Kangaroo Dies After Visitors At Chinese Zoo Hurl Rocks To Force Her To Jump

April 20, 2018

One kangaroo was killed and another injured at a zoo in southeast China
after visitors to their enclosure
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-20/kangaroo-dies-in-chinese-zoo-after-vi
sitors-throw-rocks/9682220> pelted the animals with rocks and other objects
in an apparent attempt to get the kangaroos to hop around. The abuse has
sparked fury online and prompted renewed scrutiny into the
<http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2100775/chinas-terrible-zoos
-and-why-theyre-still-thriving> mistreatment of animals at Chinese zoos,
several of which have gained notoriety in recent years for cramped and cruel
conditions.

Zookeepers at the Fuzhou Zoo in Fujian Province
<http://www.hxnews.com/news/fj/fz/201804/19/1500695.shtml> told the Haixia
Metropolis News this week that at least one visitor threw “multiple”
sharp-edged rocks at a 12-year-old female kangaroo in March to compel her to
jump, leaving her badly injured and in “deep pain.” She died a few days
later of profuse internal bleeding, her caretakers said.

A 5-year-old male kangaroo in the same enclosure was reportedly also injured
last month after a visitor threw part of a brick at him. The younger
kangaroo was not seriously hurt.

“Some adult [visitors] see the kangaroos sleeping and then pick up stones to
throw at them,” a Fuzhou Zoo attendant told the Haixia Metropolis News.
“Even after we cleared all the stones from the display area, they went
elsewhere to find them. It’s abhorrent.”

Pics of the bricks that visitors hurled at kangaroos at the zoo in Fujian,
killing one and injuring another. Zoo staff say visitors often throw objects
at animals despite it being ‘prohibited’.

– Bill Birtles (@billbirtles)
<https://twitter.com/billbirtles/status/987263932636151808> 5:37 AM – Apr
20, 2018

12-year-old kangaroo at zoo in eastern China died after being stoned by
visitors hoping to make it hop <https://t.co/HyrP46HQij>
http://ow.ly/sfAs30jArZe

– Sixth Tone (@SixthTone)
<https://twitter.com/SixthTone/status/987243239941050370> 4:15 AM – Apr 20,
2018

Netizens in China and elsewhere have
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/world/asia/china-kangaroo-zoo-death.html
> expressed their horror at the behavior of the stone-hurling visitors.

The Metropolis News <http://szb.mnw.cn/2018/0420/1368203.shtml> said on
Friday that their social media pages were flooded with readers’ angry
comments, with many calling for visitors who mistreat animals to be
“blacklisted” from zoos.

The Fuzhou Zoo said it had
<http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201804/20/WS5ad93d28a3105cdcf6519721.html>
applied for funding to install high-definition surveillance cameras to
better identify perpetrators. They added that now only three kangaroos would
be on display to reduce the risks to the animals.

Several Chinese zoos have made headlines in recent years for mistreatment of
animals. Last year, visitors were horrified when a
<https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/wildlife-watch-china-donkey-tig
ers-zoo/> live donkey was fed to tigers at a so-called safari park near
Shanghai. In 2016, hundreds of thousands of people called for the
<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/worlds-saddest-zoo-grandview-aquarium_
us_578c8b3be4b03fc3ee514af2> closure of Guangzhou’s Grandview Aquarium,
dubbed the “saddest zoo in the world,” after photos of the facility’s barren
enclosures went viral.

Such incidents have increased concerns in China about the country’s lack of
comprehensive
<http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/article/2050730/chinas-growing-animal-rights
movement-calling-change> animal welfare laws.

Without such legislation, “we can only try to persuade people using common
sense and referring to animal welfare laws in Western countries,” Tong
Yanfang, an animal welfare advocate,
<http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2100775/chinas-terrible-zoos
-and-why-theyre-still-thriving> told the South China Morning Post last year.

“For children and many adults who lack judgment, a wrong perception has been
built [in China] that animals are there for the entertainment of humans,”
Tong said. “When they see animals perform in a zoo, they won’t consider how
the animals acquired those skills.”

. This article originally appeared on
<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kangaroo-china-dies-throw-rocks_us_5ad
a572ce4b00a1849cf477d?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313> HuffPost.

