Kindness to Animals and Legal Protection

George Peabody, libertarian candiate for governor of Hawaii shares these words and his beliefs with The People of Hawaii: Animals have inalienable rights just like The People; and, the 2nd Amendment's Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is NOT about hunting animals and killing them, it is about protecting our FREEDOM from government tyranny and foreign invasion.

Mankind's true moral test consists of its attitude toward those who are at its mercy: the animals. Animals do not exist for human beings to own and exploit. The problem today is the legal classification of sentient animals as property, a perspective that flies in the face of reason. I believe that using animals as resources to serve human needs is wrong for the same reasons that slavery is wrong. But since human masters control the lives of domesticated animals, the animals at least deserve recognition as sentient beings with protection by law from abuse.

Clearly, the suffering of nonhuman animals matters at least as much as the sanctity of even the non-sentient human body. A living creature that is capable of pain and pleasure is entitled to our respect and to protection from human abuse. This is true whether or not that creature is human.

If you don't yet agree with my perspective, just put yourself in the hands of a vivisectionist to learn suffering on yourself as you are held captive and helpless: injecting you with toxic substances and other harmful chemicals, forcing detergents and caustice substances into your eyes and on your skin, and forcing a large group of you to eat it to see how much it takes to kill 50% of you, and those of you who survive but still suffering will be lucky to then be killed by lethal injection, and they will be exposing you to radiation, performing surgery on your body to see what happens, depriving you of food, depriving you of parent nurturing to see how you develop; you will be forced to inhale cigar smoke resulting in tumors, emphysema, sickness; and you will suffer dramatic stress during handling, transporting, constraining. If you still support vivisection, you are no better than Nazi devils who instead of doing it to the Jews prisoners, you are dabbling in science fraud based on cruelty to animals.

These simple facts about animals may have what many would view as disturbing implications for human practices using animals today, and people don't like to look themselves in the mirror and see the ugliness of cruelty. If animals do not exist for human beings to own and exploit, then it wrong to harm or kill animals for food, clothing, and medical experiments!

Libertarian animal protectors such as I treasure the incites of men like Thomas Paine: "Everything of persecution and revenge between man and man, and everything of cruelty to animals, is a violation of moral duty." And George Bernard Shaw my contemporary hero on point: "Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character."

Besides harming children, there is no more cowardly an act than murdering an animal for sport. What could possible be "sporting" about shooting a healthy elk, deer, bird, or prairie dog from 350 yards away with a high-powered rifle while hiding in a tree?

Even more cowardly and obscene, though, may be the hunters who pay a fee to game preserve owners for the right to kill an animal from a few yards or even a few feet away, often while the animal is in a cage. There may be no greater example of the profound disconnection from the natural world that is plaguing our world.

According to "Time" magazine's March 11, 2002 issue, as many as 2,000 hunting preserves may exist in the U.S. with 500 in Texas alone. Most offer a guarantee that if you don't kill something, you don't pay. In order to offer such a promise, traditional rules of sport hunting are usually suspended.

The animals at these ranges are made accustomed to human contact and some are trained to come to the sound of a rattling food bucket. Some are confined to small areas where they can't hide for very long. And many don't even make it out of their cages before being murdered.

There is good money in this obscene practice for the range operators. Exotic animals like the Nubian ibex, the Arabian Oryx, rhinoceros, zebra or tigers can command $20,000 or more.

Even some hunters object to the practice. Perry Arnold of Lake City, Florida, who has been hunting since he was seven years old, told "Time," he disapproves of these canned hunts. "What they got going on now, that ain't hunting. That's a slaughter."

I have seen video footage, obtained by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), of a black leopard whose claws had been removed that was released from a cage in the back of a pickup truck. It was chased by barking dogs and hid, terrified and trembling, beneath the truck. The hunter who had paid for this "hunt," got on his knees with his high powered rifle just feet from the truck and shot the frightened, cowering animal. It was the most pathetic example of how brutal a human can be towards an animal that I had ever seen.

Animals hunted for trophies, whether they are killed in canned hunts or in regular sport hunting, suffer much more than any animal killed for food. Since the hunter wants an intact head for display, they will not kill the animal quickly by shooting it in the head. Instead, they use arrows or bullets aimed at the body of the animal, usually resulting in a wounded animal staggering, limping, and panicked while the killer continues to shoot. Death is often slow and painful. But the hunter has his or her trophy head to show friends and to brag about his bravery and courage in the fight. Acts like this are repeated every day around the nation. But where are these greedy, soulless preserve owners getting these animals?

You will be shocked and surprised at the answer, especially if you have taken your children to the local zoo to see their favorite beloved animal. There are 2,500 licensed animal exhibitors in the U.S. and many of the animals in captivity will breed. Some estimates say that when you count the unlicensed ones, there are over 15,000 animal exhibitors. Also, many zoos have successful breeding programs that get public donations to support their fforts to repopulate depleted, even endangered species.

