Britain: after a campaign by animal rights activists, no hunting magazines for sale to under-14 yr olds

Why does one get the feeling that animal rights groups don't feel that they can win this debate simply by argument?  They appear to hope that they can wean Brits off of interest in hunting by making it harder for young people to get interested in hunting.  It provides some insight into gun control groups working to pass hunting bans in the US.

Country sports enthusiasts are furious at a decision by Britain's biggest newsagent to ban children from buying shooting magazines after a campaign by animal rights activists. 

WH Smith says youngsters under 14 will not be sold shooting titles, even though it is legal to hold a shotgun licence below that age. 

And even adult customers attempting to buy a magazine featuring shooting now face a humiliating alert as staff receive a "till prompt" to check the buyer's age. The high street retailer based the policy on the qualifying age for a firearms certificate and says checks are already in place for a range of products, including scissors and adhesives "where an element of common sense" is required. 

However, sports groups point out that there is no minimum age for holding a shotgun licence in Britain, although children below 18 cannot buy or own a gun themselves and under-14s must be supervised by an adult. . . . 

"They are now going to face the backlash of the countryside rather than a handful of animal rights activists." 

Earlier this year, Animal Aid, Britain's largest animal rights organisation, published a report which claimed that the "lurid, pro-violence content" of country sports magazines could have a "corrosive, long-lasting effect on impressionable young minds". . . .

PETA Offering Free Vasectomy to People

PETA shows that it thinks that there are too many people.

The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has long advocated for dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered. Now, it's extending the campaign to humans.
The Norfolk, Va.-based group is offering a free vasectomy to the winner of its "Why should PETA neuter you?" campaign. Applicants enter the contest by getting their cat or dog spayed or neutered and submitting an essay to PETA.
The group says human overpopulation contributes to animal suffering by draining water and land resources and causing pollution. . . .

Banning Horse Slaughter hasn't worked out so well

Some are arguing that there have been some real unintended consequences to banning horse slaughterhouses.

Less than four years after the last equine slaughterhouses in the U.S. closed down, an unlikely coalition of ranchers, horse owners and animal-welfare groups is trying to bring them back.

The group, gathering in Las Vegas this week for a conference called Summit of the Horse, aims to map out a strategy for reviving an industry that slaughtered as many as 100,000 horses a year in the U.S. before it was effectively shut down by congressional action in 2007.

Advocates say the slaughterhouses could bring an economic boost to rural areas and give owners who no longer have the means or inclination to care for the horses an economical and humane way to dispose of them.

"We believe that humane processing is absolutely a moral and an ethical choice," said Sue Wallis, a Wyoming state lawmaker who organized the event.

Ms. Wallis is working on bringing a slaughterhouse to her state, but said her coalition first must overcome what she called "the 'ick' factor." . . .

Some discussions of the unintended suffering of animals from the ban is here.

It might be hard to change this ban as President Obama campaigned in support of the ban.

When regulations just get too nutsy: Outlawing selling a goldfish to children under 16

Apparently this UK law is an animal rights effort motivated by concerns that children will not properly take care of animals. But even if one thinks that is a general justification, it is hard to see how that applies to goldfish. What percent of 14 year olds who buy a goldfish harm the fish? What is the happiness that children get from having these pets? And a criminal penalty seems out of all proportion to any harm.

Her offence was to unwittingly sell a goldfish to a 14-year-old boy taking part in a trading standards 'sting'.
At most, pet shop owner Joan Higgins, 66, expected a slap on the wrist for breaking new animal welfare laws which ban the sale of pets to under-16s.
Instead, the great-grandmother was taken to court, fined £1,000, placed under curfew - and ordered to wear an electronic tag for two months.
The punishment is normally handed out to violent thugs and repeat offenders.
The prosecution of Mrs Higgins and her son Mark is estimated to have cost taxpayers £20,000 and has left her with a criminal record.
Mark, 47, was also fined and ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work in the community.
Last night, as an MP criticised the magistrates, Mrs Higgins - who has run the pet shop for 28 years - said the family's eight-month ordeal had left them traumatised.
She added: 'It's ridiculous. I mean, what danger am I that I have to wear an electronic tag? These last few months have been a very stressful time.'
The seven-week curfew imposed by the court means she is unable to babysit her great-grandson at his home or go to bingo sessions with her sister, and will be unable to attend a Rod Stewart concert after tickets were bought for her by her nephew, actor Will Mellor. . . .

Lawyers for animals

This is bizarre on so many levels. Should fishing be outlawed because it harms fish? So much for eating healthy. Could one imagine what the implications this would be for eating animals?

Last month, Antoine Goetschel went to court here in defense of an unusual client: a 22-pound pike that had fought a fisherman for 10 minutes before surrendering.

Mr. Goetschel is the official animal lawyer for the Swiss canton of Zurich, a sort of public defender who represents the interests of pets, farm animals and wildlife. He wound up with the pike as a client when animal-welfare groups filed a complaint alleging animal cruelty in the fish's epic battle with an amateur angler.