Advertisements

Classroom Chick-Hatching Projects Teach Bad Lessons

*”Ethical questions are raised when unwanted animals are brought into
this*
* world, diminishing our sense of the inherent value of the living
creature. The*
* positive lesson that can come from observing and respecting normal
parenting*
* of adult birds for their future offspring is lost. In these school
hatching*
* projects, any sense of parent birds carefully preparing nests and
tending*
* their future babies is lost because the eggs are hatched in a piece of*
* equipment. The surviving chicks are usually doomed to a life expectancy
of a*
* few days spent miserably. Young birds need nurturing and rest. They are*
* difficult to feed in the classroom and can suffer starvation and
dehydration*
* that is not even noticed.” *
– Dr. F. Barbara Orlans, Senior Research Fellow, Kennedy Institute of
Ethics,
Georgetown University, Washington, DC

On April 18, United Poultry Concerns received an email exchange between the
mother of a young child and his teacher in Maryland. Learning the teacher is
hatching “intentionally orphaned babies” in her son’s classroom, she
implored
the teacher and the principal:

*”As a mother myself, I feel pain for these chicks and their mothers who
are*
* separated to become an experiment for school children. I would encourage
you*
* not to hatch chicks and instead have a conversation with the children
about*
* why it is important for animals to be treated with kindness and respect
for*
* their families.”*

The teacher responded dismissively about teachers “hosting” the motherless
chicks in these projects:

*”Thank you for reaching out. I understand your concerns. To answer some
of*
* your questions, please view the program website: RentACoop
<https://www.rentacoop.com/about/>. I’ve shared some*
* of your questions, and I’ve had positive discussions with teachers who
have*
* hosted chicks in their classroom in years past. I hope this information
helps.”*

______________

*What Can I Do?*

If you have a child or know of children whose teacher, school or school
district
is planning to hatch chicks, ducklings or other birds in mechanical
incubators,
please object. These projects abuse animals and take advantage of children’s
ignorance. Please read and share our information with educators and parents.
Schools are more sensitive to parental criticisms than to other sources of
criticism. Parent-teacher meetings provide opportunities to publicize this
issue
and enlist parental support to end these projects in favor of humane
education.

For more information please visit:
Hatching Good Lessons: Alternatives To School Hatching Projects
<http://www.upc-online.org/hatching/alternatives.html>

*A Home for Henny*

Melanie is a 3rd grader who is excited about a chick hatching project in her
class at school. The project seemed like a good idea at first, but
unexpected
problems arise and the whole class learns a lesson in compassion. When the
project is over, Melanie adopts one of the chicks she names Henny. A Home
for
Henny explores the challenges and concerns with school hatching projects
while
evoking the lively personality of Henny and her loving relationship with
Melanie. Grades K-4

Do you have elementary school-age children at home? Nieces or Nephews?
Friends
with children? *A Home for Henny* is the perfect story to teach children
compassion for chickens and why chick-hatching programs don’t belong in our
schools. Donate a copy (or several!) to your local elementary schools and
the
children’s section of your local libraries.

A Home for Henny
$6.99 – Single copy
$15.00 – Five copies

Order online:
A Home for Henny
<http://www.upc-online.org/merchandise/humane_child.html#home_for_henny>

*Learn more: *
Rent-a-Chicken Business
<http://www.upc-online.org/backyard/170517_rent-a-chicken_business_and_backyard_chickens.html>


United Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes
the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
Don’t just switch from beef to chicken. Go Vegan.
http://www.UPC-online.org/ http://www.twitter.com/upcnews
http://www.facebook.com/UnitedPoultryConcerns

View this article online
<http://upc-online.org/hatching/180419_classroom_chick-hatching_projects_teach_bad_lessons.html

Critical Animal Studies: Towards Trans-Species Social Justice

*Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns*

This new book of challenging essays by scholars and activists includes my
analysis of “The Disengagement of Journalistic Discourse about Nonhuman
Animals,” published online as Disengaged Journalism & The Disparagement &
<http://www.upc-online.org/alerts/171201_disengaged_journalism_and_the_disparagement_and_disappearance_of_animals.html>
Disappearance of Animals
<http://www.upc-online.org/alerts/171201_disengaged_journalism_and_the_disparagement_and_disappearance_of_animals.html>.
The book’s Introduction provides the following
synopsis of my chapter to which I’ve taken the liberty of incorporating some
modifications of my own for emphasis:

Prominent activist Karen Davis draws on her long experience of defending
animal rights to consider how animals and animal rights issues have been
represented in mainstream media. In spite of the fact that mainstream
journalism has given more attention in recent years to these spaces of
violent
abuse, Davis notes, “In my 30-plus years in the animal advocacy movement
there
has been virtually no analysis or critique of the coverage given to farmed
animals by the mainstream media.”

