DawnWatch.com

ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS -- DECEMBER 2003

MAD COW DISEASE IN THE US -- 12/23/03

As DawnWatch goes on holiday break, till January 5, I leave you with what is surely the biggest veggie story of the year -- perhaps many years. Mad Cow Disease has been discovered in the United States. A sample taken from a "downer" cow (meaning one so sick she had to be dragged to slaughter) in Washington State, on December 9, has tested "presumptive positive." The meat from the cow went to two processing plants in Washington State, though according to the New York Times web article, "officials stressed that the meat did not come from parts of the animal that are known to harbor the mad cow agent."

Animals harbor the disease for many years before showing symptoms, and generally only those too sick to walk are tested. So now that we know the disease is in the United States, it would seem unrealistic to imagine that no other cows with the disease had been slaughtered without being tested. And since a Holstein is a dairy cow, and over 80% of hamburger meat in the United States comes from dairy cows, and one hamburger can contain meat from hundreds of ground up animals, it would not seem unwarranted to suspect that the disease has entered the human food chain.

You can find out more about the issue on the New York Times website at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/science/23WIRE-MADCOW.html?hp

Tomorrow and over the next few days the story will be in every paper in America (and most around the world) probably on the front page. Many Americans will go off beef -- and perhaps be inclined to eat more of other animals instead. Please don't miss this opportunity to send a letter to the editor of your paper reminding people that a diet free of animal products is a healthful and compassionate choice.

A huge proportion of letters received by smaller papers are published, and larger papers will always publish a letter or two on a subject about which they receive many (unless the letters carry similar phrasing and are thus clearly the result of an orchestrated activism effort). So the few minutes you take to jot down a few veg-friendly lines are well spent.

I sign off sending much love to our animal protection community and a huge thank you to all who have written letters on behalf of the animals throughout the year. I wish us all a happy and healthy holiday season and vigor with which to continue the good fight in 2004.

FABULOUS ANTI FUR MESSAGE FROM BIZARRO -- 12/22/03

The December 22 Bizarro cartoon is a winner!

I have pasted it above, but for those who only receive text on their browsers: We see a woman dressed in a huge fur coat, walking a pretty little dog. A young woman, bending down to pet the dog says, "She's so cute! Would you take $100 for her? I've got a jacket she'd make the PERFECT collar for."

Bizarro is a syndicated newspaper cartoon that appears in approximately 200 newspapers around the world. In the US, those papers include the San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dallas Morning News, Miami Herald, Boston Herald, San Diego Union Tribune, Denver Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Detroit News, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Las Vegas Sun, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Nashville Cit Paper, Houston Chronicle, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In Canada they include the Vancouver Sun, Toronto Globe and Mail, and the Montreal Gazette.

If your paper carries the cartoon, you have a perfect excuse for an anti fur letter to the editor, quoting the cartoon and expressing appreciation for the sentiment. If you have any trouble finding the correct email address for a letter to the editor, don't hesitate to ask me for help.

If your paper does not carry Bizarro, you might want to contact the paper and try to change that. Bizarro is a superb, award winning cartoon, and its creator, Dan Piraro, is an outspoken animal rights activist. If you go to his website, http://www.bizarro.com/ and click on "Animal Stuff" you are in for a treat. You'll find a short essay, "Why I'm Vegan," another headed, "Are Humans Carnivores?" some great quotes, and....LOTS OF ANIMAL FRIENDLY CARTOONS that have appeared in papers all over the world! Check it out.

PRESS ENTERPRISE HUGE STORY AND GRAPHIC SHELTER PHOTOS ON FRONT PAGE - 12/21/03

Since DawnWatch is a national major media alert list, I would generally not send out, to all of my subscribers, an article in the Press-Enterprise from the Riverside County area. (Though the paper is not tiny, with a circulation of over 100,000.) But I had to send out an alert on this astounding front page story, which includes some of the most graphic, distressing photos I have ever seen (which I will paste below) including one, on the front page, of an adorable puppy being killed be lethal injection. I am sure the paper is going to get plenty of flak for offending its readers, so I hope to encourage many supportive comments as well.

