Click here for full story

To: Secretary of Defense Leon Edward Panetta
From: Hope Bohanec, In Defense of Animals
hope@idausa.org
Submitted by fax: (703) 571-8951
December 13, 2011

On behalf of our 100,000 members worldwide, In Defense of Animals (IDA) requests an investigation into the brutal beating of a sheep by a soldier with a metal baseball bat. This November 2011 incident was caught on video in Afghanistan and has circulated around the Internet tarnishing the reputation of the U.S. Defense Department. The video shows a child looking on and several other soldiers laughing and supporting the beating. It took 12 blows with the sheep convulsing and several attempts at escape before the helpless animal finally died. IDA demands an investigation be conducted into this incident and appropriate prosecutorial action taken for all those involved.

Animal cruelty is punishable by military law under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for “public animals” like bomb-sniffing dogs and military horses. The Commission on Military Justice in 2009 recommended that criminal charges be brought against military personnel who abuse non-public animals like dogs, cats, and farm animals, but it is unclear if the military has heeded the recommendations of the Commission.

This is not the first instance of animal cruelty perpetrated by U.S. soldiers caught on video. Marine David Motari was filmed throwing a puppy over a cliff in Iraq in a 2008 video. This violent and senseless act eventually led to his discharge from military duty.

There is ample scientific documentation showing that people who abuse animals are also a danger to other people. Violent acts towards animals are often precursors to acts of human violence, including domestic violence, sexual violence, and murder. Prosecuting animal mistreatment carried out by military personnel is an important step towards preventing and reducing the risk of violent incidents to other soldiers and civilians as well as their spouses, children, friends and neighbors.

A defense of the video alluded that this killing was carried out to celebrate the Muslim holy festival of Eid where goats are often ritually slaughtered. However, Halal guidelines strictly call for humane slaughter of animals to cause minimal stress. It is prohibited to cause suffering to an animal and is recommended to slaughter an animal with a single kill stroke to the neck. This was obviously a slow, frightening, and painful death for this sheep and not in line with Muslim Halal guidelines.

In Defense of Animals requests a full investigation into this incident and for the perpetrators to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Thank you.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Union-Square-Shoppers-Hit-With-Protests-134513033.html

The National Institutes of Health wants you to believe that chimpanzee experimentation is necessary. It so badly wants you to believe this that the agency just two months ago began to use your tax dollars to fund a propaganda campaign for “educating the public” regarding the “importance of chimpanzees in biomedical research.”

Why is the NIH seemingly so desperate? Perhaps because the concept of ending this morally and scientifically bankrupt practice has become so mainstream, on so many fronts – scientific, political, ethical, financial – that on Sept. 28, Scientific American, the most prestigious general interest science magazine in the world, called for a ban, explaining, “Why it is time to end invasive biomedical research on chimpanzees.”

One of the major reasons for its call for the ban was the groundbreaking McClatchy Newspapers special report “Chimps: Life in the Lab,” published last April. This special report was based on McClatchy’s independent review of thousands of pages of chimpanzee medical records.

Scientific American noted that the special report’s review of these records and the details of experiments “painted a grim picture of life in the lab, noting disturbing psychological responses in the chimps.”

The NIH’s use of tax dollars to fund the abuse of chimpanzees, as documented in McClatchy’s special report, is especially timely. Congress has created a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to produce a plan by November 23 to reduce our debt by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The NIH spends more than $30 million annually on chimpanzee experimentation; ending it would save more than $300 million. It would also be completely consistent with the emerging scientific, political and ethical consensus elucidated by Scientific American: “The time has come to end biomedical experimentation on chimpanzees.”

But the NIH seems stuck in a different time – circa 1970s, when the current chief of hepatitis research at the NIH, Dr. Robert Purcell, began experimenting on chimpanzees, as did his counterpart at the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Stephen Feinstone. On Aug. 11, a public workshop was convened by the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine Chimpanzee Committee, which was commissioned by the NIH to determine if chimpanzees are “necessary” for biomedical research.