Karen’s analysis demonstrates that a particular type of ethical blindness
persists in which exploitation and violence are, paradoxically, “visible,
yet
unperceived.” In a model of engaged scholarship, Davis exposes the
tactical
and rhetorical strategies that are used in media coverage of animal
issues,
such as the use of euphemisms like “humane” and “euthanasia” to describe
brutal and sordid violence in the service of profit. *She notes the
shallow*
* criticisms of specific abuses that exist together with a ready
endorsement of*
* the broad system in which all these cruelties are conducted*. She argues
that
what some animal advocates consider strong critiques of animal abuse
actually
operate to leave readers powerless and ineffective.

For example, even in cases where cruelties are noted, a jokey style that
comments on how “tasty” animals are serves to undermine any real critique
and
to condone the system that allows those cruelties to occur. [*New York
Times*
columnists Nicholas Kristof and Mark Bittman epitomize this method of
jokey
disengagement toward farmed animals, always reassuring readers that no
matter
how much the animals suffer, “we” love our hamburgers and chicken nuggets
far
more than we care about them.]

Citing a number of cases, Davis analyzes how these rhetorical practices
operate not only in media reports but also in other types of texts and
act to
depoliticize animal abuse, disempower activists, and reinforce mainstream
complacency. Within this model of analysis, liberal opinion – in this
case, a
flaccid concern for “humane treatment” linked with fawning plugs for
“conscientious” omnivorism – plays an important gatekeeper role in
maintaining
the system, as it acts to constitute the outer limits of acceptable ideas
and
attitudes.

___________________

Please join our campaign against the outer limits of “acceptable” ideas and
attitudes! Open the floodgates!

*International Respect for Chickens Day May 4 *

*Please do an ACTION for Chickens in May!*
<http://upc-online.org/respect/180404_please_do_an_action_for_chickens_in_may.html>

*Stick Up For Chickens!*


United Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes
the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
Don’t just switch from beef to chicken. Go Vegan.
http://www.UPC-online.org/ http://www.twitter.com/upcnews
http://www.facebook.com/UnitedPoultryConcerns

View this article online
<http://upc-online.org/bookreviews/180417_critical_animal_studies-towards_trans-species_social_justice.html

Restaurant owner admits to hunting dogs with crossbow after being chased down by “vigilante”

A restaurant owner in Hubei’s Yichang city who hunted and killed neighborhood dogs for use in his signature dish was caught by police on Wednesday after being chased down by one vengeful pet owner.

On Wednesday morning, police in Yichang received a call from one man who said that his dog had been killed and that he was currently in a vehicle pursuing the culprit. When police arrived in the area, they found a black car abandoned on the sidewalk with one wheel missing and a severely dented back bumper.

Later in the day, shocking video began circulating on Chinese social media showing how the car came to be there at the end of a dramatic car chase with an SUV bumping the vehicle from behind, sending it spinning onto the sidewalk. The vigilante told police that afterward the driver had quickly fled the scene. Officers inspected the car, finding its trunk and back seat lined with eight dog carcasses, many of which were later identified to have been pets of local residents.

The driver did not get far and turned himself into police a short time later. According to the Chutian Metropolis Daily, he admitted that he was the owner of a small local restaurant which was known for its dog hot pot. In order to provide this specialty for his customers, the man went out hunting for dogs early in the morning with a crossbow. His wife came along with him to collect the carcasses after he shot them.

Police are currently investigating the case. It’s not clear if the man will face any repercussions for his actions, China has infamously loose laws when it comes to the protection of domestic animals.

This incident comes shortly after Alex Pall of The Chainsmokers, an American EDM duo, ignited outrage online after implying that he would not bring his dog to China for fear that it would be eatenin a promotional interview with a Chinese reporter in China. Pall later issued a half-apology for his comments while also pointing towards a petition to stop the infamous Yulin Dog Meat Festival, where thousands of canines are slaughtered each summer for food in southern China.