Well, what the public doesn't hear about is that when these breeding programs are successful, they often result in more animals than the zoo can care for with limited space and resources.

Black leopard in Oaklawn Farm Zoo, Aylesford, Nova Scotia (Photo courtesy Oaklawn Farm Zoo )

But wait a minute! You probably thought that the resulting animals from these programs would be returned to the wild to repopulate the species. Unfortunately, often money does not exist to carry out those lofty aims and the animals become surplus. Animals that are not endangered in the wild will breed as well, resulting in more giraffes, monkeys, and rhinos than zoos can house and feed.

The Singapore Zoo freely admits that even endangered species bred in captivity have little chance of being returned to the wild. At the zoo's website, officials state, "While for many reasons, it may not be possible to reintroduce most captive-bred endangered animals into the wild, such animals can be used in exchange programmes among zoos." They claim that this results in fewer animals having to be taken from the wild.

Legitimate, well known zoos sell surplus animals to brokers. Even zoos that are members of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, which condemns canned hunts, will not ask their brokers where they intend to sell the animals. Many wind up in canned hunts.

The thousands of petting zoos, roadside zoos, and smaller exhibitors have no reason to adhere to any rules or guidelines.

The Humane Society reports that the San Antonio Zoo in Texas sold its animals openly and even included owners of canned hunting facilities on the zoo's board of directors. In 1994, HSUS reported that San Antonio Zoological Society board member Betty Kelso and her husband Robert owned the Auerhahn Ranch in Texas and purchased exotic animals directly from the zoo for years. Doctors, lawyers and professionals from all walks of life leave the suburbs for a weekend killing spree, and high priced lobbyists entertain politicians on shooting preserves. The Wildlife Protection Network says, "Canned hunting preserves have begun to rival golf courses as favorite landscapes [for] wheeling and dealing." They report that former President George Bush celebrated his victory after the 1988 presidential election at the Lazy F Ranch near Beeville, Texas.

"These aren't animals, these are wild quail," he later said to criticism of his yearly hunt. Bush apparently never studied biology, and has an odd definition of "wild." The birds he shot were captive birds that were hand fed and raised in pens.

President Bill Clinton hunted on shooting preserves during his presidency. The Wildlife Protection Network says, "Two days after Christmas in 1993, President Clinton killed a captive bred mallard duck on a Maryland shooting preserve owned by lobbyist John W. Tieder, Jr. Tieder is the treasurer of DUCPAC, a pro-hunting political action committee that has given over $35,000 in campaign contributions to political candidates."

Dispatch Legal Shit

APPEAL the Apeal deadline 9-7-01

§480-17 Individual liability for corporate or company act. (a) Whenever a corporation violates any of the penal provisions of this chapter, the violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or agents of the corporation who have authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts constituting in whole or in part the violation.

FALSE Conclusions of law 657-7 HRS is not relevant 2-yr statute of limitations misleading because: Six Year limitation under 657-1(3) for action of repevlin, common law, the taking or detaining of goods, therefore, witnesses testimony is NOT barred PART I. PERSONAL ACTIONS

§657-1 Six years. The following actions shall be commenced within six years next after the cause of action accrued, and not after:

(1) Actions for the recovery of any debt founded upon any contract, obligation, or liability, excepting such as are brought upon the judgment or decree of a court; excepting further that actions for the recovery of any debt founded upon any contract, obligation, or liability made pursuant to chapter 577A shall be governed by chapter 577A;

(2) Actions upon judgments or decrees rendered in any court not of record in the State, or, subject to section 657-9, in any court of record in any foreign jurisdiction;

(3) Actions for taking or detaining any goods or chattels, including actions in the nature of replevin;

(4) Personal actions of any nature whatsoever not specifically covered by the laws of the State. [CC 1859, §1036; am imp L 1907, c 113, §1; am L 1913, c 19, §1; RL 1925, §2639; RL 1935, §3910; am L 1943, c 139, §1; RL 1945, §10421; RL 1955, §241-1; am L 1965, c 139, §1; HRS §657-1; am L 1972, c 105, §1(a); am L 1978, c 109, §3]

ANIMALS ARE NOT JUST PROPERTY

Our legal regime that classifies a dog (or a chimpanzee) as "property" invites people to think of animals as objects - and to treat them accordingly.

I read last week of a woman who gave up her cat. The reason, by the woman's own account, was that after her house was painted, the cat's eyes no longer matched the decor of her home. This woman apparently thought of a cat as no different from a carpet.

In fact, animals seem to many to be property simply because we have always classified them that way. Under our laws, the destiny of animals belongs largely to their owners.

