Dog Flipping animal activists slam disturving trend

CLEVELAND, Ohio — A warning is being issued for people putting pets and puppies up for adoption.
A new trend, which animal activists call “disturbing,” is sweeping the internet.
It’s called “dog flipping.”
People scour the internet or even shelters and bring home purebred or desirable puppies and then re-sell them for a profit.
Some of the dogs are shipped to other countries on planes, while others land in puppy mills, where they are used as breeders.
Dr. Greg Cunningham from Detroit Dover Animal Hospital in Westlake
says, “That’s part of the reason a lot of shelters spay and neuter
before they’re allowed to leave.”
Still, other dogs face an even more distressing fate. Often small or
timid dogs are flipped and sold to be used as bait in dog fighting
rings.
“It’s very upsetting,” said Amy Cannon.
She learned about dog flippers the hard way after two of her dogs
that weren’t supposed to be able to get pregnant, suddenly mated.
Cannon took the puppies to a veterinarian and got them their shots and then sold them on Craigslist for a very low price.
She thought she did everything right, and even sold two of the pups to a seemingly loving couple.
“(The buyer) was like, ‘We live with our family and have land,’ and I felt really good about it,” said Cannon.
The couple seemed so sincere she even gave them a third puppy named “Frankie” for free.
“So he could live with his brother and sister … how fun will that be,” Cannon recalled.
But that joy turned to anger when a short time later the puppies turned up on Craigslist being sold for a higher price.
“They didn’t even try to disguise it,” said Cannon. “They listed him with his same name and everything.”
Cannon and her boyfriend devised a sting operation and got Frankie
back, but she has no idea what happened to the other two puppies.
“It makes me sick,” said Cannon.
She turned that rage into action and started “The Citizens Against Flipping Dogs” on Facebook.
Cannon is also working on getting legislation passed that would make dog flipping illegal, and is calling it “Frankie’s Law.”
The practice has actually been occurring for a while.
Dr. Cunningham says “dog brokers” have been doing the same thing for at least five to six years.
Not only is the flipping upsetting to the original owner, it can also be bad for the puppy.
“Absolutely, I think it’s got to be very traumatic to them,” said Dr. Cunningham.
He says many dogs can recover if they end up in a loving household, but some could be injured or develop other illnesses.
“They’re picking up how many dogs and taking them to who knows where,” said Dr. Cunningham.
Cannon suggests people exercise extreme caution when buying or selling an animal.
She says research potential clients on the internet. Look at how many
 times their name and phone number turn up on the web. Dog flippers tend
 to be on many websites with multiple dogs.
Watch out for fake rescue organizations. Cannon says people will claim they are helping dogs when they are really flippers.
Listen carefully and be cautious trusting a sob or slick story.
And finally, be wary of anyone attempting to purchase or take more than one animal.
A Painesville woman thinks she had dog flippers contacting her.
Ellen Dvorek breeds Golden-Doodles but sells them for far less than what they are worth on the internet.
“I’m not trying to get wealthy, you know, just trying to breed really cool dogs for families,” said Dvorek.
But she started getting strange emails after posting her puppies on the internet.
Dog flippers aren’t anxious to discuss their business, but some have
defended their actions on blogs saying they have every right to earn a
living.
Dvorek and Cannon disagree.
They believe, “These are little living things you don’t play with their little lives.”
To find out more about dog flipping, click HERE.
###
http://fox8.com/2012/05/10/dog-flipping-animal-activists-slam-disturbing-trend/

Update on forthcoming trial of Austrian activists

http://www.vgt.at/actionalert/repression/gefangene/index_en.php

Update on forthcoming trial of Austrian activists

By Martin Balluch

The trial date is approaching rapidly. Let me give you a few updates.

1) We still have no access to the police files on the case. Such access is, however, necessary, to prepare the defense. In fact, none of the 10 defendants has so far presented their list of witnesses.

In February 2009, a judge ruled that police has to allow access to their files. However, police has refused and found excuses all the time. So we brought that to the attention of the same judge, who summoned the police for another verdict. 4 times the police did not respond, they claimed they had not received the 3 faxes the judge had sent them, or were on holiday, or did not have enough time to explain why they do not want to allow access. At the end the judge said that he will rule on 13th January 2010 in any case, even if the police have not presented their case till then. A week before this court date, the judge was removed from the case!!!!

A new judge has been appointed and she cancelled the court date since she needs to read the court papers first. No new date has been set to this day.

2) During the days around Christmas and New Year, I was in a house in the mountains with friends visiting. Altogether at least 6 times during those 14 days, police went up the dead-end road to the house and wrote down number plates of the visitors' cars. Also, they peeped through the window into the house and asked if I was there.

3) In September 2008, just when the 10 were released from prison, the biggest daily newspaper reported that police was convinced that VGT was responsible for arson and 224 cases of criminal damage. VGT sued this newspaper for libel and one in the first round. The newspaper appealed in the last minute to delay procedures. Now, the upper appeal court has ruled that the newspaper has libeled VGT and must pay damages as well as publicly state that their statement was wrong. Also, they must publish that for 30 days on their website.

In the court ruling the judges say that neither VGT nor Martin Balluch can be said to be suspected of arson or criminal damage, since there is no evidence for that.

4) A number of people have been pulled in and questioned by police in the last weeks. Only 3 days ago, an activist had been ordered to the police station for an interview under threat of arrest. As did the others, he came with his lawyer, wearing gloves and a hat so that he would not leave fingerprints or DNA. He said he refused to give a statement. In his case, though, the police was not just very aggressive and assertive as with the others, but they also brought a state doctor. They claimed the activist is a possible suicide candidate and the doctor must see him and possibly move him to a psychiatric unit! The lawyer intervened, did not allow the doctor to see the activist and immediately left. The police wanted to stop them but thanks to the intervention of the lawyer they did not succeed!

5) We are planning a number of press conferences before and during the trial. In 2 days, on Wednesday, we will do our next press conference on the issue of the government tightening the law instead of making it more compatible with democracy. We had very good coverage so far on this issue and wonderful support, not just from other animal groups and NGOs from other social movements, but also from the journalist union and the guild of lawyers, who explicitly referred to the animal rights case as an example of the damage this law can do.

In 3 weeks we will do a press conference on the self indictments. We have received more than 200 by now and are still hoping for more!

Just before the trial starts we will do a press conference. And there are two during the trial scheduled already, one with a German expert and one with Peter Singer, who will be visiting Vienna just for that occasion!