[Images via Chutian Metropolis Daily]

Cecil the lion ‘suffered incredible cruelty for at least 10 hours,’ new book says

By Kyle Swenson/‎Mar‎ ‎7‎, ‎2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/07/cecil-the-lio
n-suffered-incredible-cruelty-for-at-least-10-hours-new-book-says/>

Booze shook the secret loose from the hunting staff. They arrived thirsty at
the safari lodge in the Zimbabwe wilderness in July 2015. Their pockets were
fat with cash.

Drinks went down and they became chatty, talking about a huge lion killed
days earlier by a visiting trophy hunter. The lodge workers overhearing the
boasts immediately wondered if the hunters were talking about Cecil, the
12-year-old lion who prowled the Kalahari woodlands of the Hwange National
Park, according to a
<https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Hearted-Future-Africas-Iconic/dp/1682451208/ref
=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520409599&sr=1-1&keywords=andrew+loveridge> new
book by Oxford University researcher Andrew Loveridge.

It would prove to be the first clue in unraveling how Cecil was killed. The
big cat had not been seen since July 1. Jericho, the area’s other male lion,
had filled the recent nights with lonely, unanswered calls. The lodge
workers relayed what they’d heard to a National Parks ranger.

Cecil’s 2015 death created international controversy, with much of the
fervor knotting around
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/29/how-the-death
-of-cecil-the-lion-at-the-hands-of-american-walter-palmer-has-shed-light-on-
the-big-business-of-big-game/?utm_term=.989c4f039563> Walter Palmer, a
55-year-old Minnesota dentist and avid big game hunter. Palmer had
reportedly paid local hunters and guides $50,000 to bring down Cecil with a
bow-and-arrow on the Gwaai Conservancy, a private wildlife refuge bordering
the park. The volume of the uproar rose when it was reported no lion hunting
had been legally greenlit for the area.

Palmer later issued a public apology stating that he “had no idea that the
lion [he] took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a
study.” Although Palmer’s guide was initially charged for his part in
Cecil’s death, a Zimbabwe high court later dropped the proceedings.

Loveridge’s book, “Lion Hearted: The Life and Death of Cecil and the Future
of Africa’s Iconic Cats,” offers the first detailed account of Cecil’s last
hours, including new information on how the hunters lured the lion out of
the park to his death. The book, based on interviews with members of the
hunt and the analysis of Loveridge’s data, also purports corrects many of
the factual errors plaguing news coverage of the death.

“What I find most difficult about the whole incident is the apparent
callousness with which the hunters undertook this hunt,” Loveridge writes in
the book, which was excerpted this week in
<https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/wildlife-watch-cecil-trophy-hun
ting-andrew-loveridge/> National Geographic. “The lion was a commodity to be
collected, ‘taken’ in hunting parlance. Concern for the pain and suffering
of the animal never seems to have been a particular consideration.”

The book arrives as big game hunting again is a hot topic in the United
States. Under President Trump — whose sons are
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/03/06/trump-called-ele
phant-hunts-a-horror-show-his-administration-just-lifted-a-trophy-hunting-ba
n/?utm_term=.20b90dafd4dd> big game hunters — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has quietly been rolling back restrictions on importing hunting
trophies from overseas. Beginning
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-hunters-lion-trophi
es-20171120-story.html> in October, the agency began issuing new permits of
lion carcasses from Zimbabwe.

Palmer’s attorney was not immediately available for comment on Loveridge’s
book.

http://cdn.flipboard.com/washingtonpost.com/d467879b6d2bf2adfcebda0d4d6860a7
9ff00a83/original.jpg

Dentist Walter Palmer, arrives to his office in Bloomington, Minn., in 2015.
(Jim Mone-File/AP)

Loveridge studied Cecil for eight years, and the work was often beset by
loss. Since the research began at the park in 1999, 42 collared male lions
have been killed by trophy hunters, according to National Geographic.

“It’s hugely sad to lose a study animal that you are very very familiar
with, you spent a lot of time with,” he
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBRaGGwqbG0> told the BBC after Cecil’s
death. “You get very up close and personal with them. They all have
personalities, so it’s very distressing when they die, not only from
trophy-hunting but from other causes as well.”