Animals As Inherently Valuable

It is no doubt true that those of us who are fortunate enough to have non-human animal companions at home derive joy and satisfaction from their existence. This joy may in fact have motivated us to "acquire" them in the first place. The desire to expand one's family rarely proceeds from purely altruistic impulses. A dog "owner's" pleasure, however, is not what gives value to a dog, any more than a baby's value depends on his having parents who appreciate and adore him.

Sentient creatures have value in their own right. As philosopher Jeremy Bentham said of animals: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?" A living creature that is capable of pain and pleasure is entitled to our respect and to protection from our abuses. This is true whether or not that creature is human.

These simple facts about animals may have what many would view as disturbing implications for human practices. If animals do not exist for human beings to own and exploit, then is it not wrong to harm or kill animals for food, clothing, and medical experiments? The position that it is indeed wrong may strike many as preposterous, because the use of animals is so routine and commonplace - even the Bible embraces it.

My colleague, Professor Gary Francione, has argued eloquently, however, that the use of animals for human benefit is unjustified in all of these contexts. His highly readable book, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?, is thought provoking and difficult to dismiss. It claims that using animals as resources to serve human needs is wrong for some of the same reasons that slavery is wrong. The argument is powerful and should make those of us who eat meat far less complacent about doing so.

Regardless of whether or not one adopts Francione's position, however, there should be no question that harming animals to let off steam, or otherwise hurting them gratuitously, is culpable and should not be tolerated. Thus, the woman who abandoned her cat for having the "wrong" eye color should be faulted for doing so. Her action, though not illegal, was immoral. And punishing Burnett severely, seen from this perspective, was entirely proper.

Animals Are Entitled to Legal Protection

Sara McBurnett suffered terribly when she lost her dog, Leo. Someone who had enthusiastically welcomed her love and who loved her back is gone forever. Burnett's crime therefore caused unnecessary and intense pain to a human being. But because a dog is not a couch or a bookcase, the evil of what Burnett did extends beyond his having harmed a human being.

It was rightly Burnett's crime against Leo - and not only Leo's "owner"- that earned the defendant a three-year sentence. As the sentencing judge stated, Burnett's crime involved "a high degree of cruelty, viciousness and callousness." Though some have questioned the reasonableness of imprisoning a person for cruelty to "property," it is the classification of animals as property, and not the legal system's rare decision to protect them from harm, that flies in the face of reason.

MILL VALLEY, Calif. - In Defense of Animals (IDA), a national animal protection organization, released a statement today encouraging animal lovers to celebrate Be Kind to Animals Week, May 5th through 11th, by identifying themselves as guardians of their companion animals through their words and actions.

According to world-renowned primatologist Jane Goodall, "In the legal sense, animals are regarded as 'things', mere objects that can be bought, sold, discarded, or destroyed at an owner's whim. Only when animals can be regarded as 'persons' in the eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often-fuzzy laws protecting animals from abuse."

Maddie's Fund president Richard Avanzino stated, "It is up to us to demonstrate through action and words, that companion animals are much more than mere property. They are our friends, partners and companions and we are their guardians, advocates and protectors. We look forward to the day when these words - words of love and affection replace those of property and 'ownership'."

IDA president Elliot M. Katz, DVM, asserted that "if we are truly going to be kind to animals, then it is time for all caring people to become the guardians of their companion animals, rather than their owners."

The benefits of choosing guardianship over ownership, of convincing millions of people to never buy, but to always adopt and rescue animals -are far-reaching. From helping end the deaths of millions of animals in our nation's shelters, to helping put real teeth in laws that would truly punish and deter animal abusers, to raising children to respect animals . . to treat them with dignity . . will be but a few of the benefits that accrue to millions of animals around the world.

To date, Menomonee Falls, WI, Boulder, CO, West Hollywood and Berkeley, CA, Sherwood, AR, and the State of Rhode Island have all changed the language in their animal-related laws to include the term "guardian." This change demonstrates their concern for the millions of animals who are neglected, abused, and killed in shelters every year in the United States. Members of these communities are now legally animal guardians who do not "own" animals and consider animals property, rather they protect and care for them.

Searching for alternatives

Ray Greek & Jean Greek

Ray Greek and Jean Greek, Americans For Medical Advancement (AFMA) and National Anti-Vivisection Society, #153, 8391 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 e-mail: DrRayGreek@aol.com

To the editor: We would like to point out that your February 2002 editorial (Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 101, 2002), "Hunted down and hounded out," ignores some important and costly differences between humans and animals. Although we, too, condemn the tactics of violence discussed in the editorial, we must say that we found it misrepresentative in that it left out an important part of the controversy: the efficacy of animal testing. Huntingdon Life Sciences Group (formerly of Huntingdon, UK, now Life Sciences Research, US) and others use mice, dogs, and other animals to test drugs (as mandated by law) and explore mechanisms of disease. But are the results generated from these tests really useful to humans?

