AR-NEWS Digest 468

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) (US) Report: Don't Kill Extra Chimps
     by allen schubert 
  2) Human-BSE link proved
     by Vadivu Govind 
  3) Felony charges at UC Davis
     by civillib@cwnet.com
  4) Article in Harper's
     by Andrew Gach 
  5) Nice Fur Blurb in TV GUIDE
     by Hillary 
  6) Fur On MSNBC Site
     by Hillary 
  7) Fur On MSNBC Site
     by Hillary 
  8) NYTimes: NRC Recommends Better Care for Chimps
     by LCartLng@gvn.net (Lawrence Carter-Long)
  9) Newswire: Safe homes sought for glut of research chimps 
     by Lawrence Carter-Long 
 10) CAMPFIRE VOTE on TUESDAY, JULY 22
     by "Christine M. Wolf" 
 11) Santa Cruz Sheep
     by "ida" 
 12) (VA)case against pork processor...
     by NOVENAANN@aol.com
 13) (VA) Agency kills geese that annoyed lobbyist
     by NOVENAANN@aol.com
 14) (CA) In the Ring Without the Bull
     by NOVENAANN@aol.com
 15) (US) Dolphin Death Act Vote Next Week
     by OnlineAPI@aol.com
 16) Plague - Humans USA 1996
     by bunny 
 17) Monkey debate
     by Sean Thomas 
 18) Deciding the Fate of Canada's Monkeys
     by Sean Thomas 
 19) Safe homes sought for glut of research chimps
     by Mesia Quartano 
 20) AR-News Admin Note--Archives
     by allen schubert 
 21) Dolphins use sponges to fish
     by Andrew Gach 
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:40:26 -0400
From: allen schubert 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US) Report: Don't Kill Extra Chimps
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970717124023.006bdad4@clark.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from AP Wire page:
-------------------------------------
 07/16/1997 17:07 EST

 Report: Don't Kill Extra Chimps

 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chimpanzees that are not needed for science
 experiments should be placed in zoos or preserves rather than being
 killed, a National Research Council committee recommended Wednesday.

 The committee weighed putting the animals to sleep but found that choice
 unacceptable because ``they are more like humans than other laboratory
 species.''

 ``Simply put, killing a chimpanzee currently requires more ethical and
 scientific justification than killing a dog,'' the committee found.

 Instead, the panel recommended that a government agency be designated to
 deal with the chimpanzees.

 ``Shifting management of the majority of these animals to a central
 office should help avoid future oversupplies and ensure that the
 chimpanzees would be used more efficiently,'' the committee said in a
 report released Wednesday.

 In 1986, the National Institutes of Health launched a breeding program to
 meet an expected increase in demand for research animals to be used in
 AIDS experiments.

 But demand never reached expected levels, and today there are 1,500
 chimpanzees at six biomedical facilities around the country. The
 committee said that number would meet research demand for at least five
 years.

 The government owns or sponsors about 1,000 of those animals, which cost
 $15 to $30 each to maintain daily. It can cost $300,000 to feed and house
 a research chimpanzee during its 25 to 34 years of life.

 If the excess chimps were turned over to a government agency, the
 committee said, alternative living arrangements should be found for those
 that will not be needed for research.

 ``Animals that pose no health threat should be transferred to
 sanctuaries, zoos or other compounds that meet established guidelines for
 proper long-term care,'' the committee said.

 But about 260 of the chimpanzees that could be turned over to the
 government carry infectious diseases and should either remain at the
 biomedical facilities or be housed in a facility that can contain them.

 The National Research Council is an arm of the congressionally chartered
 National Academy of Sciences. It advises the government on scientific
 matters.

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:44:30 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Human-BSE link proved
Message-ID: <199707170444.MAA29298@eastgate.cyberway.com.sg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



>South China Morning Post
Thursday  July 17  1997

     Human-BSE link proved

     AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in London

     British scientists have come up with the first laboratory proof
suggesting mad cow disease can jump species and infect humans, although not
as easily or routinely as had originally been feared.

     Fears that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) could infect humans
in the form of  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) triggered panic 16 months
ago that resulted in a  European Union ban on the export of British beef.
That ban was based largely on empirical observation of a new strain of CJD
which  scientists believed, but never proved, had derived from BSE.

     The research published in today's edition of the scientific journal
Nature indicates the  BSE-altered protein, or prion, can be passed to
humans, but only with great difficulty.

     The researchers also found that the sheep ailment scrapie, a similar
brain-destroying  neurological disease, is also capable of jumping species,
with about the same low frequency as BSE.

     The research, conducted by Dr James Hope at the Institute for Animal
Health in Newbury, Berkshire, could be viewed as both reassuring and alarming.

     On the one hand, BSE transmission to humans was found to be possible
but unlikely. On the other, scrapie, always thought to be confined to sheep,
was found to be transferable to humans with the same limited frequency.
BSE-infected beef has been blamed for the variant CJD that strikes people at
a much younger age than the more widely known strain, which kills some 50
people a year in  Britain.

     The British Department of Health has confirmed 19 cases of the variant.
Most of the 19 have died. Scientists have not ruled out the hypothesis the
cases are the tip of an epidemic of infection.

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 22:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: civillib@cwnet.com
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Felony charges at UC Davis
Message-ID: <199707170541.WAA15086@borg.cwnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 16, 1997






2 Hit With Felonies,
27 Charged With Multiple
Counts In UCD Arraignment

     WOODLAND, CA -- Two people were charged Wednesday in an arraignment  here
in Yolo County Superior Court with felony "conspiracy" for planning a
demonstration against animal cruelty at the University of California, Davis
last April 20.

     Twenty-seven others were charged with between 5 and 8 separate misdemeanor
counts, including trespass, failure to disperse, unlawful assembly,
interference with the peaceful activities of a campus, failure to leave a
campus, vandalism and riot.

     No police officers were injured during the demonstration -- held to protest
the conditions of 4,000 primates being used in lab experiments at UC Davis
-- but at least 2 protestors were injured, and one was hospitalized, when UC
police used billy clubs. Civil suits for excessive force and police
brutality are expected to be filed against University of California soon.

     "The charges, especially the felony charges, are blatant attempts to chill
free speech on the campus, and to divert attention from the extralegal,
dangerous behavior of the officers that used clubs in April," said Crescenzo
Vellucci, a director with the Activist Civil Liberties Committee and one of
those charged with a felony and also eight misdemeanor counts.

     "One of my misdemeanors involves me holding a news conference the day after
the demonstration, across the street from UC Davis, to discuss UC police
brutality. The goal of UC Davis now is to stop us from talking about, or
filing, those suits," he added.

     Bhaskar Sinha, a student at UCD, was also charged with a felony, and 5
misdemeanors, for organizing the student protest. 

     All defendants, through their attorney Lawrence Weiss of Santa Rosa,
pleaded "not guilty" to all charges. A hearing is set on the felony charges
Aug. 4 and a trial scheduled Oct. 20 on the misdemeanor charges.
-30-
Contact: ACLC (916) 452-7179




Activist Civil Liberties Committee
PO Box 19515, Sacramento, CA 95819 (916) 452-7179 Fax: (916) 454-6150

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:43:48 -0700
From: Andrew Gach 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Article in Harper's
Message-ID: <33CDBF24.3C8B@worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

An excellent pro-animal article in the August issue of Harper's.  Don't
miss it!