The front page story (Sunday, December 21) headed "No Sanctuary," by Bonnie Stuart, is huge. And pages A12, 13, and 14 are filled with nothing but articles and shocking photos on the shelter and companion animal overpopulation crises. Further, the paper notes that this is part 1 of a two part series, with more coming tomorrow (Monday, December 22.) I recommend checking out the paper's website: http://www.pe.com/

We learn, "In 2002, Inland-area shelter workers killed about 63 percent of the 113,955 dogs and cats that entered shelters alive." And that according to Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster, "politicians haven't provided funding for comprehensive services...The county needs to hire more animal-control workers, improve the shelter, provide more spay-neuter services and do more to reach the Latino population."

The front page article, and those inside the paper, include heartbreaking stories of individual relinquishments and deaths.

You'll find the lead story, "No Sanctuary" on line at:

http://www.pe.com/digitalextra/metro/animalshelters/vt_stories/PE_pets21.58280.html

"He and his man

	But to return to my new companion. I was greatly delighted with him, and made it my business to teach him everything that was proper to make him useful, handy, and helpful; but especially to make him speak, and understand me when I spoke; and he was the aptest scholar there ever was.
	-- Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe

"Boston, on the coast of Lincolnshire, is a handsome town, writes his man. The tallest church steeple in all of England is to be found there; sea-pilots use it to navigate by. Around Boston is fen country. Bitterns abound, ominous birds who give a heavy, groaning call loud enough to be heard two miles away, like the report of a gun.

"The fens are home to many other kinds of birds too, writes his man, duck and mallard, teal and widgeon, to capture which the men of the fens, the fen-men, raise tame ducks, which they call decoy ducks or duckoys.

"Fens are tracts of wetland. There are tracts of wetland all over Europe, all over the world, but they are not named fens, fen is an English word, it will not migrate.

"These Lincolnshire duckoys, writes his man, are bred up in decoy ponds, and kept tame by being fed by hand. Then when the season comes they are sent abroad to Holland and Germany. In Holland and Germany they meet with others of their kind, and, seeing how miserably these Dutch and German ducks live, how their rivers freeze in winter and their lands are covered in snow, fail not to let them know, in a form of language which they make them understand, that in England from where they come the case is quite otherwise: English ducks have sea shores full of nourishing food, tides that flow freely up the creeks; they have lakes, springs, open ponds and sheltered ponds; also lands full of corn left behind by the gleaners; and no frost or snow, or very light.

"By these representations, he writes, which are made all in duck language, they, the decoy ducks or duckoys, draw together vast numbers of fowl and, so to say, kidnap them. They guide them back across the seas from Holland and Germany and settle them down in their decoy ponds on the fens of Lincolnshire, chattering and gabbling to them all the time in their own language, telling them these are the ponds they told them of, where they shall live safely and securely.

"And while they are so occupied the decoy-men, the masters of the decoy-ducks, creep into covers or coverts they have built of reeds upon the fens, and all unseen toss handfuls of corn upon the water; and the decoy ducks or duckoys follow them, bringing their foreign guests behind. And so over two or three days they lead their guests up narrower and narrower waterways, calling to them all the time to see how well we live in England, to a place where nets have been spanned.

"Then the decoy-men send out their decoy dog, which has been perfectly trained to swim after fowl, barking as he swims. Being alarmed to the last degree by this terrible creature, the ducks take to the wing, but are forced down again into the water by the arched nets above, and so must swim or perish, under the net. But the net grows narrower and narrower, like a purse, and at the end stand the decoy men, who take their captives out one by one. The decoy ducks are stroked and made much of, but as for their guests, these are clubbed on the spot and plucked and sold by the hundred and by the thousand.

"All of this news of Lincolnshire his man writes in a neat, quick hand, with quills that he sharpens with his little pen-knife each day before a new bout with the page."

------------

Coetzee's latest novel, 'Elizabeth Costello,' is largely a series of lessons delivered by the novel's protagonist. Two of the lessons are searing and challenging arguments for animal rights which go so far as to draw the holocaust comparison; that is an analogy from which most people, even some of the leaders of our movement, shy away. Wouldn't the most recent novel from the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Literature make a great holiday gift? You can buy it at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031305/dawnwatch

The two animal rights lessons were originally published in the 1999 novel "The Lives of Animals" (which came from a lecture series presented at Princeton University.) Those only interested in Coetzee's animal rights presentations might prefer that novel, which includes chapters written in response to Costello's arguments, by Marjorie Garber, Peter Singer, Wendy Doniger, and Barbara Smuts. You can buy it at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/069107089X/dawnwatch

NATIONAL REVIEW -- PETA VS KFC -- 12/22/03 edition

The December 22 issue of the conservative magazine the National Review includes an article (p27), by Jay Nordlinger, headed "PETA vs.. KFC."