Studies of animals have revealed similarities between animals and humans on the gross or macroscopic level. We all have hearts that pump blood, lungs that breathe, and immune systems that fight disease. But animals do not suffer from coronary artery disease or the human version of AIDS, and most do not contract lung cancer from smoking. Disease occurs at the cellular and molecular level, and it is the very small differences at the cellular level, developed in the course of speciation, that prevent us from getting reliable data about humans from animal models.

The dietary drug Fen-Phen (fenfluramine-dexfenfluramine) tested safe in dogs and other animals but damaged the human heart (1). Phenacetin, an analgesic, was shown to cause cancer and renal toxicity and was withdrawn from the market. Many other drugs, recently including clioquinol, benoxaprofen, phenphormin, zimeldine, indoprofen, methazone, fenclofenac, domperidone, suprofen, rapacuronium, phenylpropanolamine, grepafloxacin, and bromfenac, have caused serious adverse events, ranging from liver or gastrointestinal toxicity to hemorrhagic stroke and blood abnormalities (2-4). Hoffmann-La Roche's (Nutley, NJ) heart drug Posicor (mibefradil) caused 143 deaths alone (5). All these and others were withdrawn from the market.

Clearly, testing these drugs on animals did not protect the public. There is an equally long list of drugs that were kept off the market because of adverse side effects in animals that did not occur in humans. The US National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, MD) believes it may have lost cancer drugs that would have been effective in humans because they were ineffective or toxic in animals.

Saccharin was labeled carcinogenic and is still avoided by many because it caused cancer in male rats. We now know that the male rat has an enzyme in the bladder that humans do not have, which causes saccharin to be converted into a carcinogen (6). The publicity over phenolphthalein, the active ingredient in Ex-lax that caused adverse effects in rats when it was in fact safe in humans, is another example of animal testing yielding costly and inconsequential results that harmed industry.

The use of animals as models of human disease has also resulted, indirectly, in many human deaths. Smoking was thought not to cause cancer, based on the results of experiments on animals (7, 8). Asbestos was thought noncarcinogenic, so many continued to be exposed (9). Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a diet high in cholesterol increased the risk of coronary artery disease (10, 11). Animal models of stroke and sepsis resulted in patients receiving medications that were dangerous, harmful, and not efficacious (12, 13). There are countless other examples (14).

Modern-day biomedical research should not be looking for answers from animals. It should be exploring alternatives that exploit burgeoning information from pharmacogenetics, protein profiling, in vitro molecular toxicology, and in silico evaluation. In turn, knowledge of receptor physiology, physicochemical information, structure-activity relationship, and computer-aided drug design should enable the creation of more efficacious and safe lead candidates.

Though such alternatives may still be some way off, the inefficiency of animal models means that there is a financial as well as an ethical imperative to direct more funding to research focused on models with real predictive power, INSTEAD of using animals for such cruel testing.

Wake up! Charles Darwin: "Animals whom we have made our slaves, we do not consider our equals. " Brenda, in suffering, the animals are our equals. Be sure to watch the Montel show today and view TheWitness, his guest. Maybe you could do a news report on what you learn?

Come on Brenda and KGMB! Animals are not "gifts", mere things to be used as pets, or cogs on the wheel of commerce, used as slaves. Animals have an intrinsic value, outside of their value to humans. They were created by God with value of their own and a mission in life of their own, as sentient individuals just like you, Brenda. Animals used as pet-slaves often end up abused and/or dumped at animal shelters ...or just abandoned. Animals should NOT be bred and sold as pets. There are so many unwanted dogs and cats in animals shelters, who have suffered being torn from their mothers at young age, families separated where Nature intended them to be in a pack or extended family, now being substituted with humans who regard them as mere "property".

Brenda, put yourself in their place. Feel some pain, feel some loss? All the evidence shows the animals, mothers and their babies, fees the terror and pain of separation and slavery as pets, just cogs in the machinery of commercial slavery. Hey, if you were a Jew in Germany with Hitler, the government would have treated you like animals are treated in USA today! Should you be treated as a pet slave or an inferior just because you are considered by the law/government/society as less than human, just because you may be of a different species? Is pain and suffering ok for you then? NO!

If you must have a pet, prevent some pain and suffering by adopting and caring for those animals who are alread inextribly caught in the net of commercial animal slavery and held by Humane Shelters awaiting adoption.

Protest, DONT promote, the sale of animals. You may be next, given the right circumstances! Right now there is a lot of women obducted and sold into slavery worldwide. If they can do it to animals, why not make some money selling humans, too?

Think about it Brenda!

Aloha, George "Major Candidate" Peabody, governor of Hawaii 2001, Libertarian Party.