended to mail as many as 100 letter bombs.

August 16, 2001 UK:
One of the three men who assaulted Brian Cass, managing director of
Huntingdon Life Sciences, at his home, received a sentence of three years in
jail for his part in the attack. David Blenkinsop and two others donned ski
masks and ambushed Cass as he arrived home, bludgeoning him with wooden
staves and pickaxe handles. DNA on the handles and Blenkinsop’s clothing
helped convict him of the offense.

June 12, 2001 MO:
A 30-year-old animal rights activist attacked a
"Survivor" series cast member at a workplace safety promotion, pepper
spraying him in the face and hitting several onlookers, including children, as
well. Police arrested the attacker. Michael Skupin, who lasted six weeks on
"Survivor," attributed the attack to his killing of a pig for food on the series.

May 31, 2001 Canada:
In a raid late this month, Toronto police arrested
two men and put out an appeal for apprehension of a third in connection
with animal cruelty charges stemming from the videotaped skinning of live
animals. The video showed a cat being tortured and killed allegedly by a
self-styled artist and vegan protesting animal cruelty. Anthony Ryan
Wenneker, 24, and Jessie Champlain Powers, 21 were arrested. The raid
turned up a headless, skinned cat in the refrigerator, along with other
animal skeletons, including a dog, some mice and rats, and the videos.
Police are searching for the third person seen in the videos.

May 23, 2001 UK:
Three men, ages 34, 31 and 34, were arrested for the
attack on Brian Cass, Director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. The baseball bat
brandishing attackers split Cass' scalp and bruised him and sprayed a
would-be rescuer with CS gas on February 22, 2001. One of the men was
arrested at an animal sanctuary run by TV script writer Carla Lane.

May 9, 2001 Israel:
Shraga Segal, an immunologist and former dean of the
Ben-Gurion University medical school, resigned his post as chairman of the
government body that supervises research involving animals. Segal received
a faxed death threat and threats of violence against his family.

April 27, 2001 WA:
Governor Gary Locke signed into law this week a
measure that would make it a misdemeanor to knowingly interfere with or
recklessly injure a guide dog, or to allow one's dog to obstruct or intimidate
a guide dog. Repeat offenses could net up to one year in jail and a $5,000
fine. The measure sailed through the legislature in record time after reports
of blind people being harassed by animal rights fanatics, both verbally and
by looking for opportunities to separate the guide dogs from their owners.

April 19, 2001 UK:
In the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the US subsidiary of Huntingdon Life Sciences joined in the filing of an
amended complaint against SHAC, Voices for Animals, Animal Defense
League, In Defense of Animals, and certain individuals. The amended filing
asserts claims under the Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Statute (RICO) and cited physical attacks on individual employees, death
threats, bomb threats, destruction of property, burglary, harassment and
intimidation; and also asserts claims for interference with contractual
relations and economic advantage. The original plaintiffs in the action were
the Stephens Group and its wholly owned investment-banking subsidiary,
Stephens, Inc.

February 23, 2001 UK:
In a major public escalation of animal rights terrorist violence, the managing
director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was attacked as he arrived home by
three masked goons wielding baseball bats or ax handles. Brian Cass, 53,
bludgeoned with head and body wounds and bruises, including a 3-inch
scalp gash, was saved from further injury by his girl friend's screams and
the aid of two passersby. One of the Good Samaritans chased the
attackers, but was debilitated by CS gas from one of the attackers. Cass,
stitched up and back at work the next day, vowed to continue the work of
HLS, which includes government mandated tests seeking cures for
dementia, diabetes, AIDS, asthma and other diseases. In reaction to the
attack, Ronnie Lee, ALF founder who is no longer with the group, condoned
the attack and expressed surprise that it didn't happen more often,
declaring that Cass got off "lightly." Other animal rights groups publicly
backed off condoning the act, but expressed "understanding" of how it
could occur. In calendar year 2000, 11 Huntingdon employees' cars were
firebombed.