Nordlinger opens:

"Eaten at KFC lately? Well, shame on you -- at least that's what PETA would say. PETA, of course, is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the most notorious and influential animal-rights group in the country. And KFC is the chain once known, more amply, as Kentucky Fried Chicken. PETA has been on a fierce campaign against KFC, charging that the company treats chickens inhumanely, or at least allows its suppliers to. KFC, naturally, denies the charge. Who's right? And what is a fan of the Colonel, who is nevertheless a foe of animal abuse, to do?"

He questions PETA's credibility, mentioning its offensive campaigns, inflammatory comments from its leaders, and its 'ties to terrorism" -- money donated to the Earth Liberation Front, "which is number one on the FBI's domestic-terror list."

He writes, "KFC can say -- and does say -- quite persuasively, Don't listen to these kooks. Their real aim is that you don't eat any chicken at all -- or drink milk or own a cat. Come on!"

He notes some of PETA's successes, writing, "What is not contested is that it's not good to cross PETA, unless you want a world of grief, unrelentingly."

Then he addresses the issue at hand:

"In getting to the nitty-gritty, let's stipulate that chicken-raising and -killing is a dirty, unpretty business. It's almost a cliché to say that, if you've ever been on a chicken farm, you don't ever want to eat a chicken. PETA circulates a film of abuses at a chicken plant, and the film is virtually impossible to watch. KFC says that it is misleading, as the practices depicted are either obsolete or aberrant. Whom to believe? In many of these disputes, it comes down to he said, she said -- and what common sense and intuition tell us. KFC has formed an 'animal-welfare advisory panel,' which sounds encouraging. PETA charges that the panel is a) stacked with corporate stooges and b) disregarded by the company anyway."

He outlines PETA's demands and notes that some of them seem quite reasonable. He writes, "When PETA is in moderate mode, it comes off as . . . well, non-crazy, and just. Why not 'mechanized gathering' instead of the manual variety, particularly in an ever-mechanizing world? And why not 'gas killing,' as a gentler alternative to the other stuff? KFC itself says that it is looking into the feasibility of such a change."

And he complains that KFC is not wiling to discuss the matter: "If you're a journalist -- even from a conservative opinion magazine! -- they won't talk to you. They will only fax you a two-sentence statement from a spokeswoman saying, in essence, Don't worry, be happy!"

He also lets us know that "PETA sued KFC for making false statements in its communications to the public. In September, it dropped the suit -- because KFC dramatically altered its line. This was a black eye for the company, and a rather startling victory for PETA."

Nordlinger's conclusion: "PETA is a radical group, maybe even a dangerous one, and its claims should be regarded with skepticism. But just because it says something, doesn't mean it's not true. KFC, like most companies, blows a little corporate smoke. Its interest is the bottom line, not the well-being of chickens. But it is far from a nefarious company; it's just another chicken buyer. PETA may force the more humane treatment of chickens, which would be splendid. But the business of serving chicken, and other meats, to many millions of customers will always be a little dirty, something from which sensitive people rather turn away, even as they tolerate it, and benefit from it.

"The PETA president, Ingrid Newkirk, has talked of finding Colonel Sanders's grave and dancing on it. Her group has promised that the company is 'in for a long battle.' If the company has a case to make -- and it does -- it ought to fight back, and hard. For its foe is formidable, and well-wishers of both KFC and animals could use a little, honest reassurance."

Of course, if you are a chicken, KFC is most certainly a nefarious company. Still, that such an article, a balanced article, has appeared in a well known conservative magazine is another great sign that our movement is making progress. Animal rights and vegetarianism are often associated with liberalism, yet there are vegetarian conservatives -- even conservatives seriously involved in animal rights. A former editor of the National Review (and current speechwriter for George W. Bush) Matthew Scully, has written one of the most powerful animal protection books ever published: "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." (A great holiday present for conservative friends and family members: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312261470/dawnwatch/102-2381385-6470539 )

My point: The article headed "PETA vs. KFC" presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor reminding those conservative National Review readers that giving up chicken is an excellent way to avoid contributing to egregious cruelty.