6) At last a bit of very good news. The special police unit chasing animal activists had decided in June 2008, while the activists were in prison, that they want to try to remove the charity status from VGT so that VGT can be dissolved and driven to bankruptcy. Just after the police had to give the computers back to VGT according to a court ruling 10 months after the raids, tax inspectors raided the VGT office yet again and went through all book keeping. A ministerial internal letter stated directly, that VGT should loose its charity status. Arguments were that VGT was too radical and that VGT demanded law changes. It was said that demos and actions are contrary to being a charity. But the tax inspectors turned out to be objective and after 18 months of investigating found that VGT was a charity. On 12th January 2010 they had a meeting with the ministerial people and told us that they managed to persuade them that their view is, indeed, correct. On 15th January, the investigation was officially ended and VGT was given the go ahead of being a charity after all!

-- Martin Balluch

Activists refused admission to North-East piggery

FORTY-FOUR animal activists from around Australia were yesterdayrefused admission to do what they described as a spot inspection of aNorth-East piggery. Animal activist and group spokeswoman Emma Haswell said that the groupwanted to perform a spot inspection on the piggery because of concernsfor the conditions under which the pigs were being kept. "We'd all had foot baths, had our temperatures taken and were wearingbio-suits to ensure we posed no risk to the animals," she said. "Animal Liberation NSW president Mark Pearson introduced himself tothe farmer who refused to give his permission for a spot inspection,saying we should return in 24 hours. "A lot of people don't realise the conditions these animals -considered by scientists to be as intelligent as a four-year-old child- live in. "They spend much of their lives in steel and concrete crates the sizeof their bodies." -- full story:http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/social-issues/activists-refused-admission-to-northeast-piggery/1693196.aspx

PETA Classified as a “Terrorist Threat” by the USDA

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been classified as as a “terrorist threat” in a document created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA created a new “APHIS Facility Security Profile” form to send to animal experimentation facilities. Recipients were asked to answer about their experiences, and return the form to the government so the USDA can better meet their needs.

In one section of the form, on p4, item #2 B and C, PETA is listed as a “domestic special interest terrorist”:

B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.

[ ] Attack from international terrorists
[ ] Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-[ ] Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-[ ] Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-[ ] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-[ ] Animal Defense League (ADL)
-[ ] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-[ ] Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-[ ] Other (please specify): ____________________
[ ] Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.

I have written extensively on this site about how the ELF and ALF have become the number one domestic terrorism threat, even though they have targeted property and not people. And Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists were convicted on “terrorism” charges for running a website that vocally supported the actions of those groups. The listing of PETA and the Animal Defense League is something else entirely.

PETA is perhaps the most recognized organization in the animal rights movement. They are known for their undercover investigations, and their use of celebrities and outlandish media stunts to draw attention to factory farming, fur, circuses and animal experimentation.

Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.

So why in another section of the USDA form, are they listed as a possible answer under “Greatest Threat or Danger. What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?”

Because they expose what goes on behind closed doors.

Justin Goodman, research associate supervisor for PETA, had a fantastic oped in The Sacramento Bee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the misuses of the “terrorism” label against non-violent activists. In California, four activists are facing terrorism charges for protesting at individuals homes and allegedly creating fliers with names and addresses on them.

From Goodman’s oped:

This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolent protests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by one of the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time, while people who wake up every morning and go to jobs in which they torment and kill animals in laboratories continue to enjoy their freedom, paychecks, social lives and families.

Animal industries are quite open about their desire to use terrorism laws to keep their practices out of the public spotlight. I recently posted about the Animal Agriculture Alliance calling for federal prosecution of undercover investigators. It’s not because the investigators are violent. It is because they pose an even greater threat: educating the public.

As Goodman wrote: “To shield them from public opinion and discussion and to protect them from peaceful and heretofore lawful pickets by locking up those who dare to challenge the suffering that occurs inside laboratories is an attack on every American’s right of protest.”

Related posts:

How Corporate Provacateurs Made Fran Trutt an “Animal Rights Terrorist”
Environmentalist Sentenced to 21 Years as a “Terrorist”; Violent Racists Receive Half That
2 Animal Rights Activists Arrested as “Terrorists” for Freeing Mink in Utah

Egypt supermarket displays lambs ahead of holiday; offends animal rights activists

CAIRO: The sound of a baby lamb startles a few customers at an
Egyptian supermarket into a stupor. The shock of seeing a small baby
lamb fenced in a tiny three feet by three feet container angers many,
who stop and watch the small brown animal stumble to and fro, the
almost shrieking “bah, bah” coming from its young mouth. The
displaying of the animal, in such a public venue, has left many,
Egyptians and foreigners, questioning the worth of the owner’s
decision to show the small creature.
...
Yehya Abdallah, an employee who sees the congregation of frustrated
customers, believes they need to understand that these animals are
“for the purpose of eating.” He says that the idea of animal rights is
something that has been created by foreigners who don’t understand the
realities of life in Egypt.

“Animals are for food, so this is just normal and we shouldn’t get
angry over how this animal is treated,” he argues. And what about the
other lamb who died because of the conditions? “Animals die, we eat
them, so what?” The condescension being handed to Egyptians asking why
the animal is being treated this way tells a lot, says Amina Abaza,
the head the Society for the Protection of Animal Rights in Egypt
(SPARE).

--
full story:
http://bikyamasr.com/?p=6138

Animal rights group dicusses MSU's practices

A national organization is calling on MSU officials to consider
alternatives to how the university teaches its veterinary students.

Representatives from Animalearn, a division of the nonprofit animal
advocacy and educational organization American Anti-Vivisection
Society, questioned MSU’s past practices of purchasing live animals
from Class B animal dealers at a lecture Wednesday, but said the
university is making progress. Students Promoting Animal Rights, or
SPAR, hosted the event.

The group released a report in April detailing its analysis of public
universities in 24 selected states based on information it received
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee.

--
full story:
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/11/animal_rights_group_dicusses_msus_practices

Group targets U animal scientist

The school raised security for one of its researchers after an animal
rights activist group singled him out on its website.
...
University of Minnesota police have increased patrols near the home of
a Medical School animal researcher after a posting on an animal rights
activist website displayed his name and photograph and noted that "...
we should not be surprised when the unconscionable violence inflicted
upon animals is justifiably visited upon their tormentors."

The Internet posting went up late last week on the website
NegotiationIsOver.com in reaction to a Star Tribune story about a
multimillion-dollar national campaign by biomedical researchers,
including U Prof. Dick Bianco, to increase lagging support for medical
and scientific tests using animals.