February 21, 2001 UK:
Two men ages 26 and 36, and one 31 year-old woman were arrested in
connection with letter bombing attacks against at least eleven agricultural
businesses. Since December 10, 2000, three bombs were intercepted, but 5
of 10 others exploded, causing serious eye and facial injury to two adults,
and leg wounds to a 6-year old daughter of one of the intended victims.
Authorities considered all of the bombs potentially lethal. The businesses
included pet supply, pest control, farming, agricultural supply, and a
livestock auction agency.

February 13, 2001 Scotland:
A letter bomb was sent to an agricultural entity in the Borders. Army
experts were called out to defuse the bomb.

February 12, 2001 UK:
An agricultural firm in North Yorkshire received a letter bomb which was
defused without incident by army experts.

February 4, 2001 UK:
In an attack near Nantwich, Cheshire Beagles master George Murray, his
wife and five other hunt members were assaulted by masked animal rights
activists. At least five hunt members were injured by the stick- and
whip-wielding attackers. Murray was beaten, kicked in the head and face
and his wife was punched in the face. They were threatened with death as
retribution for the death 10 years ago of hunt saboteur Michael Hill.

January 31, 2001 UK:
A letter bomb exploded in Cumbria in a charity shop owned by the British
Heart Foundation. The woman who opened the package was not injured.

January 30, 2001 UK:
Two nail bombs, sent to an agricultural supplier in Sheffield and a cancer
research campaign shop in Lancashire, were detected and defused by
authorities before being opened by the recipients. Both bomb attacks were
linked to letter bomb mailings that started in mid-December.

January 5, 2001 UK:
Livestock auction estate agents in East Yorkshire are attacked by letter
bomb. One female staff member sustained serious eye injuries from the
explosion.

January 5, 2001 UK:
A farmer in North Yorkshire was injured by nails from an exploding letter
bomb.

December 30, 2000 UK:
A mail bomb sent to a pest control company in Cheshire exploded, injuring
the owner's 6-year old daughter who was helping her father with the mail.
The girl was cut on her legs and feet by shrapnel from the envelope.
Authorities suspect animal rights activists in the bombing.

October 23, 2000 UK:
Two hunt members received death threats and car bombs. Both were on a
publicized list of seven huntsmen considered to be "legitimate targets" by
the Hunt Retribution Squad." All seven had received threatening letters on
September 4, 2000. Amateur whip David Pitfield's van was destroyed by one
bomb in South Nutfield, Surrey. The bomb under a woman hunt member's
vehicle in East Sussex, discovered five hours later, did not detonate and
was removed by army bomb experts. Both bombs were considered lethal.

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/arterror.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> ARAs AS ELITISTS:
>
> Animal rights activists are sometimes portrayed
>as well-off Weekend Warriors, with no concern for
>humanity's economic well-being, and no willingness
>to endure bodily discomfort or financial hardship
>
>for their cause. There are also regular accusations
>of intellectual elitism and disconnection from
>everyday concerns. Actually, the typical ARA works
>full time at a low or mid-level job, is involved
>with hands-on animal rescue work or care, and, as
>previously mentioned, is deeply concerned with
>matters of human rights and economic justice in
>addition to the issue of animal rights. ARAs are
>much more likely to be found in college towns and
>low-rent districts than in Hollywood or in expensive
>suburbs. AR activism as a career does not pay well
>for the vast majority of those who work at it
>professionally, and people who are activists in
>addition to holding "real" jobs are the rule, not
>the exception.
>
> CONCLUSION:
>
> One of the basic tenets of conflict is "Know thy
>opponent." While it may be in the short-term interests
>of "Antis" to misrepresent animal rights activists,
>in the long term they would do well to learn more about
>how we really are, as opposed to how we are sometimes
>portrayed. Both sides in this debate need to engage in
>more genuine dialog, and less demonization.
_________________________________________________________
"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.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