Andy
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:02:43 -0700
From: Hillary 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Nice Fur Blurb in TV GUIDE
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970717110237.007574a0@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

There is a nice little blurb in next weeks tv guide on how Bill Mayer and
Ellen DeGeneres will bothe be doing anti fur ads for PeTA this fall.  And
they;re funny ads too.

Hillary
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:09:13 -0700
From: Hillary 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Fur On MSNBC Site
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970717110911.007574a0@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Fur’s ‘resurgence’ just window dressing 


Animal-rights movement may have slipped, but it’s still very alive


 By Paul Roberts 
MSNBC 
        Fur, it may seem to the casual observer, is back. Five years ago,
wearing mink or fox was the height of environmental scandal, punishable by
stares, insults and even splatters of red dye — compliments of the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF). Today, to read the fashion press, fur stirs as much
envy as anger. Sales are up 14 percent over 1995, according to industry
officials, and the number of clothiers using fur has more than tripled
since the mid-1980s. 


        The reason? Industry representatives credit cold winters, a boiling
economy and grunge’s demise. But they also say much of fur’s resurgence
stems, ironically, from the animal-rights movement, with its self-righteous
moralizing and increasingly extreme acts — from torching McDonald’s to
raiding mink farms — sparking a consumer backlash. 
        As part of what sociologist Faith Popcorn calls “pleasure revenge,”
Americans are merrily consuming items and experiences long banned as
incorrect, from sirloins and cigars to martinis and fur. “There is a
feeling in America today that we have had enough political correctness,”
says Stephanie Kenyon, spokeswoman for the Fur Information Council of
America. “Stop telling us what to do and what not to do.” 
        In fact, according to fur officials, the only business the
animal-rights movement has succeeded in hurting is its own. Contributions
to groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have
dropped substantially in the past few years — a decline the fur industry
attributes to public disdain of activists’ in-your-face style of protest.
The real stuff abounded in Milan, Italy, in March, as fashion house Fendi
showed a luxurious autumn/winter collection. 
        Are Americans
“over” their animal guilt? And did the animal-rights movement help? The
answers aren’t as simple as the pro-fur folks might hope. Without question,
the movement’s image is suffering. Its rhetoric is often harsh and
demagogic; acts of sabotage are often glorified. “A.L.F. Rampage Fur
Industry — economic sabotage galore!” screams out a Web site entitled, “No
Compromise.” The page is decorated with burning bomb fuses.
        More to the point, the movements’ “actions” are increasingly
unlikely to win mainstream sympathy. On a May 30 raid, for example,
suspected ALF activists “liberated” some 10,000 mink from a Mount Angel,
Ore., fur farm; unfortunately, 2,400 mink subsequently died of exposure and
infighting, according to police and industry reports. Activists dispute the
death toll, but the incident was a public-relations gift to the industry.
“If they care about animals, they can’t defend what happened down there,”
one industry official told The [Portland] Oregonian last month. “Whoever
did this is no different than Timothy McVeigh.” ‘Whoever did this is no
different than Timothy McVeigh.’ 
— A FUR INDUSTRY OFFICIAL
        Even some in the movement itself are distressed. “These people are
not aspiring to create extended and enduring change on behalf of animals,”
says Anne Davis, executive director of Utah Animal Rights Alliance. “The
animal-rights movement has become divided, and an effort divided
accomplishes nothing.”
        Not surprisingly, ALF supporters see things differently. J.P.
Goodwin, executive director of the Dallas-based Coalition to Abolish the
Fur Trade, a mouthpiece for ALF, concedes that the latter’s rhetoric goes
over the top. He says the movement has had a “recent infusion of young
blood, and with that comes some immaturity” — a statement that qualifies as
the understatement of the year. He agrees that a “large percentage” of the
public “may be put off” by acts of sabotage. But he defends the practice as
critical for both eliminating the fur industry and gaining the public
attention that has slipped from seven years ago, when anti-fur protests
were a novelty and fur sales were cut by nearly 50 percent.
        In fact, while Goodwin admits his movement is at times struggling,
he scoffs at the industry contention that activists are somehow responsible
for a fur resurgence. “I cannot believe that a social backlash would cause
the average person to go out and spend $5,000 on a fur coat,” Goodwin says,
“unless they were filthy rich and had absolutely nothing better to do.”
        Readers may find Goodwin’s defense of sabotage indefensible — and
his grasp of human nature laughable. But his insistence that activists not
be blamed for fur’s resurgence deserves a second look, not the least
because the “resurgence” is itself something of scam. In 1996, the industry
reported $1.25 billion in sales, a nearly 14 percent jump over 1994. But
those numbers don’t tell the whole story. According to the industry
journal, Fur World, more than a quarter of the 1996 “sales” were really
fees for storing and cleaning furs. When you subtract these fees, and
adjust for inflation, fur sales have actually fallen slightly since 1994.
And even if $1.25 billion were accurate, it’s only half of what Americans
spent (in current dollars) on fur 10 years ago and a shadow of the $5.1
billion in sales in 1943. So much for fur’s comeback.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Fur Industry in America No Compromise         Can the
animal-rights movement take credit for such lackluster performance? Partly.
Although the movement’s power has slipped, and although it is clearly
desperate to regain attention, ALF and its allies are not the only
desperate ones. With actual sales declining, the industry has tried to
exploit both public cynicism and activist intemperance by proclaiming a new
era of indulgence. It’s a shrewd move, but one that, so far, seems to have
fallen flat. Americans may not like being told “no,” especially in regard
to life’s guilty pleasures, but fur, it seems, is a pleasure most of us can
live without.   Would you recommend this story to other
viewers? Not at allHighly .© 1997 MSNBCMSNBC is
optimized for  and  Cover |
On Air | Personal Front | Help | Feedback | Find | NextWorld | Commerce |
Sports | SciTech | Life | Opinion | Weather | Local | Index
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:09:13 -0700
From: Hillary 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Fur On MSNBC Site
Message-ID: <199707171514.LAA16906@envirolink.org>


Fur=92s =91resurgence=92 just window dressing=20


Animal-rights movement may have slipped, but it=92s still very alive


 By Paul Roberts=20
MSNBC=20
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Fur, it may seem to the casual observer, is back. Five years ag
o,
wearing mink or fox was the height of environmental scandal, punishable by
stares, insults and even splatters of red dye =97 compliments of the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF). Today, to read the fashion press, fur stirs as much
envy as anger. Sales are up 14 percent over 1995, according to industry
officials, and the number of clothiers using fur has more than tripled
since the mid-1980s.=20