According to the book, members of the research team began worrying about
Cecil on July 6, when they noticed the animals GPS collar had not
transmitted data since July 4. The collar had new batteries. A malfunction
was unlikely.

When the team heard rumors about a lion hunt, they hit the field, picking up
the information from the safari lodge. Eventually, the team tracked the
boastful hunters down to Antoinette farm, “a 25-five-square-kilometer parcel
located in the Gwaai,” Loveridge writes.

From interviews with staff there, the team learned an elephant carcass was
transported 300 meters from where it was killed to a location for the Palmer
hunt. Downwind from the dead elephant — an appetizing lure for a lion —
staff members constructed a blind in a nearby tree. This is where Palmer
initially shot Cecil, Loveridge writes.

The lion survived the first arrow hit.

“It is clear that Cecil was at this stage mortally wounded and hadn’t moved
far from where he was shot,” the author writes. “This is corroborated by the
GPS data from Cecil’s collar, which allows a forensic reconstruction of
events. The collar sent a position from the hunt site at just before 9 p.m.
By 11 p.m. the collar’s position had moved 80 meters roughly southeast from
the carcass. It therefore seems probable Cecil was shot at some point
between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on July 1.”

Palmer and his hired team finished Cecil off “10 to 12 hours after being
wounded.”

“Cecil suffered incredible cruelty for at least 10 hours, severely wounded
and slowly dying,” the book states. “Clearly, although the wound was severe,
the arrow had missed the vital organs or arteries that would have caused
rapid blood loss and a relatively quick death. Certainly, the lion was so
incapacitated that in all those hours he’d been able to move only 350 meters
from the place where he was shot.”

Injured hunter claims hog hunting helicopters flying through dangerous loophole

The “Pork Choppin’” law allows hunters to shoot feral hogs from helicopters.

AA

SAN ANTONIO – They called it the “pork choppin’” law when it passed a few years ago. It allowed hunters to legally shoot feral hogs from helicopters. Since then some hunters have paid thousands of dollars to go on the excursions.

Now a lawsuit filed by a Medina County man claims some operators are flying through a dangerous loophole.

Thomas Swan runs an organic farm in Devine. For him going on a helicopter hog hunt wasn’t just about the thrill of the experience.

“Being a farmer I get to see the true destruction of wild pigs. What a lot of people don’t understand is they actually are a problem,” Swan said.

Last September Swan and a friend were on a hog hunt near Burnet when the helicopter they had hired experienced engine failure. The pilot made a hard crash landing right in the lanes of Highway 281.

“The pilot said ‘hang on’ a half a second before we hit the ground,” Swan said.

Swan managed to escape injury for eight years as a Marine Sgt. in Afghanistan. He was sitting with his legs hanging out the door of the helicopter with his feet resting on the skids. The impact sent him spilling out onto the asphalt.

Swan says he suffered a badly broken ankle, broken tailbone and injured lower back.

“It’s probably the most painful thing I’ve experienced,” Swan said.

The crash is still being investigated by the NTSB, but Swan’s attorney, Ladd Sanger, who is a pilot himself, believes the chopper ran out of fuel. NTSB documents we obtained indicate the helicopter was operating with a Part 91 “General Aviation” certificate, not a Part 135 “Commercial Charter” certificate has tougher safety standards.

“That means that you have maintenance programs, that means you have FAA oversight, that means you have an operations manual, you have a chief pilot, you have a director of operations, you have training standards,” says Sanger.

Sanger claims many hog hunt operators are taking advantage of a loophole that allows them to fly up to six hunts a year with just a “General Aviation” certificate, if they stay within 25 miles of an airport and notify the FAA ahead of time.

He says the FAA needs to eliminate that loophole, or else more hunters will end up like Thomas Swan, whose injuries have made it difficult to continue farming.

“It was definitely a scary experience that’s for sure, the scariest experience I have ever been through,” Swan said.

We contacted the two companies that organized the trip, Heli Gunner and Lift Inc., neither had any comment. We spoke to other companies in the business who say before going on an aerial hunt you should ask if the operator has a Part 135 “Commercial Certificate.”