--
full story:
http://www.startribune.com/local/69622092.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUZ

Bear death prompts formation of animal rights group

The Ojai Wildlife League is criticizing Fish and Game officials foreuthanizing a wild bear last month, as the head game warden defendshis role in killing the 400-pound animal...There’s a sense of guilt, responsibility even, that hangs in the airunderneath a tree in the 200 block of Aliso Street in Ojai. Theflowers and candles littering the ground resemble the site of anaccident scene, or a grave. On a cactus leaf laid out, the words“Forgive Us” are scrawled. Residents are paying their respects for the death of a veryunconventional member of the community, writing poetry, sculpting artand holding ceremonial events, humanizing an animal they may haveattacked, rather than befriended, under different circumstances. But it’s the formation of a special group that’s thrust the OjaiValley into the spotlight this month, a group whose members are takingan active role in criticizing state game wardens in what they say wascruelty for euthanizing a 400-pound bear that posed no apparent threatafter climbing up the tree in Downtown Ojai on Oct. 10. “As an organization, we don’t have an answer at this point. We knowhow tragic this was,” says Chris Nottoli, a charter member of thenewly formed Ojai Wildlife League. “This bear died unnecessarily.” -- full story:http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/bear_death_prompts_formation_of_animal_rights_group/7374/

Law student sets sights on defending animals’ rights

The environmental law program brought Cara Hunt to UVic. But she has
ended up dedicating her time on campus to protecting and advancing the
rights of animals.

“Animal law is the pre-eminent social justice issue of our time,” says
Hunt. “More people are going vegan and vegetarian every day.”

Animal law is any legal issue, legislation or case law that relates to
animals and their interests.

Hunt, 35, graduates with numerous awards and scholarships. She sits on
the executive of the animal law section with the BC Branch of the
Canadian Bar Association, and she is a past executive director of the
Student Animal Legal Defense Fund.

--
full story:
http://ring.uvic.ca/09nov05/hunt.html

Ethicist challenges man-animal 'speciesism'

The animal liberation movement is a “far-reaching revolution,”
philosopher and animal rights advocate Peter Singer told a packed
MacMillan 117 Tuesday night. In his lecture, titled “Ethics and
Animals: Where we’ve come from, and where we need to go,” the
world-renowned ethicist shared his controversial views about the
ethical basis for giving animals the same moral considerations as
humans and the justification for treating all beings as a “community
of equals.”

“We should give interests equal consideration, whatever those
interests might be,” Singer said. “It’s hard to say that species
membership should mark a morally crucial divide.”

Because animals suffer like human beings and can feel pain, Singer
said, humans cannot justify exploiting other species for food
production and research. “This equal consideration of interests is one
that we routinely violate,” he said.

Singer, a professor at Princeton, came to Brown with support from the
Brown Animal Rights Club and the Kaleidoscope Lecture Fund, a group
promoting the expression of diversity of ideas and opinions at the
University. Though his appearances have spurred protests in the past,
Tuesday’s talk occurred without incident, save a quiet protest and
pamphleting from members of the Lyndon LaRouche movement before the
event.

--
full story:
http://www.browndailyherald.com/ethicist-challenges-man-animal-speciesism-1.2049447

Jonathan Safran Foer - America's #1 Terrorist?

With the publication of Jonathan Safran Foer's captivating and
powerful book, Eating Animals, much has been said and written about
his undercover investigative work, which gives America a view inside
the hidden world of factory farms.

What has not been commented on, however, is the disquieting fact that
under existing federal and state laws, Mr. Foer's undercover actions
-- while clearly an important public service -- are actually illegal,
and what's more, they constitute acts of domestic terrorism.

Sound absurd? It should. But the reality is this:

In 2006, President Bush signed into law a little-known but sweeping
piece of legislation called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
(AETA), an expansion of the previously existing and equally
little-known Animal Enterprise Protection Act.

With speed and lack of reflection rivaling the passage of the USA
Patriot Act after 9/11, Congress pushed this animal industry-crafted
law through in a single day, with only a lone dissenting vote in
opposition, that of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Was Mr. Kucinich the only one to read that AETA makes into domestic
terrorism any actions that physically interfere with the operation of
any animal enterprise, or that cause physical or economic damage to
the said enterprise, regardless of motive or reason.
...
One person who tried to warn Congress of the threat of such
prosecutions was investigative journalist Will Potter, who testified
about the civil liberties implications of AETA before its passage, and
who continues to be the lone voice covering this issue at his
excellent and eye-opening blog, greenisthenewred.com, which draws
chilling parallels between the persecution of animal rights and
environmental activists today and the civil rights abuses of the
McCarthy era.

Consider this:

In 2006, six young American activists affiliated with the animal
rights group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA received a combined
sentence of 23 years in federal prison, simply for operating a website
that called for legal protests against the multinational animal
testing giant Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) and its suppliers.
...
We, as a nation, must demand the immediate repeal of AETA and related
laws, which harm both animals and consumers, protecting only the
profits of huge corporations who operate behind closed doors with
increasingly little scrutiny, or as they would clearly prefer it: with
no scrutiny at all.

--
full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikko-alanne/jonathan-safran-foer---am_b_340586.html

UK Police Spying Began With Animal Rights Activists Then Expanded to Other Groups

There has been a slew of incredible, and disturbing, reporting by the UK Guardian recently on how police have rebranded activism as “domestic extremism” and “domestic terrorism.” Environmental activists, antiwar activists, animal rights activists and many more groups have been targeted. Specifically, police have gathered personal information on thousands of activists who simply attend protests or political meetings, and created massive national databases.

For instance, this “spotter card” was distributed to police officers in preparation for protests at Britain’s largest arms fair. According to the Guardian:

These so-called “spotter cards” are issued by police to identify individuals they consider to be potential troublemakers because they have appeared at a number of demonstrations.

One of the individuals featured at ‘H’ is Mark Thomas, a comedian and political activist. He has no criminal record. In a column, he noted how this scaremongering reflects truly misplaced priorities:

While being wanted outside the arms fair, I was legitimately inside researching a book on the subject, and uncovered four companies illegally promoting “banned” torture equipment.

Perhaps the most important bit of information, I think, is buried a bit in the story. According to this investigative piece by the Guardian:

Acpo’s national infrastructure for dealing with domestic extremism was set up with the backing of the Home Office in an attempt to combat animal rights activists who were committing serious crimes. Senior officers concede the criminal activity associated with these groups has receded, but the units dealing with domestic extremism have expanded their remit to incorporate campaign groups across the political spectrum, including anti-war and environmental groups that have only ever engaged in peaceful direct action.