Unfortunately, PETA vs. KFC is not yet available on line but you'll find it in the current edition of the National Review. The National Review takes letters at: letters@nationalreview.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

You'll find loads of information on PETA's battle against KFC at http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/

And always a superb source of information on the treatment of chickens, and why one might not want to eat them, or eggs, is the United Poultry Concerns website: http://www.upc-online.org/

TIME MAGAZINE -- GOT HORMONES? 12/22/03 edition

Milk issues are in another major publication - the December 22 issue of Time Magazine (p. 52.). The magazine includes an article, by Margot Roosevelt Leeds, headed, "Got Hormones? The simmering issue of milk labels boils over when an agrochemical giant sues small farmers in Maine."

The article tells us that Monsanto Corp, the company that markets recombinant bovine somatotropin (RBST) is fighting the right of farmers to label their product as free of artificial hormones. We learn that Monsanto "demanded last year that Maine suspend its official quality seal, which is granted only to milk from uninjected cows. When the state refused, Monsanto took another tack, suing one of Maine's leading dairies in federal court in Boston. The suit charged that Oakhurst Dairy, the company that buys Nutting's milk, is misleading consumers by advertising a no-artificial-hormone pledge, implying that its milk is safer and healthier."

The article tells us, "Critics claim - although studies are inconclusive - that using synthetic bovine growth hormone could lead to such health problems as premature puberty or even cancer. But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) studied the issue before it approved RBST in 1993, when it reported that tests showed no significant difference between the milk from treated and untreated cows. Several groups, including Consumers Union and the Center for Food Safety, say the tests did in fact reveal worrisome differences and that the FDA incorrectly interpreted the data."

We read that one-third of dairy herds in the United States are injected with RBST, and that the FDA has joined the fight against farmers and even states wishing to declare their milk free of it: "Lawsuits over labeling have forced the repeal of a Vermont hormone-disclosure law and stopped dairies in Illinois and Texas from touting their milk as RBST-free. Earlier this year the FDA took up the fight, warning producers in Florida, New York, New Jersey and Minnesota against using labels that say 'no hormones or 'hormone-free.'"

You can read the whole article at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031222-561486,00.html

It presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor questioning the place of dairy products in a healthful and humane diet.

Time Magazine takes letters at: letters@time.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

GUARDIAN ARTICLE QUESTIONING HEALTH BENEFITS OF MILK -- 12/13/03

Great news!

On Saturday, December 13, one of the world's leading newspapers, The Guardian (UK), published a lengthy article seriously questioning the place of cows' milk in a healthful diet and government subsidies for the dairy industry. The article looked at both the UK and the US. It is available on the web in two parts at the following addresses:

Part One:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1104740,00.html

Part Two:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1104854,00.html

I highly recommend reading it, but will summarize it below for those who don't have the time to read a 5467 word piece.

The article is headed, "DAIRY MONSTERS: We used to take it for granted that milk was good for us. But now the industry faces a crisis, with the public questioning such assumptions. So just how healthy is milk? Anne Karpf investigates."

Karpf notes that there is mounting scientific evidence that "regular consumption of large quantities of milk can be bad for your health, and campaigners are making a noise about the environmental and international costs of large-scale intensive European dairy farming." But she comments, "So thorough is our dairy indoctrination that it requires a total gestalt switch to contemplate the notion that milk may help to cause the very diseases it's meant to prevent....Today, there's a big bank of scientific evidence against milk consumption, alleging not only that it causes some diseases but, equally damning, that it fails to prevent others for which it has traditionally been seen as a panacea."

She refers to the work of Frank Oski, former paediatrics director at Johns Hopkins school of medicine, "who estimated in his book Don't Drink Your Milk! that half of all iron deficiency in US infants results from cows' milk-induced intestinal bleeding." You can buy that book at:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0945383347/dawnwatch

She discusses lactose intolerance, which causes "bloating, cramps, diarrhoea and farts.": "In 1965, investigators at Johns Hopkins found that 15% of all the white people and almost three-quarters of all the black people they tested were unable to digest lactose. Milk, it seemed, was a racial issue, and far more people in the world are unable than able to digest lactose. That includes most Thais, Japanese, Arabs and Ashkenazi Jews, and 50% of Indians."