The case emerged after a local newspaper photo showed the fisherman proudly showing off the four-foot-long fish—a scene that, to Mr. Goetschel, was reminiscent of a safari hunter with his foot perched on the head of a dead lion. "It is this Hemingway thinking," he says. "Why should this be legal when other animals have to be slaughtered in a humane way?"

Mr. Goetschel is the only official animal lawyer in Switzerland, but that may be about to change. On Sunday, the Swiss will vote on a referendum that would compel all of Switzerland's cantons to hire animal lawyers. The rationale: If people accused of mistreating animals can hire lawyers, the victims of such abuse are also entitled to representation. . . .

Animal Rights Activists Threaten Life of US Figure Skater

I am sure that this Olympic athlete has better things to do at this time than worry about death threats. He is also forced to move where he was planning on staying during the Olympics. As best as I can tell from the story, it looks like the animal rights activists were upset that he was wearing false fur anyway.

U.S. figure skater Johnny Weir says he received threats from anti-fur activists that made him fear for his safety, causing him to scrub any plans to stay at a hotel while in Vancouver for the Olympics.

"I felt very threatened," he said Saturday. "I'm not allowed to say how everything got through, but my agent got letters and faxes and e-mails. I got letters at the ice rink, somebody found my phone number.

"All these crazy fur people. Security-wise, to stay in a hotel would be very difficult. There have been threats against me. I didn't want to get hurt."

Weir is sharing a suite with U.S. ice dancer Tanith Belbin in the Olympic village. The longtime friends have their own bedrooms and bathrooms.

Belbin won Olympic silver in 2006 with partner Ben Agosto. A three-time national champion, Weir, who finished fifth in Torino, was third at this year's nationals to gain the final spot on the U.S. team.

The men's short program is Tuesday with the free skate set for Thursday.

"I'm just an easy person to pick on because I like fur," he said. "It's easy to put your case against an athlete who is going to the Olympics. It's a very good, easy thing for these activists.

"It's a very scary thing. I'm a figure skater, I'm not some huge politician who gets these things all the time."

Weir was criticized by animal-rights activists after he donned a costume in nationals with white fox fur on the shoulder. He said after the event that he would wear faux fur in the Games, but has since changed his mind.

"It was not because I was pressured to change it, but because I don't like faux fur," Weir explained. "I didn't change the costume, I'm just switching back to another costume."

More unintended suffering of animals from the Animal Rights movement

The New York Times has this:

Emaciated horses eating bark off trees. Abandoned horses tied to telephone poles. Horses subsisting on feces, walking among carcasses.

As the economy continues to falter, law enforcement officers in Kentucky and throughout the country are seeing major increases in the number of unwanted and neglected horses, some abandoned on public land, others left to starve by their owners.

The situation has renewed the debate over whether reopening slaughterhouses in the United States — the last ones closed in 2007 — would help address the problem. Some states, Missouri, Montana and North and South Dakota, for example, are looking at ways to bring slaughterhouses back.

An estimated 100,000 horses a year are shipped to Canada and Mexico for slaughter, prompting Congress to consider a bill that would ban the sale and transport of horses for human consumption outside the country. But Arkansas, Georgia and eight other states are against such a ban, saying owners need affordable options for unwanted horses. . . . . .

“No one has to send a horse to a processing plant,” he added. “It’s just an option for horses that are unusable. And it’s much more humane than leaving them there to starve to death.” . . . . .

Why is it so difficult for Airports to remove birds?

From the Sacramento Bee:

The birds share airspace with commercial jets arriving and departing from Sacramento International Airport – and too frequently, the two groups of fliers collide.

That fact was highlighted two weeks ago in New York when a US Airways jet crash-landed on the Hudson River after a bird strike reportedly disabled both engines.

None of the 155 passengers was killed. But, fearing catastrophe here, Sacramento airport officials are reassessing their safety practices, and pushing for a state law that would assure them of one particular safety tool: full legal clearance to kill troublesome birds.

Dealing with birds is a daily, dawn to dusk job, they say. They fire air cannons and use screech boxes as deterrents. They employ "Bird Banger" firecrackers and even drive in trucks honking horns.

It's not enough, they say. They want "lethal take" rights. That may means traps or poison. Most often, it means a shotgun.

Sacramento, like other airports, has killed birds on its property for years, under federal permits. But state game officials told the airport to back off last year after receiving an anonymous complaint. Killing non-game birds is not authorized by state code, they said, and county employees can be prosecuted for doing it. . . .

The lives of some very common birds versus those of humans? Given the extremes to which the airport has gone to non-lethally get rid of the birds, why do they face such problems. My guess is that if you kill some of the birds, the other birds will stay away.

PETA goes after Palin again

Politico has the story. The PETA link is here. The bizarre thing is that these animal nuts don't realize that hunting stabilizes animal populations and prevents the large animal starvations that occur in nature.

During the holiday season, PETA posted an online game that involves pelting the (moose-hunting) Alaska governor with snowballs, urging internet users to "help make the holidays safe for animals by fighting back against notorious animal abusers."

(In the game, we should mention, Palin is bikini-clad and wearing a fur coat.) . . .