If you’re familiar with this site and the Green Scare, you know that one of the key points I try to hit home, repeatedly, is that environmental and animal rights activists may be among the first targets in these political crackdowns, but they will not be the last. By the admission of some government officials in the UK, this has clearly been the case.

Whether or not that has been the official policy in the United States, the same dynamic is at play. If we do not stop the terrorism rhetoric, legislation, court cases and scare-mongering in its tracks, no activist and no social movement will remain untouched.

Of course, you could always just continue listening to the soundbites of police and government officials, like this one from Anton Setchell, who is in charges of the “domestic extremism” unit in the UK. People who find themselves on the databases, he says, “should not worry at all.”

Related posts:

Animal Rights Activist Named Alongside Bin Laden on FBI’s Terrorist List
Legal Handbook for Animal Rights and Environmental Activists
How Corporate Provacateurs Made Fran Trutt an “Animal Rights Terrorist”

Mark Twain America's First Animal Welfare Advocate?

STANFORD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Given the prevalence and influence of groups devoted to animal welfare and animal rights in America today, it may come as a surprise to learn that the animal welfare movement did not start to gain momentum in the U.S. until the mid 19th century. Since then, activists have made the welfare and rights of animals a mainstream issue for both legislators and the general public. Animal advocacy may have never gotten to this point, however, without the help of one of America's greatest writers, Mark Twain.

Leading Mark Twain scholar Shelley Fisher Fishkin's latest research suggests that Twain was the most prominent American of his day to throw his weight behind the movement for animal welfare. In her new book entitled Mark Twain's Book of Animals, Fishkin, a Stanford English professor, examines how Twain's fascination with, and advocacy for, animals reveals itself in many of his works. In the book's introduction and afterword, Fishkin suggests that Twain's works played a pivotal role in raising Americans' concerns about cruelty to animals and the exploitation of non-human animals by humans.

Mark Twain's Book of Animals is a broad-ranging collection of Twain's work relating to animals, ranging from short stories and essays to excerpts of novels, travelogues, and private letters. Notably, it also includes a famous polemic Twain wrote against vivisection (the use of a living animal in experiments or demonstrations) that was later used as a manifesto of sorts by anti-vivisectionists around the world. The book, published by the University of California Press and released this Fall, also features six works by Twain which are being published for the first time.

Philosopher Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation and The Life You Can Save, wrote that "For those unaware — as I was until I read this book — that Mark Twain was one of America's early animal advocates, Shelley Fisher Fishkin's collection of his writings on animals will come as a revelation. Many of these pieces are as fresh and lively as when they were first written."

Scholar Discovers Passionate, Angry Twain

According to Fishkin, her research for Mark Twain's Book of Animals was especially rewarding because she was investigating an aspect of Twain's writing that had not previously been explored. Fishkin said that in this collection of his work "We see Twain at his silliest and most philosophical, at his most sentimental and sardonic. We see him having fun, and we see him seething anger. We read texts that are playful, and we read texts that are dark. Texts that are appealing, and texts that are quite frankly, repulsive. We get glimpses of Twain as a child, a parent, an artist, a thinker and an activist. In short, we have writing that is complex and variegated as Twain himself."

Animals referenced in Twain's works range from the familiar (cats, dogs, horses, birds) to the exotic (platypuses, kookaburras and tsetse flies). Although birds are mentioned in a number of the examples, cats were apparently Twain's favorite; he admired them for their independence and the fact that they were the only animal to elude the sting of man's whip.

Illustrations by Luminary American Artist Bring Stories to Life

The edited collection also contains over 30 engravings of animals by the renowned, 20th century illustrator Barry Moser.

"He is one of the greatest living engravers and illustrators," Fishkin said of Moser, who has also illustrated editions of Moby Dick, Alice in Wonderland and the Bible. "He did a wonderful job. His animals are stunning."

Darwin Played a Central Role in Twain's Animal Philosophy

Fishkin was inspired to undertake the project after realizing how central animals were to Twain's works and that his views on animals revealed a great deal about how he viewed people.

Fishkin was surprised by what she found during the course of her research. "I had not realized when I embarked on this project that Twain was the most prominent American of his era to throw his weight behind the animal welfare movement."

Mark Twain was greatly influenced by the ideas that Charles Darwin laid out in his groundbreaking publication, The Descent of Man (1871), a book that "startled the world," as Twain put it. She examined copious notes that Twain wrote in the margins of his copy of The Descent of Man (housed with the Mark Twain Papers at the Bancroft Library) and analyzed their significance.

In particular, Fishkin found that Twain was affected by Darwin's idea that man and animal were in reality, much more similar than people liked to believe. "The topic he was dealing with was emotional and intellectual continuities between humans and non-human animals. Darwin wrote that the lower animals were capable of experiencing the same emotions as people and that they were capable of rudimentary reasoning, as well."

Darwin's observations resonated with Twain's personal observations, as several texts in the books show. A number of Twain's works show that Twain believed that even if animals could not speak, they could still think and communicate, as well as feel.

Twain refused to place humans at the apex of creation, however. On the contrary, Twain classified humans as "the lowest animal." "Man is the animal that blushes," Twain once said. "He is the only that does it — or has occasion to."

Twain often used animals as a vehicle for criticizing humans, sometimes with a combination of whimsy, satire and invective, as is the case with "Letters from a Dog to Another Dog, Explaining and Accounting for Man," by "Newfoundland Smith. Translated from the Original Doggerel by M.T." — a piece that is published in this book for the first time.

Sport Hunting and Cockfighting Drew Twain's Ire

Twain writes about cruelty to animals in a range of contexts, criticizing, for example, the insensitivity involved in the exploitation of animals for sport or entertainment. Twain may have been the first American to call attention to the brutality of the so-called sport of cockfighting, which he describes in graphic detail.

Several pieces express Twain's contempt for the idea of hunting for sport, including a memorable passage from a sequel to Huckleberry Finn in which Huck shoots a bird and feels immediate remorse and shame ("Huck Shoots a Bird"). Another text in the book — from an unpublished piece of autobiographical writing — makes it clear that Twain based this account on an experience he had himself as a child ("Assassin").

Twain wrote a searing account of an English earl's behavior on a buffalo hunt (in "Man's Place in the Animal World") and wrote an impassioned anti-bullfighting novella (A Horse's Tale).