Karpf notes that milk critics say that the idea that osteoporosis is caused by calcium deficiency is "one of the great myths of our time." She writes, "In fact, the bone loss and deteriorating bone tissue that take place in osteoporosis are due not to calcium deficiency but rather to its resorption: it's not that our bodies don't get enough calcium, rather that they excrete too much of what they already have. So we need to find out what it is that's breaking down calcium stores in the first place, to the extent that more than one in three British women now suffers from osteoporosis. The most important culprit is almost certainly the overconsumption of protein. High-protein foods such as meat, eggs and dairy make excessive demands on the kidneys, which in turn leach calcium from the body. One solution, then, isn't to increase our calcium intake, but to reduce our consumption of protein, so our bones don't have to surrender so much calcium. Astonishingly, according to this newer, more critical view, dairy products almost certainly help to cause, rather than prevent, osteoporosis."

She notes, "American women are among the biggest consumers of calcium in the world, yet still have one of the highest levels of osteoporosis in the world" and that "Most Chinese people eat and drink no dairy products and... consume only half the calcium of Americans." Yet "osteoporosis is uncommon in China despite an average life expectancy of 70." Further, "In South Africa, Bantu women who eat mostly plant protein and only 200-350mg of calcium a day have virtually no osteoporosis, despite bearing on average six children and breastfeeding for prolonged periods. Their African-American brothers and sisters, who ingest on average more than 1,000mg of calcium a day, are nine times more likely to experience hip fractures."

She quotes T Colin Campbell, the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University: "The association between the intake of animal protein and fracture rates appears to be as strong as that between cigarette smoking and lung cancer." Another quote from Campbell associates milk consumption with an increased risk of cancer: "Cows' milk protein may be the single most significant chemical carcinogen to which humans are exposed".

Karpf discusses the conflicts of interest that have led to milk's status as the perfect food despite much scientific evidence to the contrary:

"Another reason why official policy on milk is often at odds with medical evidence lies in the conflict of government role, both in Britain and the US. The US department of agriculture, for example, has the twin, and often mutually incompatible, tasks of promoting agricultural products and providing dietary advice. In 2000, it was still recommending two to three servings of dairy products a day, to the rage of critics such as the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. PCRM claimed that six of the 11-member drafting panel had close ties with the meat, egg and dairy industries (five of them with dairy).

"Britain isn't free from conflict of interest, either. The government is heavily involved in encouraging us to drink milk."

Karpf criticizes the UK's National Dairy Council advertisements, commenting, "Of course, it's no crime for the industry to promote itself; what's disturbing is its masquerading as a disinterested source of incontrovertible information."

Karpf feels that perhaps the "most insidious dimension of the dairy fightback is funding research."

The article discusses animal welfare concerns in detail. She starts with "the vegetarian fallacy" which allows people to separate the dairy and veal industries:

"Alongside the researchers raising questions about milk sits the more inflammatory animal rights movement, which has recently focused its attention on dairy farming and what it argues is its intrinsic cruelty. For a long time, those concerned about animal welfare seemed magically to exempt milk from their preoccupations. They suffered from what Richard Young of the Soil Association calls 'the vegetarian fallacy': non-meat-eaters who still drink milk and so perpetuate the cycle that ends in crated veal calves destined for European dinner tables. Now many of them have begun to contend that, organic or not, there's no such thing as humane milk. For in order to lactate, cows - like humans - first have to get pregnant. Calves are essentially the waste by-product of the industry. What happens to them once they've done what they were created to do - stimulate a cow's milk production by the very fact of their being conceived?

"Male udderless cows are of no value to the dairy industry, so if prices for male calves are low and the veal route unprofitable, most are killed within a couple of weeks for baby food or pies, to make rennet, or sent to rendering plants to be turned into tallow or grease or, in other countries, animal feed. Female calves, on the other hand, are bred as replacement stock for their mothers. The provision of beef essentially originates in the dairy industry: if we didn't drink milk, we wouldn't have all that extra meat to get rid of.

"Though a male calf's life is unenviable, its mother's is no better. To ensure almost continuous lactation, she endures annual pregnancies. Her calf is removed from her within 24 hours of its birth. Calves hardly ever drink their mother's milk.