Additional Note: Some of those making comments have pointed out that hunting also provides food, just as getting meat from a grocery store does. PETA obviously views both as bad. My point is solely that in terms of what I understand the logic of PETA to be -- if you want to reduce overall suffering to animals, hunting helps accomplish this.

PETA is attacking Jessica Simpson

PETA is attacking Jessica Simpson here:

Animal rights protesters have launched a series of angry campaigns against A-list carnivores. They are shifting their focus from celebrities who wear fur to others who encourage the "exploitation" of animals by eating them. In its latest campaign, Peta – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which became infamous for dousing fur-wearers in red paint – has launched an attack on the singer Jessica Simpson. . . .

jessica Simpson is wearing the right kind of t-shirt.

UPDATE: More silliness.

Jessica Simpson, who was slammed this week by Pamela Anderson for wearing a T-shirt that said "Real Girls Eat Meat," has gotten her revenge on the former "Baywatch" babe by beating her to the top spot in InTouch Weekly’s 2008 Best Breast poll. . . .

Animal Rights Terrorists Strike Again at UCLA

While his statement isn't bad, I wish that UCLA's chancellor, Gene D. Block, would have been even stronger. "Extremist" isn't a strong enough term. The Chronicle of Higher Education has this:

Animal-Rights Militants Say They Torched a UCLA Van

The Animal Liberation Front has claimed responsibility for the burning of an empty van that belonged to the University of California at Los Angeles, apparently the latest in a series of attacks aimed at faculty members and institutions that conduct research on animals.

The incident, on June 3, is being investigated by the university police and the FBI. Earlier this year, activists set off a firebomb at the home of a UCLA professor whose research includes the use of animals. Nobody was injured in that attack.

The torched vehicle, which was part of a fleet of 150 vans providing commuter service to UCLA faculty members, was set on fire while parked overnight in a park-and-ride facility in nearby Irvine. Nobody was injured, but the vehicle was declared a total loss.

The militant animal-rights group claimed responsibility through an anonymous communiqué sent to the magazine Bite Back and later uploaded to the Animal Liberation Front’s Web site.

The university’s chancellor, Gene D. Block, said in a written statement, “The extremists have crossed yet another threshold and directed violence at individuals and property not associated with animal research.”

A little bit more consumer choice in Chicago: Foie Gras Ban Lifted

Chicago City Council Overturns Foie Gras Ban:

Dining on foie gras — a delicacy of duck and goose liver — will soon be legal again in Chicago.

The Chicago City Council on Wednesday repealed its controversial two-year-old ban on the gourmet dish, drawing dissent from animal rights activists who consider foie gras cruel because the geese and ducks are force-fed to make their livers bigger . . . .

Animal Rights Activists Attack Researcher at Home

The Chronicle of Higher Education has the story about this attack:

Wearing bandanas around their faces, several assailants believed to be students from the University of California at Santa Cruz on Sunday attacked the home of a researcher who uses mice to study breast cancer. . . .

Some environmentalists won't even let some animals get killed to save others

There are a lot of boom and bust cycles for animals. They expand until they get to large for their food supply and then crash. In this case, it appears as if the wolves have expanded to much relative to the moose population. Even so, the Alaskan Wildlife Alliance won't put up with killing any of the wolves.

Wolf numbers seem to be rising in the wilderness around Aniak, McGrath and other villages, and the task once carried out by young Native men should be employed again to help moose populations recover, said Greg Roczicka, natural resources director with Orutsaramuit Native Council in Bethel.

The tribal government and a Fish and Game advisory committee along the central Kuskokwim River have submitted separate proposals asking the Board of Game to overturn regulations outlawing the practice.

The Game Board is scheduled to consider the proposals at upcoming meetings later this month and in February.

At least one group plans to speak against the idea.

"We're fervently opposed to it," said John Toppenberg, director with Alaska Wildlife Alliance. "It's been illegal in Alaska for a long time and deservedly so. It's a Stone Age concept of wildlife management and has no place as a management tool for civilized people. It's just barbaric." . . .

The "Unintended consequences" of Animal Rights Legislation

Animal rights groups got bans adopted that to stop the slaughter of horses. So guess what? People started shipping the horses to Canada and Mexico "where, animal advocates say, they sometimes face more gruesome deaths [than the would have in the US]." The elimination of American slaughter houses have also:

The slaughterhouse closings themselves may have added to the population of the unwanted. In some parts of the country, auctioneers say, the closings have contributed to a drop in the price of horses at the low end of the market, and the added distance in the shipping of horses bound for slaughter, combined with higher fuel costs, means that some small or thin horses are no longer worth the fuel it takes to transport them.

The results are not too surprising to an economist.

Well it is a good thing that these animal right's groups oppose hunting

Tiny, fluffy and adorable, Knut the baby polar bear became an animal superstar after he was abandoned by his mother. . . . .

"The zoo must kill the bear," said spokesman Frank Albrecht. "Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws."

When Knut was born in December, his mother ignored him and his brother, who died. Zoo officials intervened, choosing to raise the cub themselves.

But Albrecht and other activists fret that it is inappropriate for a predator, known for its fierceness and ability to fend for itself in the wild, to be snuggled, bottle-fed and made into a commodity by zookeepers.