State drops deer cruelty charge against Washington hunter

 https://knox.villagesoup.com/p/state-drops-deer-cruelty-charge-against-washington-hunter/1685380

By Stephen Betts | Sep 06, 2017

WASHINGTON — A 58-year-old Washington man was convicted Wednesday, Sept. 6, of a trio of hunting violations,but the most serious charge, felony cruelty to a deer, was dismissed by the state.

Ronald Mole pleaded no contest in Knox County Superior Court to night hunting, placing bait to entice deer and discharging a firearm near a dwelling. The no contest plea results in a conviction, but allows him to challenge the facts in separate administrative or civil proceedings.

The District Attorney’s Office dismissed a more serious charge of aggravated cruelty to animals. The charge was considered to be the first time that the animal cruelty law had been used in relation to the shooting of a deer by a hunter.

Mole will be fined $1,000 if he adheres to terms of a deferred disposition over the next 12 months. The terms require him to obey all laws during the next year. If he commits any new offenses, he could face up to the maximum of 365 days in jail for the night hunting conviction.

The offenses occurred Nov. 6 and Nov. 7 on the Old Union Road in Washington, according to paperwork filed in court by Maine Game Warden Joey Lefebvre of the Maine Inland and Fish and Wildlife department.

The animal was shot while Mole was illegally night hunting, according to investigators. The deer was left to suffer during the night until Mole returned the following morning, the state claimed.

The cruelty charge had alleged that Mole acted in a way that “manifested a depraved indifference to animal life or suffering, did intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause extreme physical pain to an animal, cause the death of an animal, or physically torture an animal.”

Generally, animal cruelty cases involve abuse to pets.

After Mole was charged, his attorney, Christopher MacLean, of Camden, had said he was amazed that his client had been charged with animal cruelty.

“In a state with such a proud hunting tradition, it absolutely amazes me to see a felony prosecution for animal cruelty in a case where the deer was lawfully shot and properly tagged by a licensed Maine hunter. Cases like this slowly erode hunting rights in the state; I fear the next step will be to restrict gun ownership itself by those who have no understanding of Maine’s hunting tradition,” MacLean said at the time the charges were brought.

The state said the hunting occurred at 8 p.m. Nov. 6. Sunset was at 4:19 p.m. Hunting is prohibited from 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise.

Then District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau said after the charge was filed that the theory of prosecution for this case was that there was a far greater chance of a deer’s suffering if it was hunted illegally at night when a clean shot is less likely and when the deer cannot be tracked as easily.

Firing a gun within 100 yards of a residential dwelling is illegal in Maine without the permission of the property owner.

A companion case against Lisa Black, 47, of Washington, was dropped by the state. Black had been charged with unsworn falsification and false registration of a deer.

United Poultry Concerns Asks Ridgeland, Wisconsin to Drop Chicken Toss


NEWS PROVIDED BY

United Poultry Concerns 

Jan 30, 2018, 15:26 ET

MACHIPONGO, Va.Jan. 30, 2018 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — United Poultry Concerns is joining Wisconsin-based Alliance for Animals in urging the village of Ridgeland, Wisconsin to cancel their February “Chicken Toss” due to its cruelty to defenseless birds in frigid temperatures.

The “chicken toss” consists of throwing chickens, one or two at a time, up in the air from a tavern roof. Crowds scramble to grab the birds as they fall to the ground. The chickens are huddled freezing and fearful together in crates and bags awaiting their mistreatment by villagers who consider this animal abuse fun.

There is no similarity between a chicken being pulled from a container and thrown roughly up in the air from a roof, and a chicken fluttering to the ground voluntarily from a perch.

In addition to the physically cruel conditions is the heartless attitude toward the birds.

“Chickens are very intelligent, sensitive creatures,” says Karen Davis, President of United Poultry Concerns. “They know they are in an atmosphere of meanness and hurtfulness from which they cannot defend themselves.”

It’s time for Ridgeland to quit this cruel, moronic entertainment. They shame themselves by acting like village idiots, abusing helpless animals for fun, and teaching their children to be vicious bullies.

SOURCE United Poultry Concerns

Mass shootings do not reflect human nature

by David Cantor

In the aftermath of mass murders, as in Las Vegas, we constantly hear that killing others arises from human nature. Filmmaker Ken Burns stated in his “Fresh Air” interview about his recent release on the Vietnam War, “War is human nature in spades.”