=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The reason? Industry representatives credit cold winters, a boi
ling
economy and grunge=92s demise. But they also say much of fur=92s resurgence
stems, ironically, from the animal-rights movement, with its self-righteous
moralizing and increasingly extreme acts =97 from torching McDonald=92s to
raiding mink farms =97 sparking a consumer backlash.=20
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 As part of what sociologist Faith Popcorn calls =93pleasure rev
enge,=94
Americans are merrily consuming items and experiences long banned as
incorrect, from sirloins and cigars to martinis and fur. =93There is a
feeling in America today that we have had enough political correctness,=94
says Stephanie Kenyon, spokeswoman for the Fur Information Council of
America. =93Stop telling us what to do and what not to do.=94=20
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In fact, according to fur officials, the only business the
animal-rights movement has succeeded in hurting is its own. Contributions
to groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have
dropped substantially in the past few years =97 a decline the fur industry
attributes to public disdain of activists=92 in-your-face style of protest.
The real stuff abounded in Milan, Italy, in March, as fashion house Fendi
showed a luxurious autumn/winter collection.=20
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Are Ameri
cans
=93over=94 their animal guilt? And did the animal-rights movement help? The
answers aren=92t as simple as the pro-fur folks might hope. Without question,
the movement=92s image is suffering. Its rhetoric is often harsh and
demagogic; acts of sabotage are often glorified. =93A.L.F. Rampage Fur
Industry =97 economic sabotage galore!=94 screams out a Web site entitled, =93N
o
Compromise.=94 The page is decorated with burning bomb fuses.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 More to the point, the movements=92 =93actions=94 are increasin
gly
unlikely to win mainstream sympathy. On a May 30 raid, for example,
suspected ALF activists =93liberated=94 some 10,000 mink from a Mount Angel,
Ore., fur farm; unfortunately, 2,400 mink subsequently died of exposure and
infighting, according to police and industry reports. Activists dispute the
death toll, but the incident was a public-relations gift to the industry.
=93If they care about animals, they can=92t defend what happened down there,=94
one industry official told The [Portland] Oregonian last month. =93Whoever
did this is no different than Timothy McVeigh.=94 =91Whoever did this is no
different than Timothy McVeigh.=92=20
=97=A0A FUR INDUSTRY OFFICIAL
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Even some in the movement itself are distressed. =93These peopl
e are
not aspiring to create extended and enduring change on behalf of animals,=94
says Anne Davis, executive director of Utah Animal Rights Alliance. =93The
animal-rights movement has become divided, and an effort divided
accomplishes nothing.=94
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Not surprisingly, ALF supporters see things differently. J.P.
Goodwin, executive director of the Dallas-based Coalition to Abolish the
Fur Trade, a mouthpiece for ALF, concedes that the latter=92s rhetoric goes
over the top. He says the movement has had a =93recent infusion of young
blood, and with that comes some immaturity=94 =97 a statement that qualifies as
the understatement of the year. He agrees that a =93large percentage=94 of the
public =93may be put off=94 by acts of sabotage. But he defends the practice as
critical for both eliminating the fur industry and gaining the public
attention that has slipped from seven years ago, when anti-fur protests
were a novelty and fur sales were cut by nearly 50 percent.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In fact, while Goodwin admits his movement is at times struggli
ng,
he scoffs at the industry contention that activists are somehow responsible
for a fur resurgence. =93I cannot believe that a social backlash would cause
the average person to go out and spend $5,000 on a fur coat,=94 Goodwin says,
=93unless they were filthy rich and had absolutely nothing better to do.=94
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Readers may find Goodwin=92s defense of sabotage indefensible =
97 and
his grasp of human nature laughable. But his insistence that activists not
be blamed for fur=92s resurgence deserves a second look, not the least
because the =93resurgence=94 is itself something of scam. In 1996, the industry
reported $1.25 billion in sales, a nearly 14 percent jump over 1994. But
those numbers don=92t tell the whole story. According to the industry
journal, Fur World, more than a quarter of the 1996 =93sales=94 were really
fees for storing and cleaning furs. When you subtract these fees, and
adjust for inflation, fur sales have actually fallen slightly since 1994.
And even if $1.25 billion were accurate, it=92s only half of what Americans
spent (in current dollars) on fur 10 years ago and a shadow of the $5.1
billion in sales in 1943. So much for fur=92s comeback.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Fur Industry in America No Compromise =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Can the
animal-rights movement take credit for such lackluster performance? Partly.
Although the movement=92s power has slipped, and although it is clearly
desperate to regain attention, ALF and its allies are not the only
desperate ones. With actual sales declining, the industry has tried to
exploit both public cynicism and activist intemperance by proclaiming a new
era of indulgence. It=92s a shrewd move, but one that, so far, seems to have
fallen flat. Americans may not like being told =93no,=94 especially in regard
to life=92s guilty pleasures, but fur, it seems, is a pleasure most of us can
live without. =A0 Would you recommend this story to other
viewers?=A0Not at allHighly=A0.=A9 1997 MSNBCMSNBC is
optimized for =A0and=A0=A0Cover
|
On Air | Personal Front | Help | Feedback | Find | NextWorld | Commerce |
Sports | SciTech | Life | Opinion | Weather | Local | Index
    Fur On MSNBC Site
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:54:24 -0700
From: LCartLng@gvn.net (Lawrence Carter-Long)
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: NYTimes: NRC Recommends Better Care for Chimps
Message-ID: <199707171549.LAA22192@envirolink.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Panel Recommends Better Care for Research Chimps

By WARREN E. LEARY


  WASHINGTON -- A central federal agency should take over responsibility for
owning and providing long-term care for most of the chimpanzees used in
medical research, a National Research Council committee said Wednesday. 

  The nine-member expert panel, which spent more than a year examining the
contentious issue of research chimps, said provisions should be made for the
lifetime care and management of chimpanzees used for scientific research and
that euthanasia should not be used to control any excess population of the
animals. 

  The panel said chimpanzees were valuable in research because of their
close genetic relationship with humans and that the genetic relationship
meant they should be dealt with differently from other laboratory animals. 

  Because of the public's familiarity with chimpanzees and their behavior,
they expected a high level of respect for the animals, the committee said,
and this special status "implied a moral responsibility for appropriate
long-term care" of chimps used in research. 

  Although chimpanzees were uniquely close to humans, the report said, they
still had a role as research animals. "We believe that relevant differences
between chimpanzees and humans justify the use of chimpanzees in research
that would not be sanctioned if it were proposed to use human subjects," the
panel said. 

  The committee's recommendations included a breeding moratorium on research
chimps until 2001 to reduce an oversupply and a program for turning over
animals that have been retired from research to groups that can guarantee
their care in well-managed sanctuaries. 

  The report emphasized that euthanasia should not be used to control the
chimpanzee population, although it could be used on sick or injured animals.
However, one committee member, Dr. Sarah Williams-Blangero of the
Southwestern Foundation for Biomedical Science, in San Antonio, disagreed
and wrote a dissenting opinion. 

  Dr. Williams-Blangero said the option of selective euthanasia of surplus
animals should be left open in case funds were limited and the money would
best be used for sustaining a quality group of research animals. 

  Dr. Dani P. Bolognesi of the Duke University Center for AIDS Research,
chairman of the panel, said in an interview that the rest of the committee
felt that there should not be a general policy of euthanasia for population
control. "This is a very special animal with regard to laboratory animals
and requires special consideration," he said. 

  "The committee wants to force an alternative to euthanasia and encourage
other ways to deal with the problem," he continued. "Somehow, the government
should be able to find the funds to manage 1,000 animals without killing them." 

  The National Institutes of Health sponsored the two-year study conducted
by the research council, the operating arm of the National Academy of
Sciences. The study was done in response to an oversupply of research
chimpanzees and calls by animal rights groups that chimp research be limited
and that the animals be retired, even if it means giving them to private
groups that would establish sanctuaries for them. 

  In 1986, the health institutes started a breeding program to meet an
expected increase in demand for research chimps to be used in AIDS
experiments. However, demand never reached the expected levels since
chimpanzees did not prove to be ideal models for studying AIDS. 

  The report said that there were about 1,500 chimpanzees at about a
half-dozen biomedical facilities around the country, enough to meet the
expected research demand for at least five years. 