Dr. Purcell, who personifies the anachronistic mind-set of the NIH, the agency pushing the chimpanzee “model,” referred to chimpanzees as “it” – things, furry test tubes – in his presentation to the committee.

In stark contrast, at the same workshop, the director of HCV Biology for GlaxoSmithKline, the program officer for research and development at the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, and the director for drug safety assessment at Genentech testified that chimpanzees are not needed for development of cutting-edge therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and vaccines for diseases such as malaria. GSK stopped using chimpanzees in 2008. Genentech has also stopped, and told the committee that its informal poll of “six or eight” other biotech firms found that they, too, did not use chimpanzees.

Even the FDA – which produced a letter supporting the NIH’s propaganda campaign – does not require chimpanzee data to approve vaccines or therapies.

In September, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that a petition requesting that captive chimpanzees be classified as “endangered” – which would effectively end chimpanzee experimentation – presented “substantial” evidence that such a reclassification may be warranted, and initiated a review of the classification that includes a call for public comments by Jan. 31, 2012.

On the political front, the bipartisan Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011 currently has 106 co-sponsors in the House, while the European Union banned chimpanzee experiments last year. The United States is the only country in the world that currently allows large-scale chimpanzee experimentation.

Jane Goodall spoke before the committee last August, explaining, “From their point of view, it’s like torture. They are in prison and have done nothing wrong.”

After her powerfully moving words, a hepatitis researcher from University of Miami said, “I’ve never worked with chimps, but just listening to Jane Goodall, I got a guilt trip.”

The emerging scientific, ethical and political consensus is clear: the time has indeed come for chimpanzee experimentation to end. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction can make that consensus a reality while saving U.S. taxpayers $300 million.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Eric Kleiman is research director of In Defense of Animals; he initiated the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NIH that resulted in the release of thousands of pages of chimpanzee medical records.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

2011, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

SAN DIEGO — The animal rights organization, In Defense of Animals (IDA), is calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to investigate the circumstances surrounding Thursday’s death of a 21-year-old African elephant at the San Diego Zoo’s Safari Park.

Zookeepers found Umoya lying down in the elephant exhibit shortly before the park opened on Thursday, according to the Christina Simmons of San Diego Zoo Global.

No official cause of death has been released. Veterinary staff was conducting a post-mortem examination to discover a cause of death, but results might not be known for weeks, Simmons said.

“All the information we have and the evidence from the postmortem exams suggests that there may have been some kind of pushing and shoving, and perhaps even a fall,” said Simmons.

“There were few injuries that indicated there may have been some sort of aggressive interaction with another elephant,” zoo spokesperson Yadira Galindo told 10News’ media partner the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Umoya, whose name means spirit, was one of seven African elephants born in South Africa, which were taken to Swaziland in 1994. They were going to be killed, but were brought to the San Diego Zoo Safari Park in 2003. Now, their family has grown to 17, and they mourned the loss much like people.

“They gathered around her and kind of touched her and pushed at her a little bit, and once they confirmed that she had passed on, they all slowly moved back into the other area of the habitat,” Simmons explained.

Some animals toss their young aside, but this herd won’t let anything happen to Umoya’s calves, Kami and Emanti. In fact, their aunts have continued to care for them just like their mother would.

“[They] appear to be doing alright,” Simmons said. “They’ve been hanging out with their aunties. The keepers plan to monitor Emanti closely.”

Four-year-old Kami was already weaned, but Emanti is only 18 months. Four other females are lactating and may end up nursing Emanti.

“It’s important to remember that these are wild animals with wild behaviors, and also that they’re very big strong animals. At 6,600 pounds, small movements can do a lot of damage,” said Simmons.

“This is an interaction that would happen normally in the wild. These are social animals that have a strict hierarchy,” Simmons added.

IDA’s complaint to the USDA states that an adult male elephant, Mabhulane, who is known to throw his weight around was confined with the females and their offspring.

Zoos typically keep males and females separated because the powerful males can injure the females. In the wild, adult males do not live with the matriarchal family groups, the complaint said.