She goes on to discuss the exhaustive exploitation of the cows' bodies:

"Like agribusinesses everywhere, milk producers have tried to increase output while cutting costs. The victims are the cows. Today, from the age of two, they're expected to produce up to 10,000 litres of milk during their 10-month lactation stint (before they dry off, are re-inseminated and the whole process starts up again). Milked once or twice (or even three times) daily while pregnant, they produce around 20 litres a day, 10 times as much as they'd need to feed a calf. The amount of milk cows are required to make each day has almost doubled in the past 30 years, because having a smaller number of high-yielding cows reduces a farmer's feed, fertiliser, equipment, labour and capital costs. That's why the variety of cattle breeds in Europe has declined so much - everyone wants the high-yielding black-and-white Holstein-Friesens.

"You don't need to be sentimental about animals to pity the poor bloated creatures, dragging around their vast, abnormally heavy udders. Many each year go lame, and they rarely live longer than four or five years, compared with a natural lifespan of around 25 years. Then they are slaughtered.

And she notes the pain of mastitis and its impact on human health:

"The official view is that not only do dairy farmers care about their cows, but that it's in their interests to keep them healthy. The reality is that overmilking, problems with cleanliness and the choice of high-yielding breeds together cause more than 30 incidents of mastitis per 100 British cows each year. Mastitis is a painful infection of the udder. Cows' mastitis has implications for human health, too, because to control infection farmers use more antibiotics."

Finally, Karpf discusses government efforts to protect the dairy industry, such as the food disparagement acts introduced in 13 US states, and the UK's Common Agricultural Policy, which she writes is so absurd it "will have you thinking you've woken up in the middle of a Dali painting." She details the ways in which the government props up the dairy industry at the expense of small-scale farms in developing countries, human health, and animal welfare.

She asks what the alternative might be, and notes that people don't want their eating habits policed. "Yet," she writes, "what we eat and drink isn't just the result of individual choice and cultural tradition: the contents of our shopping trolleys are at least equally shaped by government policy and official decisions."

She quotes Dr Tim Lobstein, co-director of the Food Commission, an independent watchdog on food issues, who "advocates the removal of all EU subsidies from dairy production, with the money going to support sustainable forms of food production, including some organic dairy farming." He comments, with regard to struggling dairy farmers: "I can't help to stay in business the producers of commodities that aren't helping human health - they'll have to find alternative employment. The EU should help farmers transfer to products more helpful to human health, such as horticulture."

Karpf calls for a national debate on milk production and consumption. She writes, "Part of this debate will have to be a frank appraisal of whether milk can jeopardise human health.... it seems increasingly clear that dairy products alone probably don't protect bone health in the way we've long thought, and that calcium intake on its own has only a small effect on bone density."

The article concludes: "At the same time (and Atkins notwithstanding), while some fats are essential, the human body does not thrive on excessive amounts of milk fat. Yet milk's connotations are so primordial, its associations so pastoral and the interests that promote it so enormous, that changing the way we think about it, and drink it, will be a process every bit as challenging and root-and-branch as the loss of unquestioning religious faith."

The appearance of this article in one of the world's leading papers tells us that there has been a real shift in the perception of milk. And the article will surely further that shift. The Guardian deserves many appreciative letters to the editor. The paper takes letters at: letters@guardian.co.uk

It notes, "We do not publish letters where only an email address is supplied; please include a full postal address and a reference to the relevant article. If you do not want your email address published, please say so. We may edit letters."

I hope you will forward this article to those who assume that animal advocates who shun milk are extremists who put slight animal discomfort before great benefit to human health. The article should serve as quite a wake-up call.

USA TODAY ARTICLE ON BIRTH OF RINGLING ELEPHANT -- 12/15/03

An article in the Monday, December 15, USA Today is a sure sign that we have come a long way as a movement.

Ringling Brothers has sent out a press release stating, "On December 5, 2003 at 9:25 a.m., Riccardo, a 232-pound male, Asian elephant, joined the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation (CEC) family." I have no doubt that just a few years ago, such an announcement would have resulted in nothing but fluff pieces promoting Ringling's wonderful conservation efforts. But the article in today's USA Today (Pg. 7D) is headed, " Under the big top: Asian elephant conservation. Animal activists say it's just an act."

Hallelujah!

Sure, we wish the article was an expose focusing exclusively on the cruelty of the circus. We'll get there. But having the animal rights point of view included in the headline is a sign that we have come very far. Rather than just swallowing the circus's press release, the paper also sought the animal rights view. If I was into drinking before noon, I'd be breaking out the Verve Cliquot.