  Federal agencies, primarily the health institutes and the Air Force, own
or control through their funds about 1,000 of these animals, it said, and
the rest are in private hands, such as animals owned by independent research
groups or pharmaceutical companies. 

  Dr. Louis Sibal, director of the Office of Laboratory Animal Research at
the National Institutes of Health, said the agency was reviewing the report
to decide which recommendations to accept. 

  But he said that many of the suggestions, including establishing an office
to centralize care of the animals, seemed reasonable. Such an office should
be simple to set up and should not greatly increase the $7.3 million the
government now spends annually on the care of chimps, he said. 

  "We are very pleased with the report," Sibal said in an interview. "It
includes a series of good options that make sense and we'll have to see
which ones we take up and determine how we will support them." 

  In Defense of Animals, a California-based animal advocacy group with
65,000 members, said it endorsed many of the report's recommendations, but
was disappointed that the committee did not consider the ethics of using
chimpanzees in any research. The group opposed establishing a central office
that would promote research with the animals, she said. 

  Suzanne Roy, program director for the group, said it had only seen the
executive summary of the report, but supported recommendations for a
breeding moratorium, the endorsement of private sanctuaries and opposition
to euthanasia as population control. 

  Still, the group said in a statement, the report did not specifically say
that the government should use federal money to support private sanctuaries
for chimps retired from research.

Copyright 1997 The New York Times

Lawrence Carter-Long
Coordinator, Science and Research Issues
Animal Protection Institute
phone: 916-731-5521
LCartLng@gvn.net

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind 
and proving that there is no need to do so, almost 
everyone gets busy on the proof."  -  Galbraith's Law

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:58:28 -0700
From: Lawrence Carter-Long 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Newswire: Safe homes sought for glut of research chimps 
Message-ID: <33CE4124.52E1@mail-1.gvn.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Safe homes sought for glut of research chimps 

      July 17, 1997


      WASHINGTON, Reuters [WS] via Individual Inc. : A leading
      scientific think tank said on Wednesday that an overpopulation
      of research chimpanzees should be given safe homes rather than
      face the possibility of being euthanized. 

      ``Euthanasia should not be endorsed as a general means of
      population control,'' said a report by the National Research
      Council, entitled ``Chimpanzees in Research -- Strategies for Their
      Ethical Care, Management, and Use.'' 

      The report recommends finding qualified homes for the chimps in
      sanctuaries and zoos with the option of calling back the animals if
      demand for research chimpanzees increases. 

      The National Institutes of Health launched a successful breeding
      programme in 1986 to meet an expected increase in demand for
      chimpanzees in AIDS research, but the need was less than
      expected, and now there is an excess of chimps, the council said. 

      The National Research Council also called for a breeding
      moratorium until 2001 on laboratory chimps and the formation of a
      central office within the federal government to assume ownership
      of about 1,000 chimpanzees. 

      The council estimated the population of research chimps to be
      1,500, which it said exceeds current research needs. 

      Chimpanzee research has led to the development of a vaccine for
      hepatitis B and other important medical breakthroughs. 

      The apes are among humans' closest relatives. Both species stem
      from the same ancestor, with an evolutionary split occurring some
      6 million years ago. Today, human DNA varies from that of
      chimps by only about two percent of known genes. 

      [Copyright 1997, Reuters] 

Posted by:
Lawrence Carter-Long
Coordinator, Science and Research Issues
Animal Protection Institute
phone: 916-731-5521
LCartLng@gvn.net

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind 
and proving that there is no need to do so, almost 
everyone gets busy on the proof."  -  Galbraith's Law
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Christine M. Wolf" 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: CAMPFIRE VOTE on TUESDAY, JULY 22
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19970318132623.21978dfc@pop.igc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This time we mean it............

The House of Representatives will consider HR 2159, the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Bill on Tuesday, July 22.

Representatives George Miller (D-CA) and Jon Fox (R-PA) are offering an
amendment that will prohibit funds allocated to foreign development programs
(including CAMPFIRE) from being used to promote trophy hunting and ivory
trading.

IF THIS AMENDMENT SUCCEEDS, MANY WILD ANIMALS' LIVES WILL BE SPARED!

Please call your representative NOW and ask him or her to SUPPORT THE
MILLER/FOX AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2159.      

The House of Representatives' switchboard is 1-800-962-3524 or 1-800-972-3524

If you have already called your representative, please call back and ask
where he or she stands on this issue, then urge five friends to do the same.

Please see the action alert below for more details about the CAMPFIRE
program, and thank you for your activism.

___________________________________________________________________________

STOP YOUR TAX DOLLARS FROM FUNDING THE TROPHY HUNTING OF
ELEPHANTS !

The U.S. Agency for International Development (US AID)  is using $28 million
of your tax money to fund elephant trophy hunting programs in Africa!
Through the CAMPFIRE program (Communal Areas Management Program for
Indigenous Resources), wealthy hunters come to Africa to shoot elephants
under the guise of returning revenues to local communities who are looking
for a way to benefit from living with wildlife.  Besides being a cruel cloak
for trophy hunting, this program is not meeting its goal of helping local
villagers. In a recent evaluation of CAMPFIRE, conducted by ULG Consultants,
many holes were found in the program, including:

     No quantitative assessment of the size or health of local wildlife
populations was conducted prior to initiating the hunting programs.

     The methodology used by local officials to monitor wildlife populations
who are being hunted was "questionable."

     The project is "subject to collapse once donor funding is withdrawn."
This means that US AID would have to fund this hunting program in perpetuity.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the role that CAMPFIRE and its
subcontractors have played in attempting to re-open the ivory trade.
Delegates from CAMPFIRE and the Zimbabwean government came to the U.S. last
year to testify before Congress in favor of weakening the Endangered Species
Act and downlisting the elephant from Appendix I to Appendix II under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.  THIS WOULD SPELL
DISASTER FOR THESE MAJESTIC CREATURES WHO HAVEN'T YET RECOVERED
FROM DECADES
OF RAMPANT POACHING!  The money trail from this visit leads back to US AID.

__________________________________________________________________________

For more information, or to find out who your elected officials are, call
Christine Wolf at The Fund for Animals (301-585-2591).  


******************************************************************
Christine Wolf, Director of Government Affairs
  The Fund for Animalsphone: 301-585-2591
  850 Sligo Ave., #300fax:   301-585-2595
  Silver Spring, MD 20910e-mail: ChrisW@fund.org / web: www.fund.org

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change
the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."  (Margaret Mead)

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:46:01 -0700
From: "ida" 
To: 
Subject: Santa Cruz Sheep
Message-ID: <199707172244.PAA11768@proxy4.ba.best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The man who owned the land the the park service took over on Santa Cruz
Island has to remove his sheep from the island, and he plans to put them up
for auction. Letters need to be written to him letting him know good
adoptive homes can be secured for these sheep and there is no need for
their senseless slaughter.

Please send your letters to:

Mr. Tom Gherini
Santa Cruz Island Company
3182 Campus Drive #305
San Mateo, CA 94403
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:49:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: NOVENAANN@aol.com
To: ar-news@envirolink.org, Z10103@aol.com
Subject: (VA)case against pork processor...
Message-ID: <970717184914_1112773260@emout16.mail.aol.com>

State moves to reopen case against pork processor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- The state has renewed its lawsuit against 
Smithfield Foods a week after a judge refused to allow testimony the 
state considered crucial to its case.