Yet, during my 28 years studying human beings’ killing of others, I discovered this from the leading expert on training human beings to kill in war, psychologist Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, in “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” “[D]espite an unbroken tradition of violence and war, man is not by nature a killer.” Grossman invokes findings that even with military training and indoctrination, many soldiers deliberately fire over the enemy’s head.

As consistently indicated in a great many sources on morality in human beings and other animals, we see human nature in the altruistic, protective, compassionate, and cooperative behavior that takes hold in the aftermath of mass murder, in mass resistance to war, and in spontaneous celebration of war’s end.

This distinction is crucial for understanding and preventing violence and murder and for responding to perpetrators. If killing were natural, we would not collectively be so horrified by it. Maybe it would be OK for authorities to “lie us into war” if “we” could benefit at the expense of “them.” Instead, we experience moral injury from our representative government’s promoting official violence while demonizing killers acting on their own.

We reward and celebrate peacemakers and officers who make arrests without killing or injuring the accused. We teach children how to get along with other human beings, not how to kill them because it is “natural” to do so.

For killing to manifest an animal’s biological nature, the animal must have body parts adapted to killing other animals and to protecting against prospective victims’ defenses. It helps to have thick, tough skin; long, hard claws and powerful muscles for wielding them; long fangs and strong jaw and head muscles to sink them between a victim’s vertebrae; back and limbs especially suited to pouncing and chasing.

Obviously, human beings do not possess such physical traits.

As detailed in “The Comparative Anatomy of Eating” by Milton R. Mills, M.D., human beings have none of the anatomical or physiological traits that define animals who evolved in nature to kill other animals – the above plus an omnivore’s or carnivore’s dentition, saliva, and digestive tract. In nature, killing is mostly for eating. No naturally occurring human “equipment” correlates with that function.

Humans evolved as plant-foraging apes on the African savanna, with color vision good for distinguishing a great variety of edible leaves, fruits, berries, flowers, and other plants that eventually led to what we call “produce” when our species began living unnaturally through agriculture; versatile digits and nails adapted to picking, plucking, peeling; teeth good for tearing and grinding plants – not for ripping and scarfing flesh.

Human beings’ organized killing relies on innovation, not nature – on manufactured weapons, traps, rope and, more recently, poison, electrical current, toxic fumes. For killing, our elaborate imaginative and cooperative capabilities, adapted to avoiding predation and raising families while moving about the landscape foraging for plants to eat, are distorted to plan and coordinate assaults, attacks, murders, wars, eliminationist campaigns, and executions.

Our bodies alone – our original, natural condition – aid us in spotting our natural predators, grabbing children and fleeing, defending with rocks and tree branches, not in actively planning, organizing, and setting out to kill.

In making policies and establishing practices with regard to nonhuman animals, human beings and governments typically analyze the kind of animal involved. Except that other animals’ sentience, emotions, and intelligence are denied because our innate humaneness rebels against injuring and killing.

It is peculiar indeed that we craft policies and perpetuate practices for our own species based on ignorance of such a basic fact of our animality as whether or not it is natural for us to kill.

A native Chestnut Hiller and 1973 graduate of Springside Chestnut Hill Academy, David Cantor is founder and director of Responsible Policies for Animals, in Glenside – www.RPAforAll.org.

‘Massive backwards step for justice’ as National Trust fails to ban ‘trail hunting’

https://www.league.org.uk/News/massive-backwards-step-for-justice-as-national-trust-members-vote-to-support-trail-hunting

Updated:

Animal lovers have been left distraught today after National Trust members failed to pass a motion to ban ‘trail hunting’ on Trust land.

A group of National Trust members, supported by the League Against Cruel Sports, put forward a motion calling on the charity to stop fox, hare and stag hunts from illegally killing animals on Trust land under the cover of ‘trail hunting’, exempt hunting or just exercising their hounds.

In the result out this afternoon, the number of people voting against the motion to ban Trail hunting was 30,985. Those for the motion was 30,686. This means that the motion failed by 299 votes. It is worth noting that the National Trust was given discretionary votes by some members, meaning that those votes were used by the National Trust to vote against the motion. Without those discretionary votes, the number of people who voted for the motion was actually greater than those who voted against. So the decision was swung against  the motion by the National Trust board.