He also wrote a profile of the founder of the ASPCA, Henry Bergh, the year after the organization was founded, in which he witnessed and recounted Bergh's protest to a theatre manager about the way a live animal was treated as part of a play ("Cruelty to Animals").

While Twain condemned man's treatment of animals in a range of contexts, the issue of vivisection — experimentation on live animals — sparked his greatest ire. His letter to the London Anti-vivisection Society was "one of the strongest statements ever made about vivisection" — and, indeed, quotes from the letter can still be found on thousands of animal rights websites today.

At a time when there were relatively few, if any, constraints on the circumstances under which experiments could be conducted on live animals, Mark Twain's criticisms, which were widely reprinted, had an impact. As one prominent anti-vivisection activist wrote in a letter to Twain in 1907, "Your words are listened to where the fervent representations of other men are passed by unheard." She expressed her gratitude for "your power to mould the thoughts of the world."

Twain - Disappointed in Man and Ahead of his Time

In the last decades of his life, as Twain grew increasingly disappointed with his fellow human beings for a broad range of reasons, "their treatment of animals was right up there with other failings — cupidity, greed, hypocrisy, arrogance, pride," Fishkin noted.

Some of the debates that Twain's writings entered are still raging today, she said. Mark Twain's words "helped prompt us to think, to question our assumptions, and to care — both about our fellow human beings and about the other animals with whom we share the planet."

Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, Stanford University is recognized as one of the world's leading research and teaching institutions.

Photos/Multimedia Gallery Available: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/mmg.cgi?eid=6081287&lang=en

Pet Shop Protesters Shot–Will It Be Labeled Terrorism?

Three animal rights activists were shot with brass pellets during a recent protest against puppy mills in Santa Monica, California. According to local news outlets, the police are investigating the shootings as an assault with a deadly weapon.

About 20 activists were protesting Aquarium & Pet Center in Santa Monica, which they say sells dogs bred in puppy mills in inhumane conditions.

Carole Raphaelle Davis, the West Coast director of the Companion Animal Protection Society, said store employees have threatened the protesters and were seen laughing after three activists were hit.

The shooting resulted in minor injuries, including welts.

“It’s shocking to think that people would try to intimidate people or cause them harm simply because they expressed their views,” said WeHo council member Jeffrey Prang, who has been working with the group to write a municipal ban on the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in West Hollywood.

The incident is disturbing enough on its own, but it needs to be put in a broader context. The animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Some elements of those movements have engaged in property destruction, economic sabotage and arson. In the history of the U.S. animal rights movement, though, not one person has ever been targeted with physical violence and no one has been shot.

If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a “terrorists” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In fact, the government’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism” is much, much lower when it comes to the conduct of animal rights and environmental activists. Right now, four animal rights activists in California are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting and chalking slogans on the sidewalk. They’re being labeled “terrorists.”

Incidents like this should be it abundantly clear that there are two systems of law in this country. One is for the wealthy, the corporations, the animal research industry. If they are under attack, they can lobby for new terrorism legislation and pressure the politicians and government officials who represent them to crack down on the “terrorists.” They can carve out special crimes to protect them, and only them.

The other system of law is for everybody else. If they are under attack–through violence, not just home protests or economic sabotage–well, it’s just business as usual.

So what do you think? Will the government labeling this violent, politically-motivated crime “terrorism”?

Related posts:

South Dakota “Eco-terrorism” Law Shot Down as Unnecessary
White Supremacist Opens Fire at Holocaust Museum, But Will it Be Labeled “Terrorism”?
Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners

National Primate Liberation Week

October 17 - 24, 2009



NYC Protests Focus On
Huntingdon Life Sciences & Fortress Investment

Each year, the animal rights movement takes a week to focus on the
plight of primates in vivisection and research laboratories. This year
the week chosen is October 17 - October 24, 2009.

During the weekend of Saturday, October 24th and Sunday, October 25th,
2009, Win Animal Rights will stage protests against Huntingdon Life
Sciences, their financial supporters and their customers, to call
attention to the suffering and death of primates at Huntingdon Life
Sciences.

On Sunday, although we will begin at a nearby address, we will be
walking one block north to the residence of the Chief Executive Officer
of Huntingdon Life Sciences, Andrew Baker. WAR considers Baker the most
heinous primate murderer in corporate America and as such is a fitting
target for National Primate Liberation Week.

Fortress Investment Group executives will be the focal point of
attention this weekend. All evidence points toward a discrepancy between
Fortress' statement and their actions. We firmly believe that they are
still in collusion with Huntingdon Life Sciences. Until we are satisfied
that they have cut all ties to Huntingdon Life Sciences/Life Sciences
Research, we will continue to deliver our message in person at their
doorsteps.

For anyone who believes that Fortress' statement should be enough to
terminate the campaign against them, consider the fact that if Fortress
had not given financial aid to Huntingdon Life Sciences, they would most
likely have closed 3 years ago. In that timeframe, approximately 540,000
innocent animals were killed by Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Please join us:

Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

Where: 1345 Avenue of the Americas (54th & 55th Sts.), NYC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

Where: 20 W. 55th St. (5th & 6th Ave.), NYC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date: Sunday, October 25, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

Where: 271 Central Park West & W. 87th St., NYC

Banners, posters and literature will be provided. Just bring your
enthusiasm and a loud voice to speak out for "Primate Liberation". Dress
comfortably and come prepared to do some walking as we will most likely
be calling on other animal abusers in the neighborhood. Demos will be
spirited and peaceful and will follow all local ordinances.

For more info call: 1-646-267-9934 or e-mail: centcom@war-online.org


If you cannot make the protests, consider e-mailing or writing to
Fortress Investment Group top executives at:

Mr. Wesley Edens - Co-Chairman & Principal
wedens@fortressinv.com


Mr. Peter Briger, Jr. - Co-Chairman & Principal
pbriger@fortressinv.com


Mr. Daniel Mudd - Chief Executive Officer
dmudd@fortressinv.com


Fortress Investment Group LLC
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10105, USA
Tel: 212 798 6100

For more information about Fortress visit:

http://war-online.org/Alert_FortressLies.htm


Please keep all communications with the above polite and informative.
Let them know that abusing and torturing animals is not the right way to
go. A picture may be more convincing. Visit:

http://www.shac.net/HLS/photos.html#photos/2008b.jpg


Coming events: Mark your calendars now!
(Details on many of the listings can be found on the WAR Yahoo Calendar
linked below)

Oct. 31, 2009: Halloween Parade - March for Animal Liberation - Parade
& Protests

November 27 - 29, 2009 - Fur Free Friday Weekend

Visit the WAR Calendar for future events:
http://calendar.yahoo.com/winanimalrights

Visit the WAR MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/winanimalrights

Visit WAR on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Win-Animal-Rights/25169195791


For more info contact Win Animal Rights at: winanimalrights@optonline.net

Call: 646.267.9934 or visit the WAR website at: http://war-online.org


W.A.R. (WIN ANIMAL RIGHTS) is an independent non-profit organization not
affiliated or associated with SHAC, SHAC USA or any other group or
organization and does not conduct or incite any illegal activity. The
above information is not meant to incite or request any illegal actions
or illegal activities of any kind. If you have any questions about the
legality of any act, we encourage everyone receiving this (or the)
action alert(s) to check your local laws and ordinances before
proceeding to do anything.