Chief Deputy Attorney General David Anderson said when the suit was 
withdrawn July 9 that it would be refiled. The state alleges the 
meatpacker violated pollution laws 22,000 times in the last 11 years.

''Smithfield has some accounting to do to the people of Virginia for its 
pollution of the Pagan River during the past decade,'' Anderson said 
Wednesday.

''I don't know what Mr. Anderson is talking about,'' said Smithfield 
Foods attorney Anthony F. Troy. He said many of the violations cited by 
the state involve records altered by an employee ''unbeknownst to the 
company.''

Terry L. Rettig, a former wastewater treatment plant manager at the 
company, is serving a 30-month federal prison term for record-keeping 
violations.

The state's lawsuit was mailed Tuesday but had not been received in the 
Isle of Wight County Circuit Court clerk's office by Wednesday 
afternoon.

The state dropped its suit after Judge Kenneth Trabue refused to let a 
witness testify about a new report on the meatpacker's wastewater 
treatment operations. Trabue agreed with Smithfield Foods attorneys, who 
said the July 3 report was filed too late to be used in the trial.

Smithfield Foods also is facing a $125 million lawsuit filed by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. That suit, alleging more than 5,000 
violations of the federal Clean Water Act, is scheduled for trial 
starting Monday in U.S. District Court in Norfolk.

Smithfield Foods is one of the largest hog slaughterers and pork 
processors on the East Coast.
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:52:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: NOVENAANN@aol.com
To: ar-news@envirolink.org, Z10103@aol.com
Subject: (VA) Agency kills geese that annoyed lobbyist
Message-ID: <970717185234_1860931598@emout03.mail.aol.com>

Agency kills geese that annoyed Washington lobbyist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREAT FALLS, Va. (AP) -- Annoyed by Canada geese waddling and defecating 
all over his estate, a Washington lobbyist got authorities to 
exterminate the birds that had taken up residence on a pond he shares 
with neighbors.

Gerald S.J. Cassidy, chairman of Cassidy and Associates Inc., paid the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture about $1,800 to kill more than 60 geese.

Neighbors said Cassidy never let them in on it.

''I am horrified,'' said Lindsay Orms, who lives up a hill from Cassidy, 
at the edge of the Marmota Farm neighborhood. ''How can one person make 
this decision that affects all the rest of us?''

The USDA normally has a policy of removing geese from residential areas 
only when a community association requests it, not when a single 
property owner asks, said spokesman Edward Curlett.

But the agency said Cassidy represented only himself and geese were 
removed only from his property.

Cassidy had no comment, said Cassidy and Associates spokesman Dale 
Leibach.

But Leibach said his boss didn't make the decision lightly and had tried 
many times to shoo the geese from land surrounding his $2 million home.

''Everything under the sun known to mankind -- fencing, machines that 
make noise, moving the machines that make noise -- was tried,'' Leibach 
said. ''It was not a pastoral scene of five or six geese floating among 
the lily pads. It was just out of control.''

The geese, Leibach said, left droppings on Cassidy's yard, his windows 
and even on houseguests.

''These are like 25-pound dogs. Imagine what it would be like to have 60 
to 100 beagles running around your yard, driveway and deck,'' Leibach 
said. ''It is not a pretty picture. Then put wings on them.''

Leibach said the USDA moved geese from the pond last year. An agency 
employee called Cassidy this year to ask if the problem was solved. 
Cassidy complained that the birds were back and asked the USDA to get 
rid of them.

The agency said 69 geese were caught and 63 were slaughtered. The 
remaining six were goslings, and they were moved.

The slaughtered birds were donated to food banks.
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: NOVENAANN@aol.com
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (CA) In the Ring Without the Bull
Message-ID: <970717190633_-1224802153@emout07.mail.aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit


In the Ring Without the Bull

Hogwash, Cry Animal Activists, Condemning Bloodless School for Anglo 
Amateur Matadors

By William Claiborne
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 17, 1997; Page A03
The Washington Post 

CHULA VISTA, Calif.—In the exotic and dangerous world of bullfighting, 
it has been axiomatic for centuries that only those with Latin blood 
have the passion, skill and courage to become a matador and face the 
fearsome Bos Taurus.

But that was before the explosion in popularity of "extreme games" and 
the founding of the California Academy of Tauromaquia here, an amateur 
matador training school for Anglos. Its students are bent on high-risk 
adventure while engaging in a sport that has cult status in the 
Mediterranean and Latin America but remains anathema to animal rights 
activists here.

The academy's students include Jim Koustas, 28, a software developer 
from Denver who has never been to a bullfight but hungers to participate 
in this "wonderful, tragic play between man and beast." Tricia Slane, 
23, a pet groomer and aspiring actress from Batavia, N.Y., initially 
joined the academy hoping to advance her acting career but showed so 
much natural talent and enthusiasm that she will become its first 
graduate next month. Soon afterward, she will face cows in bloodless 
ring exercises in Mexico.

Since the academy opened this spring, its students have been training at 
a sandlot playing field at an elementary school here, 10 miles south of 
San Diego, but engaging in nothing more lethal than flourishing their 
bright red capes at instructors brandishing a pair of bullhorns. 
Bullfighting is illegal in California and elsewhere in the United 
States, and Coleman Cooney, a taurine aficionado who co-founded the 
academy, says he's not interested in provoking animal rights activists 
by staging even bloodless fights here.

Consequently, Slane's final test will take place in nearby Tecate, 
Mexico, where she will have to perfect her cape techniques against a 
half-dozen young cows before being declared ready to fatally plunge her 
sword between a fighting bull's shoulder blades.

"I think she can do it. She's naturally athletic, she's dedicated and 
she has the desire. She has what they call `gusano,' the worm. It gets 
in you and you become obsessed with fighting a bull," said Peter 
Rombold, Slane's instructor and a veteran amateur bullfighter with 40 
kills under his belt before he co-founded the academy with Cooney.

"But then, you never know until you get in front of the animal and get 
bumped around a little. That's when valor enters into it, and that's not 
something you can always predict," Rombold added. An infuriated bull 
projects a shield of raw energy that can be intimidating to a novice 
until he or she learns to "read" the animal's body language and select a 
technique to fit its characteristics, he said.

But not intimidating, apparently, to Slane, who said, "That's what you 
want, to have the bull charge." She did allow, however, that the bulls 
she saw during a recent visit to Tijuana "looked pretty big."

The 51-year-old Rombold, who said he became hooked on bullfighting at 
age 14 when his father took him to Tijuana's Plaza de Toros, said he had 
to struggle for years to overcome an entrenched cultural bias in the 
predominantly Latin world of bullfighting and became what Cooney calls 
"an American original," one of only about a half-dozen active Anglo 
amateur matadors who have made a sizable number of kills.

He has devoted his life to tauromaquia, the science of bullfighting, 
traveling to Mexico and buying his own bulls whenever he can afford it. 
An average 1,000-pound bull can cost from $700 to $1,200, while purebred 
bulls fetch $10,000 or more.

Cooney, 40, said he became a bullfighting "fanatic" while living for 
seven years in Spain. There he was profoundly affected by the 1984 fatal 
goring of Paquirri, the first major Spanish bullfighter killed in the 
ring in years. Cooney bought a season ticket to bullfights, then became 
an aficionado practico, finding small bulls with which to hone his 
skills before becoming an amateur matador.