The result means that 67 hunts which have previously been issued with licences to hunt on Trust land will be able to continue doing so in the future.

Philippa King, Acting CEO of the League Against Cruel Sports, said:

“The Trust claims to protect our countryside but they have singularly failed to do that. This is a massive backward step for justice and a shot in the arm for cruelty. The fact that more people actually voted to ban trail hunting than voted not to is very telling and we are extremely proud of that. But the vote was lost because the National Trust decided to ignore the popular vote and side with the pro-hunt lobby. This is both sad and very worrying and we hope that the Trust will have taken on board and listened very carefully to the points made by members. We want to see them bring in the new licensing rules they have introduced and do everything in their power to ensure the hunts are properly monitored.

“The National Trust could have played a major role in curtailing illegal hunting in this country, but they chose to ignore 400 pages of evidence and instead mislead their members into voting against this motion. Their justification is that there have been no prosecutions of hunts on National Trust land – but if you let a burglar wander round your house without supervision, then he’s unlikely to be arrested.

“Hunts will now claim that people believe they are hunting legally. If so, they shouldn’t mind if the National Trust now invites independent monitors onto their land to ensure that the hunts follow their rules, as the Trust officials don’t normally monitor hunting on their land as they should. We’ll then see how many accidents, how many chases and how many deaths occur in the name of ‘trail’ hunting.”

Helen Beynon, National Trust member who was one of those proposing the motion, said:

“I started this with some other National Trust members because I witnessed the deceit of hunts which are claiming to follow trails but are actually chasing animals, and I couldn’t abide the thought of them getting away with it on National Trust land. I believe the only reason our motion has failed is because most National Trust members haven’t seen it with their own eyes. If they’d have seen what I’ve seen, then I have no doubt they would have voted with us.

“I was surprised, that despite all the evidence available to the National Trust Trustees, and the fact that we were given no opportunity to respond to the terms of any new licence, they advised members to vote against our proposal. By doing this, they have led people to believe that there is no problem. But there is a problem, hunts will now be able to continue their barbaric hobby on land which is meant to be protected for people and animals. It’s disgraceful, and the National Trust should be ashamed.”

TRAIL HUNTING, NOT DRAG HUNTING

The motion did not attempt to ban ‘drag’ hunting which has existed as a legitimate sport for 200 years and uses non-animal based artificial trails in areas without foxes or hares. ‘Drag’ hunting offers a genuine alternative to illegal hunting, as the huntsmen have full knowledge of where the trail is being laid, so ‘accidental kills’ are practically unheard of. However, no fox or hare hunt converted to drag hunting after the Hunting Act passed in 2004, and they invented ‘trail’ hunting instead.

“This was not an attempt to kill off ‘tradition’, it was an attempt to stop the killing of animals for fun,” said Philippa King. “Drag hunts follow an artificial trail and rarely catch an animal ‘by accident’, and will not be affected by this ban. Trail hunting was invented after the Hunting Act came in, but there was no genuine reason to invent a new version of drag hunting unless there was an ulterior motive – to carry on killing foxes, deer and hares, and get away with it.

“This deception has been recognised by many National Trust members, but not by the Trust themselves. Today the hunts will be laughing at the National Trust – or at least those in the National Trust who are opposed to hunting.”

Last year the National Trust issued 79 annual licences granting hunts access to their land in England and Wales to trail hunt.

The League believes there is no such a thing as the ‘sport of trail hunting’ and it is simply a temporary, false alibi to cover for illegal hunting while the hunting fraternity hopes for the hunting ban to be repealed or weakened.

Invented following the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004, trail hunting was created to mimic traditional hunting. Hunts are said to follow a pre-laid trail in areas where the ‘once’ hunted animals would naturally occur. However those controlling the hounds are not told where the scent has been laid, so if the hounds catch the scent of a live animal instead – resulting in a chase and often a kill – this is then classed as an ‘accident’.

Reports from more than 30 hunt monitors across ten years from different organisations covering the majority of hunts in England and Wales (157), have reported witnessing someone laying a possible trail only in an average of around 3% of the occasions they monitored hunts. Worse, they believed that they may have witnessed a genuine trail hunting event, rather than a fake one, on an average of around 0.04% of occasions.

Find out more about the National Trust vote at www.league.org.uk/nationaltrust