The article, by Joe Eaton, presents the Ringling spin. It quotes Ringling's Kenneth Feld saying he is as proud and happy as he would be about having his own child.

It continues, "Riccardo was born at Ringling's Center for Elephant Conservation, a private 200-acre breeding and elephant retirement facility near Tampa. The program has had 16 elephant births, including Riccardo's parents, since 1992. It expects four more arrivals in the next 18 months. Ringling has 64 Asian elephants, a third of which perform in the circus. The success of the breeding program is a success for the endangered Asian elephant, Feld says."

Then Eaton writes:

"Animal welfare groups, however, say Feld is using the breeding program to justify the circus's poor treatment of the elephants."

Pointing out the disingenuousness of Ringling's position, HSUS's Wayne Pacelle is quoted: "'We're not just making them do tricks and keeping them in chains. We're saving elephants.' That's what they are saying."

And then Eaton includes information we can be sure Ringling Brothers didn't want in the story:

"Three animal welfare groups and a former Ringling Bros. employee have filed suit in U.S. District Court charging that the circus's handling of Asian elephants violates the Endangered Species Act. The suit says that, among claims of abuse, the circus uses ropes and chains to forcibly remove nursing baby elephants from their mothers.

"John Kirtland, who oversees animal stewardship at the circus, acknowledges that ropes are used to separate baby elephants from their mothers, but he says it does not cause injury. 'It's a 2,000-pound animal,' he says of the young elephants. 'You ain't going to pull it by its ear.'

In the final lines we are reminded that the whole point of the conservation effort is to acquire elephants for the circus:

"Kirtland says Riccardo's future is uncertain. When he's 3 or 4 years old, his temperament will be evaluated to determine whether he will go to the circus. But because male elephants tend to be more aggressive than females, Riccardo may never see the big top."

You can read the full article on line at: http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031215/5759670s.htm

Please thank USA Today for including the information about separating babies from mothers using ropes and chains, and reminding readers that a life in the circus is a life in chains (using your own words please). The story has given us a great opportunity to write letters to the editor providing more information on the cruelty of the circus. You'll find loads of information on the treatment of performing animals, including distressing footage of baby elephants being beaten during training sessions, at http://www.circuses.com/

USA Today takes letters at: editor@usatoday.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

KILL ROOM PHOTOS GET NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FOR AKRON BEACON JOURNAL -- 12/14/03

The Sunday, December 14, Akron Beacon Journal includes a column by Public Editor, Mike Needs, in response to reader complaints about a photo of freshly killed dogs in the city shelter's euthanasia room. The piece is headed, "You may not like it, but it's still news."

He writes:

"Buried in Tuesday's paper, way back on Page A13, was a small photo showing three dead dogs in the 'kill room' of the Summit County Animal Shelter. It was part of an in-depth look at the controversy surrounding the shelter."

(Note: You will find that disturbing article, from Tuesday December 9, though not the photos, on line at: http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/7448561.htm )

He tells us that many readers wrote angry letters, with lines such as the following:

"I know what happens at the shelter. I DO NOT need it to slap me in the face!''

He responds, "Do we really know what goes on at the shelter? I thought I did until I read last week's series of stories. Record-keeping is haphazard. Kittens get needles big enough to kill a cow. And while the county disputes abuse claims by animal activists, many questions remain.

"At the heart of the issue is the 'kill room,' where unwanted animals get their deadly doses of Fatal Plus. As one editor explained, you need to see this room to fully understand what goes on there. Another editor pointed out that newspapers take readers to places they cannot go themselves."

Needs tells us that a reader who had just had her dog, suffering from cancer, euthanized, wrote: "Thank you so much for tearing open my heart that still aches for the pet I recently lost.... I only wish that you could be as haunted by that image as I am.''

He responds, "I'm glad the photo wasn't full color, big on the front page. But I also understand how painful it was for many to confront the reality of the 'kill room.' Perhaps that emotion can be channeled into efforts to prevent more pets from ending up there. Sometimes it takes a shocking photo to draw attention to a serious issue."

The slogan for the Genesis Awards is "Cruelty Can't Stand the Spotlight." We hope it is true. What is certainly true is that the horrendous and common suffering our society inflicts on millions of animals every year is rarely given the spotlight. And in this instance, when it was, the paper received mostly irate feedback.