Although amateur bullfighting is growing in popularity in Spain, the 
south of France and in Latin America, it still is not widespread here, 
Cooney acknowledged. The Portuguese community in California's San 
Joaquin Valley stages about 30 bloodless bullfights a year, and there is 
a school in San Antonio that educates Americans on the cultural aspects 
of bullfighting and arranges visits to Mexican bullrings.

Jennifer O'Connor, a cruelty caseworker for People for the Ethical 
Treatment of Animals (PETA), said the academy here was engaging in 
"utter hypocrisy by teaching something that's illegal in our country and 
defending it by saying they're actually doing it somewhere else.

"The intent is the same, to torture and kill animals. Killing animals 
for pure fun is just wrong, and it doesn't matter what cultural guise 
it's done under," she said.

But Cooney is convinced there is a latent fascination of bullfighting 
among Americans that is driven partly by a romantic attraction to the 
cultural heritage of the sport and partly by the growth of such risky 
pursuits as glacier snow-boarding and all-terrain skateboarding.

"I want to do with bullfighting what Americans always do with imported 
activities: make it really serious. I'm selling a European lifestyle," 
said Cooney, whose academy charges $500 tuition for a three-month 
course. Beside practicing cape technique and matador moves in the ring, 
students study videos of renowned matadors in action and attend 
bullfights in Tijuana.

Cooney said that as Californians of Hispanic origin approach a majority 
of the population early in the next century, pressure will increase on 
state legislators to relax the laws banning the sport.

Koustas said he views bullfighting as an extension of his love for 
adventure that has led him to telemark skiing, mountain biking and 
travels through Cambodia. "This will be the pinnacle of extreme," he 
said.

Although he sometimes fantasizes about becoming a professional matador, 
Koustas will settle for amateur status as a hobbyist.

"That should satisfy me," Koustas said.

@CAPTION: California Academy of Tauromaquia co-founder Peter Rombold is 
the bull to the red cape of Tricia Slane, who will become the academy's 
first graduate next month. While bullfighting is illegal in the state, 
students train on school sandlot. 
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 19:11:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: OnlineAPI@aol.com
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US) Dolphin Death Act Vote Next Week
Message-ID: <970717191103_-759442420@emout15.mail.aol.com>

ACTION ALERT

Dolphin Death Act Vote Next Week As Gore Seeks to Kill Dolphin-Safe Tuna

The Clinton/Gore Administration, backed by the Latin American tuna industry
and its powerful Washington lobbyists, will attempt to ram through the Senate
next week 
S. 39, the Dolphin Death Act that would reopen the US market to
dolphin-deadly tuna by redefining the dolphin-safe tuna label to allow
chasing and capturing dolphins.

Vice-President Al Gore is personally leading the Administration battle to gut
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, marshalling dozens of lobbyists from the
White House and State and Commerce Departments as well as making personal
phone calls and visits to senators.

Two arch-enemies of the environment, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Sen.
John Breaux (D-Louisiana) are leading the charge for Gore in the Senate.
 They are attempting to override a filibuster against the bill by Sen.
Barbara Boxer (D-California) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware), co-authors of
the dolphin-safe label law, and by Sen. Bob Smith (R-New Hampshire).

The White House must get 60 votes to kill the filibuster.  The Senate vote to
end the debate on S. 39 is scheduled for TUESDAY JULY 22ND.  Because Senate
Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the dolphin sell-out, Gore is
reportedly seeking 50 Republicans to support the Dolphin Death Act.  He is
cutting political deals with the Republicans to win their votes.  Gore is
also bringing heavy pressure on Senate Democrats to embrace the Dolphin Death
Act.

ACTION NEEDED:  All conservation, environmental and animal advocacy groups
should alert their members to call or fax their two senators, asking them to
oppose ending the debate on the bill, AND if the filibuster is broken, to
vote against S. 39.

All senators can be reached through the Congressional switchboard at
202-225-3121.  Constituents can determine the names of their two senators on
the Web at www.senate.gov/senator, and e-mail messages can be sent to
senators at www.voxpop.org:80/zipper.

Remember, more than SEVEN MILLION dolphins have been drowned in the eastern
Pacific tuna fishery.  S. 39 endorses the continued use of this inhumane
fishing practice:  chasing schools of dolphins miles across the ocean with
speedboats and helicopters, then corralling them in mile-long nets, where
they are frequently injured or drowned.  The Dolphin Death Act will allow the
Latin American tuna fleets to kill thousands of dolphins annually, all in the
name of "free trade."  

Please act now to save the dolphins!
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:16:55 +0800
From: bunny 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Plague - Humans USA 1996
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970718081228.2c6f844e@wantree.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

PLAGUE, HUMAN - USA 1996
************************

Date: Fri Jul 11 08:31:09 1997 -0400
Source: newsmedia report, 10 July 1977


Two people died from human plague last year and were likely infected by 
prairie dogs. These deaths are among the five cases reported by the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1996.

An 18-year-old man from Flagstaff, Arizona was bitten by fleas while walking 
through a colony of prairie dogs in the northeast part of the state. 

The same month, a 16-year-old Colorado girl contracted the plague. It is
reported that she lived near an area where many prairie dogs had died. The
CDC believes she got the plague from her cat, who became infected from the
prairie dogs. Cats can get infected from fleas or rodents and pass it on
when they bite, scratch or lick humans. 

Human plague can be treated with antibiotics if treatment is begun early
enough. There have been 390 of human plague in the United States since
1947, resulting in 60 deaths.  Most of the cases are from Arizona,
California, Colorado and New Mexico. 

End

===========================================

Rabbit Information Service,
P.O.Box 30,
Riverton,
Western Australia 6148

Email>  rabbit@wantree.com.au

http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
(Rabbit Information Service website updated frequently)

     /`\   /`\
    (/\ \-/ /\)
       )6 6(
     >{= Y =}<
      /'-^-'\
     (_)   (_)
      |  .  |
      |     |}
 jgs  \_/^\_/













Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:29:15 -0700
From: Sean Thomas 
To: ar-news@envirolink.com
Subject: Monkey debate
Message-ID: <33CEE30B.79EF@sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------679E716B758B"

Sean Thomas, Co-Director 
Animal Action
Ottawa Citizen   Hit reload or refresh if you're not getting today's
Online           date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   [Image]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   [Image]

[Image]
[Image]
[Image]

National
Highlights
[Image]National
News
[Image]Across
Canada
[Image]News in
Depth
                  FRONT PAGE | CITY | SPORTS | BUSINESS | NATIONAL | WORLD
                                        | EDITORIALS
                    ENTERTAINMENT | YOUR MONEY | INTERNET | COLUMNISTS |
                                         CLASSIFIED

                 [National - Ottawa Citizen Online]

                                   Thursday 17 July 1997

                 Animal research: part of the price of good health

                 Even scientists dedicated to ending animal testing admit
                 facilities like Ottawa's primate colony will be needed
                 for a long time, writes Sharon Kirkey

                 Sharon Kirkey
                 The Ottawa Citizen

                 Skin substitutes and brain cells that can grow in Petri
                 dishes are just some of the alternatives scientists are
                 aggressively pursuing to reduce the need for using
                 animals in research.

                 But even the director of an organization dedicated to
                 ending testing on animals doubts medical science will
                 overcome the need for facilities such as Health Canada's
                 colony of research monkeys -- at least in the foreseeable
                 future.

                 "I have to have as my goal that at some point in the
                 future we won't be doing animal research," says Gilly
                 Griffin, executive director of the Ottawa-based Canadian
                 Centre for Alternatives to Animals in Research.