3rd Circuit Rejects Online Activists' Free-Speech

Defense attorney says he expects the ruling will be appealed and is
'fairly sure we will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court'
...
The First Amendment does not insulate animal rights activists from
criminal liability when they use an Internet Web site to orchestrate a
campaign of harassment, cyberattacks, vandalism and destruction of
property, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

In United States v. Fullmer, a three-judge panel unanimously refused
to strike down the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, rejecting
arguments by six activists -- convicted for targeting Huntingdon Life
Sciences, an animal testing firm -- who complained that the law had
effectively criminalized their legitimate political protests.

The ruling upholds convictions and prison terms for six members of
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC, a group whose stated mission
was to drive Huntingdon Life Sciences out of business.

One of the judges wrote he would have overturned the protesters'
convictions on charges under the AEPA on non-constitutional grounds.

--
full story:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434647989&rd_Circuit_Rejects_Animal_Rights_Activists_Online_Speech_Challenge

Animal advocates shot at during protest

WILSHIRE BLVD — Members of an animal rights group were the victims of
sniper fire during a protest here Saturday and are offering a $5,000
reward for information leading to the arrest of the shooter.

The Companion Animal Protection Society (CAPS) staged a protest in
front of the Aquarium & Pet Center to protest the retailer's alleged
sale of "puppy mill" dogs, or purebred pups that have been bred in
inhumane conditions. That's when the shots rang out.

Three protesters were hit with what was later determined to be brass
pellets fired from a high-powered air rifle. The protesters suffered
minor injuries, said Sgt. Jay Trisler with the Santa Monica Police
Department, which is asking for the public's help in identifying the
shooter.
...
Davis said employees with the Aquarium & Pet Center threatened the
protesters and were seen laughing after the shots were fired.

The store's owner, Scott Lee, said his employees were not involved in
the attack and does not purchase animals from mills.

"We get ours from local breeders … ," Lee said. "[The accusations are]
not true."

--
full story:
http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2009-10-14-63537.113116_Animal_advocates_shot_at_during_protest.html

CAROL J.ADAMS on ACTIVISM,VEGANISM and MODELS for CHANGE

Carol J. Adams on Activism, Veganism and Models for Change
Posted: 11 Oct 2009 09:45 PM PDT
As with many animal activists, my path to advocacy has been crisscrossed with life-changing intersections and punctuated by important milestones. One of the most influential landmarks in my road to activism was Carol J. Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, which compares myths about meat-eating with myths about what it means to be a man. Reading Carol’s book, it is impossible to ignore how a patriarchal society has marketed eating animal flesh as manly and debased women along the way. She’s also the author of many other books, including Living Among Meat Eaters: The Vegetarian’s Survival Handbook, and co-editor of The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics: A Reader. Recently, I had the pleasure of speaking with Carol about animal activism. Our conversation ranged from using social networks to whether activists need to watch disturbing undercover video footage. Not surprisingly, Carol began with a topic that’s close to her heart.
“We’ve got a problem with sexism in the movement, so that the people who traditionally have cared, who are women, are not always heard as well as male philosophers are,” she said. “The male philosophers the animal rights movement has held up are really wonderful people, but they draw on a male-based philosophy — that of rights or Utilitarianism — and this assumes the individual is autonomous, and it’s a male model, emphasizing rationality over caring and autonomy over interdependence. One thing the animal rights movement needs to do is to become more alert to incorporating feminist attitudes throughout the movement. So instead of having nearly-naked women saying, ‘Stop harming animals,’ we should have a variety of people saying, ‘I care about animals, and I’m a better person for that.’ Not, ‘I’m a better person than you, but maybe a better person than I was.’ Instead of being absolutely confrontational, so that we allow other people to take their unease with emotions and bring it out of themselves and blame us for making them feel uncomfortable, we can find a variety of ways to help people sit with their feelings and learn how to listen to those feelings.”
Carol, who has devoted much of her writing to exploring the links between species oppression and gender oppression, said the animal rights movement often disowns women and disowns emotions that are equated with women. “So I feel like we have to evolve the movement to lift up caring and lift up the people who care — i.e., women — rather than sexualizing them, and appealing to socialized men who have been taught that maleness equals not caring.” She believes that when it comes to animals, many otherwise caring people keep their feelings at arm’s length. “When someone tells me, ‘I don’t want to know what’s happening to animals; I’m afraid to care,’ I often say, ‘Tell me about your childhood relationships with animals.’ I want to know what kinds of scars there are from a time when they might have cared and what happened to that caring. I’ve looked at how families handle the death of a pet in the United States, and they do it really terribly — ‘Oh, it was only a pet,’ ‘We can get a new one,’ ‘Oh, stop crying’ — so that part of the movement to adulthood is putting down the feelings that are associated with being a child. But those are really good and honest feelings. That’s why in my own writing I’ve written prayers that speak in the voice of a child who’s lost a beloved companion animal to provide a way to show that grief is part of what we are going to feel if we care about animals, and to model how to move through grief.”
Yet in responding to the plight of farmed animals, Carol said, female animals are often overlooked. “It’s this abuse of female reproductivity that disappears from the radar so often. I mean, I know that animal rights groups are lifting it up more and more, but I still think that the fate of the dairy cow and the egg-laying hen is one of the most serious issues for us to address. If we eliminated forcing cows to get pregnant, you’d eliminate 50 percent of hamburgers, too.” She noted that meat-eating would not exist if female animals were not exploited. Yet, she observed, meat-eaters still manage to take credit for the presence of animals on Earth. “Meat-eaters argue, ‘Well, the animals come into life, into existence, because we want to eat them. The animals owe us their lives.’ No, the animals come into existence and owe their mothers their lives. It’s the mothers who are being the most oppressed because they’re going through constant pregnancy.”
As our conversation turned to the use of hidden cameras to capture graphic images that can be used to educate consumers and activists alike, Carol said she worries that the animal rights movement might focus too narrowly on these upsetting videos. “I think that sometimes that’s not necessarily going to be the best way to change people. I don’t want to just shock people. I know some people are changed that way. I remember when I used to go to AR conferences they’d have this one room that just showed a film with one horrible image after another. The young people coming out of that room were weeping and feeling so powerless. In terms of change, I know there’s a new Mercy For Animals video that’s tied to the egg industry. I appreciate their work, but I can’t watch these anymore, and I think it’s OK to say to people, ‘You don’t have to watch these. What we’re looking for is consciousness.’ We don’t need, necessarily, to have these images burned on our retinas.”
When I mentioned that some activists feel we owe it to the animals to watch such videos, she said, “Again, it’s a male model of change versus a feminist model of change. It’s not about owing. It’s about asking, ‘How can I nurture the best relationship possible for all animals?’ I’m an animal, too. I do not need to inflict suffering on myself if the consciousness of what’s going on is already there. I think women often are going to be more obedient to these exhortations because, again, of the sexism in our society. But if a lot of women already are socialized to care, then our experience of those videos may be drastically different, and I think that needs to be acknowledged. Extraordinary expectations do not need to be laid down on animal activists. We’re already there. We should ask, ‘What’s the best I can do as an individual linking up with others?’ Everyone answers that differently, but our answers become part of a chorus that’s the same.”