At the bottom of Mike Needs's column it says:

"Send comments about the Beacon Journal to Public Editor Mike Needs. Phone: 330-996-3860. E-mail: mneeds@thebeaconjournal.com "

Needs and his editors deserve some positive feedback. Please take a moment to thank them for being willing to disturb their readers by sharing the offensive truth -- a truth that might shock the city into calling for change.

You may like to send a letter to the editor: vop@thebeaconjournal.com . You must include your name, address and phone number to be considered for publication.

LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE PROMOTING ANIMAL ADOPTION -- 12/11/03

The Thursday, December 11, Los Angeles Times, included a particularly lovely article encouraging people to adopt rather than purchase dogs. Written by Barbara King, the editor of the Home Section, it is headed "They know what you've done for them" and sub-headed, "Pass up the puppy mills and backyard breeders in favor of a pet that needs you every bit as much as you need it." Accompanying the article is a large photo of Diane Keaton (who stars in a new movie opening today, with Jack Nicholson, called "Something's Gotta Give") holding one of the dogs from a rescue campaign called "Home 4 the Holidays." She is the campaign's celebrity spokesperson.

King opens the article with a discussion of a visit to Angel Canyon in Utah where "the country's largest sanctuary for abused and abandoned animals is located." She is referring to the wonderful sanctuary Best Friends: http://www.BestFriends.org

She writes, "By the time I got back to L.A., I was a tolerable human being again, rescued from the vulgarity of self-indulgence by animals who themselves had been rescued from the far more profound abyss of cruelty and indifference."

She mentions her own adopted dogs, then writes:

"Adopted animals are 'eternally grateful. They know what you've done for them,' one of my vets told me when I asked why Callie, another of my foundlings, practically sang arias in my presence and gave me misty-eyed looks that put me in mind of Nancy Reagan gazing at Ronnie.

"And we know what they've done for us, all of us who live with them. Beyond this, anything I might say now by way of further explication would taste like a bowl of sugared mush, so I'll take leave of the sentiment by saying only this: They open up the world of emotion to you, expand its boundaries, make it possible for you to make a fool of yourself and not care a whit."

King tells us about the 'Home 4 the Holidays' program "that began four years ago in Southern California and has since spread with startling effectiveness and speed to 1,300 shelters in 20 countries." She shares a quote from the program's creator, Michael Arms, who says he wants the animals going into homes this Christmas to be "the orphaned ones, those in shelters, rather than those from puppy mills and backyard breeders. I wanted to really bring attention to all the wonderful animals who are looking for homes, who don't want to keep waking up behind bars."

We read encouraging statistics about the program:

"So far, more than 300,000 animals have been adopted worldwide as part of the Home 4 the Holidays drive — which runs from early November to just after New Year's — and Arms has a goal this year of adding 225,000 more to that figure. Only 2% of animals adopted from the program have been returned, a much smaller percentage, says Arms, than the throwaways who have been purchased from pet stores or breeders 'often on impulse, because they're cute,' and later dumped or delivered to shelters."

King ends her column with heartfelt words of appreciation for celebrities, such as Keaton, who "put their fame to work for something other than self-promotion and get out there to promote animal welfare." She writes, "If ever I were in their presence, I imagine I would trill arias to them and follow them around with moist, adoring brown eyes, just like my dog Callie."

It is a lovely article, and important, as it appears in one of the country's biggest papers as puppy buying season approaches. You can read it on line at:

http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/home/la-hm-eye11dec11,1,7443759.story

Please consider writing a quick supportive letter to the editor. You may want to include information about the importance of spay-neuter to prevent over-population (all animals adopted from shelters in California are 'fixed' -- but purchased animals need not be) and share your own joyous experiences with rescued animals.

The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

You can thank Barbara King for the article at: barbara.king@latimes.com

NEW JERSEY BEAR HUNT ON CHICAGO TRIBUNE FRONT PAGE -- 12/11/03

The New Jersey bear hunt is on the front page of the Thursday, December 11, Chicago Tribune. The story, by Kirsten Scharnberg, is headed "Activists square off with hunters and state wildlife officials, who have declared the animals a menace."

It opens, "Smiling proudly, a father and son dressed in winter camouflage and blaze orange caps emerged from the hills beyond Lake Wawayanda. In the bed of their pickup truck lay a 200-pound female black bear, her large paws outstretched, her head slumped to one side as though she was sleeping.

"'She was a healthy, hearty female,' said Martin McHugh, director of New