                 "But I have to take a pragmatic view too. We still have
                 big, big problems to solve. We haven't solved AIDS, we
                 haven't solved neurodegenerative diseases, we haven't
                 solved cancer," Ms. Griffin said.

                 "We can do a lot of (research) in cellular systems, but
                 at the end of the day you're still going to have to do a
                 bit of animal research as well."

                 A colony of 750 long-tailed macaque monkeys is poised to
                 become the latest victim of federal government
                 restructuring and downsizing. A Royal Society panel of
                 scientists and philosophers has been appointed to
                 determine, among other key considerations, whether the
                 colony is "unique, valuable and necessary" to protect the
                 health of Canadians.

                 The monkeys cost the government about $1 million a year
                 to maintain. That money comes from Health Canada
                 emergency funds. The monkeys have been used in research
                 into AIDS and herpes, to screen polio vaccines and to
                 measure the effects of ingesting chemicals ranging from
                 PCBs to caffeine.

                 But just how much Canada -- and medical science
                 researchers -- still need a monkey breeding colony has
                 emerged as a key issue in the controversy.

                 "What I'm hoping is that the Royal Society will have a
                 good look at what kind of research is really necessary at
                 this point using primates in Canada," said Ms. Griffin,
                 who is also an information officer for the Council on
                 Animal Care, which ensures animals used in research are
                 properly care for.

                 "I think that we should be looking less and less to using
                 primates," Ms. Griffin said. "There is not much use for
                 them in testing procedures any more, and in terms of
                 research, who knows?"

                 Researchers are moving away from using animals in
                 experiments, not only because of pressure from
                 animal-welfare activists but cost.

                 Today, researchers are investigating alternatives that
                 can stop compounds from ever reaching animals for
                 testing, Ms. Griffin said.

                 For example, researchers are using jelly-like substances
                 for eye and skin toxicity tests. One such substance,
                 called corristex, is being used to test materials for
                 corrosiveness. Until now, these chemicals would have been
                 tested on rabbit skin.

                 Researchers are using a bacteria test to determine
                 whether a chemical can produce a mutation that may lead
                 to cancer.

                 Previously, scientists had to test for those DNA
                 mutations in animals.

                 And scientists are working on different cell cultures to
                 try to get brain cells, or neurons, to grow in Petri
                 dishes the same way they would grow in animals.

                 But while alternatives to animal testing like these are
                 becoming part of mainstream science, researchers probably
                 will never be able to completely simulate the human body
                 "with a lab dish or computer, at least not in my lifetime
                 or your lifetime," said a senior Health Canada research
                 scientist, who asked not to be identified.

                 "The proof in the pudding, as far as I'm concerned, is
                 that you have to put the chemical back into the whole
                 animal to see if it does react the way that things seem
                 to be going on in the test tube."

                 Thalidomide, the anti-morning-sickness drug that was
                 banned worldwide in 1962 after causing severe birth
                 defects in more than 12,000 babies, was never thoroughly
                 tested in animals.

                 "When it comes down to putting something into humans,
                 whether it's a food additive or drug or an environmental
                 pollutant, you have to go to an animal system to do some
                 of your testing," the Health Canada scientist said.

                 And no one knows what diseases or viruses lurk around the
                 corner.

                 The main reason monkeys are used in research is because
                 they are so close to humans on the evolutionary ladder.
                 The similarity of monkey AIDS to human AIDS has allowed
                 the disease in monkeys to serve as a model for the human
                 disease.

                 If Health Canada were to close the monkey colony, "we
                 would have to look at importing those animals again," Ms.
                 Griffin said.

                 Only about one of every 10 primates that are trapped and
                 then transported for research survives -- one of the
                 reasons the federal colony was put in place.

                 "I don't want to see us going through getting (monkeys)
                 from the wild again," Ms. Griffin said.

                 "What I would like to see, and I hope this is what the
                 Royal Society is going to do, is really give a good
                 objective look at what research is actually being done,
                 and what research is really necessary using primates in
                 Canada."

                  FRONT PAGE | CITY | SPORTS | BUSINESS | NATIONAL | WORLD
                                        | EDITORIALS
                    ENTERTAINMENT | YOUR MONEY | INTERNET | COLUMNISTS |
                                         CLASSIFIED
                         Praise or criticism? Give us your FEEDBACK

                             Copyright 1997 The Ottawa Citizen
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:30:58 -0700
From: Sean Thomas 
To: ar-news@envirolink.com
Subject: Deciding the Fate of Canada's Monkeys
Message-ID: <33CEE372.65C1@sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------16D91A062E97"

Sean Thomas, Co-Director
Animal Action
Ottawa Citizen   Hit reload or refresh if you're not getting today's
Online           date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   [Image]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   [Image]

[Image]
[Image]
[Image]

National
Highlights
[Image]National
News
[Image]Across
Canada
[Image]News in
Depth
                  FRONT PAGE | CITY | SPORTS | BUSINESS | NATIONAL | WORLD
                                        | EDITORIALS
                    ENTERTAINMENT | YOUR MONEY | INTERNET | COLUMNISTS |
                                         CLASSIFIED

                 [National - Ottawa Citizen Online]

                                   Thursday 17 July 1997

                 Monkey business

                 Panelists deciding fate of a $1M-a-year monkey colony
                 will try to detach themselves from their evolutionary
                 cousins, writes Charles Enman.

                 Charles Enman.
                 Ottawa Citizen

                 A Royal Society panel will consider whether Health Canada
                 still needs the colony of monkeys that it keeps at
                 Tunney's Pasture.

                 It costs $1 million per year to keep the 750 long-tailed
                 macaque monkeys in captivity -- so the panelists will
                 have to look, in part, at economic and bottom-line
                 considerations, especially in a time of shrinking
                 departmental budgets.

                 Of course, these aren't goldfish or white rats -- they're
                 monkeys, our furry evolutionary cousins. And some people
                 think they therefore come with ties that bind.

                 But do the five panelists think so?

                 The Citizen spoke to three of them yesterday. Each said
                 they care about monkeys but would not allow their
                 feelings to savage the dispassion they must bring to the
                 issue at hand.

                 So you see, their feelings are avuncular, but there's not
                 a monkey's uncle among them.

                 The chair of the panel, Conrad Brunk, is a philosophy
                 professor at the University of Waterloo.

                 From childhood, monkeys have had some place in his
                 imaginary universe.

                 "As a small child, I had a fantasy of owning a monkey,"
                 he recalls. "I loved to think about the organ grinder's
                 monkey. And I loved to be read stories about monkeys."

                 Did he feel an affinity for monkeys?

                 "Obviously I did, and I think that's natural for humans.
                 The behaviour of monkeys is so close to our own -- and
                 especially close to the behaviour of children.

                 "I think a child, seeing a monkey, will say, 'Here's a
                 being that's very close to my own experience of the
                 world.'"

                 Mr. Brunk says the very closeness of primate
                 consciousness and sensibility to the human "makes the
                 whole issue of animal welfare and animal rights
                 especially sensitive. Monkeys and other primates have a
                 broader range of potential injuries and emotional
                 reactions than lower animals.

                 "Is the monkey feeling bored? Feeling confined? Maybe
                 feeling deprived of certain kinds of activity natural to
                 the species? These questions will have more impact on a
                 monkey's consciousness than they would on a fish or
                 chicken or rat."