Carol J. Adams
Besides videos, then, what tools for change does Carol recommend? “In Living Among Meat Eaters I ask, ‘How do we know how change happens? Why do we think there’s one model for change?’ I think we fail to recognize that the right brain can also bring about change. That you can incubate and you can be stimulated by art to change. I think because activists are often more likely to be left brained and rational, they fail to take account of the way the right brain can be enlisted to help people change. In the book I say that meat-eaters are perfectly happy eating vegan meals, as long as they don’t know that’s what they’re doing. What I mean by that is people hate being self-conscious about what they’re eating. Eating is supposed to be directly experiential — it’s not supposed to have a theory to it. People think vegans are going to examine everything. One of the most important things I think we do is just having vegan meals for people. They leave and think, ‘Gee, Carol’s a vegan. That was a really great risotto; it was so creamy. So…that was a vegan risotto.’ So I’ve given them a chance to incubate, and the next time they come back to me they’re not as threatened, because I’ve enlisted their right brain to work with me rather than just arguing with the left brain that might not want to change.”
Carol also likes Facebook, which she joined earlier this year. “When I get friended by someone I don’t know, I generally accept the friending, but I’ll ask them to tell me about their activism,” she said. “Oh my gosh, the wonderful responses I’ve gotten! People write, ‘Thank you for asking,’ and often they’ll talk about the influence of my books. Some will say, ‘I’m a quiet activist. I’m uncomfortable speaking in public. But I make vegan meals.’ Some say, ‘I’m a full-time teacher, but I also write letters, or rescue strays and help them get new homes, or I’m doing this or organizing that.’ I’m just so grateful for them. No one has to tell them to go watch a video. They’re way beyond that.”
My sincere thanks to Carol Adams for her time and her contributions to the movement. You can learn more about Carol’s work at her Web site.
Credit:http://strikingattheroots.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/carol-j-adams-on-activism-veganism-and-models-for-change

Fortress lie, animals die!-Action Alert!

Campaign relaunch against top HLS lender, Fortress Investments.


Following on from Fortress' statement last week, where they stated that:
..."immediate agreement to fully divest itself from an investment with
Huntingdon Life Sciences/Life Sciences Research" Fortress thought they could
make a false statement and we would go away. They thought wrong - we always
find out liars, and Fortress' own staff have told us what is really going on.
We will now be targeting Fortress as a priority target until they give a real
statement and supply proof that they have deinvested in HLS. Also, there has
been no filing on the SEC or any other indication that Fortress have actually
de-invested in HLS as they stated on 1st October.

We always find out the liars and call for an immediate re-launch of the
campaign against Fortress Investment Group. Fortress are helping keep HLS
afloat with their blood money loan and in doing so are helping to kill 500
animals every day and then to lie about their dealings as well!

We are calling on activists across the globe to protest at Fortress Investment
Group. For details of their office locations, go to:
www.shac.net/action/financial/fortress_locations.html

For more information about Huntingdon's financials please visit
http://www.shac.net/action/financial/


===

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you in relation to a $30 million loan that has been made to
Huntingdon__Life__Sciences (H-L-S) via your Drawbridge Special Opportunities
Fund. Without this loan H-L-S could not remain open and therefore Fortress are
in large part responsible for the cruel and violent actions going on inside
H-L-S. The fact that Fortress have set up a front company in Luxembourg called
Anchor_Sub_Funding shows that a lot of effort has been put into keeping this
loan secret, presumably to stop H-L-S' horrific record of cruelty, violence and
law breaking from tarnishing Fortress' reputation.

H-L-S have a long history of violence; they were most famously exposed in 1997
when channel 4 TV filmed workers punching beagle puppies in the face. In 2005
ex-workers spoke out about cruelty they had witnessed and in 2008 Animal
Defenders International went undercover inside H-L-S exposing cruel primate
experiments and disgusting conditions. H-L-S also have a track record of law
breaking and manipulation of data. During just one primate study, H-L-S broke
the law 526 times; and workers have been caught taking drugs and drinking on
site.

H-L-S' financials are in a dire state, and there is a high risk that H-L-S
would fail to make its loan repayments to you, you may already be aware that
they have failed to meet loan commitments during 2009. This is due to a
significant loss in custom and terrible share price, on top of this many of
their shareholders are filing class action lawsuits against H-L-S after H-L-S'
board of directors accepted CEO Andrew_Baker's offer to buy out the failing
company for a very low price of $8.50 a share.

Please don't take my word for it, if you want to see the state H-L-S are in
please read the Plymouth_Report which H-L-S recently filed with the SEC:
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1158833/000115883309000045/exhibit99.htm

I am urging you to explore all get out clauses in this loan and reel it in. I
also urge you to raise these issues with everyone you can within the company
and do everything in your power to halt your support of
Huntingdon_Life_Sciences.

Please raise this issue at any meetings you attend, and let all your colleagues
know about H-L-S.