                 The very resemblance of monkeys and other primates to
                 human beings means "we owe them the kind of treatment and
                 respect that is very similar to what we owe ourselves,"
                 Mr. Brunk said.

                 The same treatment we give to children, say?

                 "No, I wouldn't go that far. But there is a possibility
                 that they could suffer in a way that, considering their
                 evolvement, is simply unacceptable."

                 Mr. Brunk said the committee will have to seek a
                 consensus that represents not only the member's views but
                 those of the Canadian public at large. For that reason,
                 the public will be invited to submit its views on whether
                 the government should maintain the primate colony at
                 Tunney's Pasture.

                 For Michael McDonald, director of the Centre for Applied
                 Ethics at the University of British Columbia, the
                 resemblance of monkey to man is incontestable.

                 "Even as a child, seeing monkeys at zoos and circuses, I
                 was fascinated to see how much they are like us --
                 they're so social, they need lots of contact with their
                 own kind.

                 "Of course, they're our genetic kin, and many people
                 would say they're in some ways our spiritual brothers.
                 They have a more developed mental and emotional space
                 that does recall the human being."

                 Ethicists even see the beginnings of moral behaviour
                 among monkeys, Mr. McDonald says.

                 "They seem to develop something that looks like morality
                 among themselves," he says. "There seems something
                 altruistic in the way parent monkeys care for their
                 offspring. And sometimes you see behaviour that looks
                 like sacrifice for the sake of the group." An example of
                 the latter could be the struggle a dominant monkey will
                 engage in with intruders.

                 "Is this really altruism?" Mr. McDonald asks. "Perhaps
                 it's just something to preserve the dominance of the
                 alpha male. But a great deal of primate behaviour seems
                 to demonstrate that ethics may simply be an evolutionary
                 adaptation to living with creatures of your own kind."

                 Andrew G. Hendrickx, director of the California Regional
                 Primate Centre at the University of California at Davis,
                 has worked with monkeys for 35 years.

                 Growing up on a farm in Minnesota, he never saw a monkey.
                 But after completing university, he started working with
                 them and was immediately fascinated.

                 "And I'm still fascinated," he says. "Their intelligence
                 and their emotional similarity to us has got to spark
                 some degree of emotional connection.

                 He says, however, that his "scientific objectivity is
                 never clouded."

                 The lab monkey's life is no dog's life, he's quick to
                 point out.

                 Lab directors now insist on "environmental enrichment
                 opportunities" for their primate charges.

                 Captive monkeys typically enjoy what Mr. Hendrickx
                 compares to the jungle gyms that city parks provide for
                 children. Monkeys used to be housed singly, but are now
                 kept in groups to reduce loneliness. Mirrors are put up
                 in cages so the monkeys can keep tabs on what their
                 cohorts are doing.

                 Captive monkeys also get excellent nutrition and medical
                 care.

                 "With the nutrition and the medical care and the
                 enrichment, I would say the monkey in the lab is better
                 off and probably happier than the monkey in the jungle,"
                 Mr. Hendrickx says.

                 Mr. McDonald says the committee will consider many
                 options.

                 Perhaps the colony should be maintained. Perhaps it
                 should be sold piecemeal to other research groups.
                 Perhaps the monkeys should be kept from reproducing and
                 simply allowed to die out.

                 Or perhaps the animals should be put down, though he
                 doesn't like this last possibility.

                 But Pierre Thibert, chief of the animal resources
                 division at Health Canada, says no monkey is in peril.

                 If it is decided to sell the monkey colony, a nucleus
                 group might be sold intact to a research group in the
                 United States or Canada. The others would be sold to
                 other interested research institutions.

                 "I'm quite sure there is no way we will be killing the
                 animals," Mr. Thibert says.

                 Monkeys sell for between $1,000 and $4,000, depending on
                 their age. The most valuable are of reproductive age.

                  FRONT PAGE | CITY | SPORTS | BUSINESS | NATIONAL | WORLD
                                        | EDITORIALS
                    ENTERTAINMENT | YOUR MONEY | INTERNET | COLUMNISTS |
                                         CLASSIFIED
                         Praise or criticism? Give us your FEEDBACK

                             Copyright 1997 The Ottawa Citizen
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:30:06 -0400
From: Mesia Quartano 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Safe homes sought for glut of research chimps
Message-ID: <33CEC71E.7EAD@usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

05:06 PM ET 07/16/97

Safe homes sought for glut of research chimps

         
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A leading scientific think tank said
Wednesday that an overpopulation of research chimpanzees should
be given safe homes rather than face the possibility of being
euthanized.

"Euthanasia should not be endorsed as a general means of
population control," said a report by the National Research
Council, entitled "Chimpanzees in Research -- Strategies for
Their Ethical Care, Management, and Use."

The report recommends finding qualified homes for the chimps
in sanctuaries and zoos with the option of calling back the
animals if demand for research chimpanzees increases.

The National Institutes of Health launched a successful
breeding program in 1986 to meet an expected increase in demand
for chimpanzees in AIDS research, but the need was less than
expected, and now there is an excess of chimps, the council
said.

The National Research Council also called for a breeding
moratorium until 2001 on laboratory chimps and the formation of
a central office within the federal government to assume
ownership of about 1,000 chimpanzees.

The council estimated the population of research chimps to
be 1,500, which it said exceeds current research needs.

Chimpanzee research has led to the development of a vaccine
for hepatitis B and other important medical breakthroughs.

The apes are among humans' closest relatives. Both species
stem from the same ancestor, with an evolutionary split
occurring some 6 million years ago. Today, human DNA varies from
that of chimps by only about two percent of known genes.
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:52:04 -0400
From: allen schubert 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: AR-News Admin Note--Archives
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970718095201.006afb2c@clark.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Routine posting.................

Occassionally, there are posts to AR-News concerning someone to resend a
post about a specific item, usually because a subscriber accidently deleted
that post (it happens to all of us).  Just keep in mind that AR-News
Digests are saved on the Web at:

http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/digest/digest.html

This page is updated often (usually daily, though there are occassional
gaps in updating as people _do_ have lives outside of the net!). 

allen
one planet, many beings
--admin for ARRS http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/index.html
--personal page http://www.clark.net/pub/alathome
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:53:52 -0700
From: Andrew Gach 
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Dolphins use sponges to fish
Message-ID: <33CEE8D0.5DAC@worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dolphins found to use sponges to fish

Reuter Information Service 

LONDON (July 16, 1997 8:04 p.m. EDT) - Dolphins, already known to be
intelligent animals, have been seen using sponges to find food and
defend themselves, New Scientist magazine reported Thursday.

It said University of Michigan expert Rachel Smolker and colleagues
watched in Shark Bay, Western Australia, as five female bottlenose
dolphins carried sponges on the tips of their snouts while searching for
food on the seabed.

Smolker said they appeared to be using the sponges both as protection
against stonefish and stingrays and to stir up prey.

Tool use is considered a strong indicator of intelligence and only a few
animals have figured out how to use tools. Chimpanzees do, while some
birds use rocks to crack open mussels and other food.

ARRS Tools  |  News  |  Orgs  |  Search  |  Support  |  About the ARRS  |  Contact ARRS

THIS SITE UNDERWRITTEN IN PART BY:
Cyberian Outpost

The views and opinions expressed within this page are not necessarily those of the
EnviroLink Network nor the Underwriters. The views are those of the authors of the work.