For further information, please visit: www.shac.net

Yours faithfully

[YOUR NAME]

===

CONTACTS:
Fortress' Board of Directors

Wesley R. Edens
Principal and Co-Chairman of the Board
wedens@fortressinv.com

Peter L. Briger, Jr.
Principal and Co-Chairman of the Board
pbriger@fortressinv.com


Robert I. Kauffman
Principal and Director
rkauffman@fortressinv.com


Randal A. Nardone
Principal and Director
rnardone@fortressinv.com


Michael E. Novogratz
Principal and Director
mnovogratz@fortressinv.com


Dr. Richard N. Haass
Director
rhaass@fortressinv.com

Daniel N. Bass
Chief Financial Officer
dbass@fortressinv.com

Douglas L. Jacobs
Director
djacobs@fortressinv.com


Howard Rubin
Director
hrubin@fortressinv.com

Takumi Shibata
Director
tshibata@fortressinv.com


George W. Wellde Jr.
Director
gwellde@fortressinv.com


Fortress employees directly involved in the Anchor loan:

Michael Polidoro
mpolidoro@fortress.com


Michael Eggenberg
meggenberg@fortress.com


Scott Silvers
ssilvers@fortress.com

Misc:

Legal Dept.
legaldepartment@fortressinv.com


UK reception:
ukfrontdesk@fortress.com


wkonops@fortress.com
wkonops@fortressinv.com


All emails in this alert

wedens@fortressinv.com, pbriger@fortressinv.com, pbriger@fortressinv.com,
rkauffman@fortressinv.com, rnardone@fortressinv.com,
mnovogratz@fortressinv.com, rhaass@fortressinv.com, dbass@fortressinv.com,
djacobs@fortressinv.com, hrubin@fortressinv.com, tshibata@fortressinv.com,
gwellde@fortressinv.com, mpolidoro@fortress.com, meggenberg@fortress.com,
ssilvers@fortress.com, legaldepartment@fortressinv.com,
ukfrontdesk@fortress.com, wkonops@fortress.com, wkonops@fortressinv.com

-------------------------------------
Disclaimer and Information:

The details in this action alert are provided for information purposes only,
and should not be used for any illegal activities as defined by the
jurisdiction you live in. SHAC does not support or encourage any form of
harassment; nothing in this alert has the purpose of inciting such behaviour,
and we request that all communications are kept polite.

For general information on the campaign to close Huntingdon Life Science,
please visit our website www.shac.net

Animal Rights Movement Finds Growing Following

By Anna Malpas

The St. Petersburg Times



Alexander Belenky / The St. Petersburg Times

Animal rights campaigners protest the wearing of fur in central St. Petersburg.

MOSCOW — Eight animal rights protesters posed in T-shirts printed with fake blood, several hiding their faces in surgical masks, outside the trial of a man accused of shooting pet dogs.

The trial could result in one of the country’s first serious convictions for animal cruelty. It also provides a showcase for a new, more radical animal activism that is gaining popularity in Russia.

Dmitry Khudoyarov is on trial at Moscow’s Cheryomushkinsky District Court on charges of killing a dog and permanently disabling a puppy by shooting them from his all-terrain vehicle.

He has pleaded guilty and could serve up to six months in jail, a year of community service, or pay a fine of up to 80,000 rubles ($2,580).

Activists standing outside the courthouse during a recent hearing wore T-shirts with splattered blood and the slogans, “Prison for the Slaughterer” and “Prison for the Serial Killer.”

“Khudoyarov is a disease of our society,” said one protester, Emilia Nadin. “This is really the first case in Russia where people have managed to bring a case to court, and it’s very important for us to create a precedent.”

Fueling their cause is the fact that the country’s courts have handed down few convictions for animal cruelty. In 2007, a guard was convicted of killing a stray dog named Ryzhik who lived in the Konkovo metro station. He received a suspended sentence of two years and eight months.

This year, residents in both the Far Eastern city of Khabarovsk and the Oryol region were convicted of killing dogs and received sentences of three months and six months of community service, respectively. A man from Samara was given a suspended sentence of one year and fined 12,000 rubles.

In 2002, a model deemed by psychiatrists to be psychologically unstable stabbed a stray dog at the Mendeleyevskaya metro station. She was sent to a psychiatric hospital, and shocked Muscovites paid for a statue of the dog to be placed in the station.

The protest outside the courthouse this month was officially a flash mob, since officials had asked them to hold the rally 2.5 kilometers away. Police stood outside the courtroom and made no attempt to move on the protesters.

“We want the guy to be jailed — and for a long time,” said protester Marat Makhmutov.

The protesters represent a secretive grass-roots organization called Alliance for Animal Rights, which Nadin said she quit her job to join full-time two years ago. She has no office, and activists print up leaflets at home or work, she said.

The group provides a more attractive face for animal rights, Nadin said. “Our position has got better, we appear on television. They used to film crazy women with unwashed hair, now it’s young people,” she said.

Makhmutov and another protester, Emil Baluyev, both wore surgical masks, which they said were to prevent them from being identified by “boneheads,” members of a group of skinheads who target and beat up anti-fascist groups.

“They monitor all this with photographs and can find us later,” Makhmutov said. “They could beat us up or kill us.”

Baluyev, a law student, said he wants to become a rights campaigner after he graduates. Makhmutov, who works in telecommunications, said he became an activist 1 1/2 years ago.

Both said they came into the animal rights movement through the punk subculture.

A nebulous organization, the Alliance for Animal Rights has no formal registration, and it is unclear who is in charge.

Its spokesman, Semyon Simonov, answered e-mails from Sochi. He said the group has 500 members and was set up five years ago, initially as a purely Internet-based project, but had been holding rallies since 2005. He said the protests usually attract 50 people, but sometimes all 500 members show up for popular issues such as homeless animals.

Among the causes that the group backs is the controversial Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC, campaign against British animal testing company Huntingdon Life Sciences. The international campaign calls for targeting all shareholders and partner companies. In Britain, activists have vandalized houses, published the names of investors and sent letters with threats.

Seven British activists were jailed for blackmail last year. “We call for everyone who takes part not to break the law,” Simonov said. “For us it’s important because our society could react badly to illegal actions.”

Nevertheless, he warned, “In Russia there are people who have been disappointed by legal methods, and they could ignore laws that allow the killing of animals.”

Activists said they knew of the jail terms for the British activists and were sympathetic.

“Such radical activities are over the top,” Baluyev said. “We hope to achieve success with peaceful methods, but we support these people all the same.”

“We think this is bad,” Makhmutov said of the jailings. “We feel that any defense of animals isn’t a crime.”

Full Article:

http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=30006