“This elephant’s shocking death is another tragic example of how elephants suffer in inadequate and artificial zoo exhibits,” IDA Elephant Campaign Director Catherine Doyle said. “There is nothing natural about the San Diego Zoo Safari Park’s elephant exhibit or keeping 18 elephants crammed into a space of less than six acres when their natural home ranges can measure hundreds of square miles.”

Three elephants have been killed by other elephants in zoos throughout North America since 2001, according to IDA.

IDA is also asking the USDA to investigate why no staff or security personnel were aware of Umoya’s fatal injury until trainers arrived in the morning.

Umoya was known to be one of the most dominant in the herd.

“She was definitely high-spirited, a spitfire and appeared to let the other animals know what she needed and wanted,” said Simmons. “We definitely have seen that energy in some of her calves, and that energy is living on I have no doubt.”

Elliot Katz, DVM, is the Founder and President Emeritus of the animal protection organization, In Defense of Animals (IDA). Founded in 1983, IDA is an international animal protection organization dedicated to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals by advocating for, and protecting their rights, welfare and habitats; as well as raising their status beyond that of mere commodities, property, objects or things. Through education, investigations, the media and protests, IDA simultaneously challenges the system, industries and individuals who believe it is their “right” to exploit, mutilate, torture and kill millions upon millions of animals in the name of science, food, entertainment and fashion as they educate others to the truth behind the rhetoric of institutionalized animal cruelty and abuse.

From investigations and rescues through Hope Animal Sanctuary, IDA’s 64 acre sanctuary for severely abused and abandoned animals of rural Mississippi; to providing a forest sanctuary to the chimpanzee orphans of Cameroon, Africa’s bush meat trade; to providing spay and neuter services, food, ambulance service and veterinary care though IDA India’s veterinary clinics, staff and volunteers to the thousands of street animals of Mumbai, IDA is there for animals in need.

From their Guardian campaign designed to change how society perceives and treats other species, to raise their status beyond that of mere property, objects, commodities and things; to fighting the puppy mill industry, and Korean dog and cat meat trades; to protecting our nation’s wild horses; to their campaigns against the cruelties of the vivisection, fur, hunting food and entertainment industries; to their campaign on behalf of captive elephants in circuses and zoos, IDA has been a major voice and force for animals in need.

Dating back even before you got involved in animal rights, you had activist leanings and believed that you could make a significant change. Where did that come from?

From the time I was a child, through films, books, the media and personal experience, I identified with the plight of the underdog–of the homeless, of the weak and vulnerable, of those who were abused, exploited, abandoned and in harm’s way regardless of their species. Be they orphans, or the homeless, Native Americans, African Americans, victims of holocausts or colonization, stray and abandoned dogs and cats that roamed our nation’s streets. As a youngster, my life saving work focused on rescuing abandoned or lost dogs on the beaches and sand dunes of Long Island, NY. Also by saving the lives of countless numbers of starfish and other beings who had been washed ashore–by returning them to the ocean after a storm had passed.

As circumstances would have it, at age 8 or 9 I vowed to become a veterinarian after a little dog I had rescued gave birth to 6 puppies—six puppies that died one by one from distemper. All of them developed pneumonia and died of encephalitis, despite the fact that my father and I took them to a local veterinarian in an attempt to save their lives. When I realized that the tragedy of these deaths, of the terrible suffering these puppies had gone through, would likely have been prevented by early vaccinations, my future opened up to me: to become a veterinarian, a guardian and protector—to minister to the most vulnerable among us—to ultimately protect them from exploitation, cruelty abuse and premature deaths.

The needs of other species, starting with animal companions became my life’s work. At the time, I didn’t realize that I was not only to become a clinical veterinarian, but one who was to ultimately be an animal advocate and an animal guardian–fighting for the rights, welfare and habitats of other species. I closely and deeply identified with their plights and vulnerabilities.

It was when I entered veterinary school that I first became truly aware of how different I was—and I remained different in my years of veterinary practice and in my life as a full-time animal guardian. I challenged the core foundations of the veterinary profession and of society at large. Today I am still quite different from what most of society expects from a veterinary professional.

What made you create and build In Defense of Animals?

It started when I came to the support of a veterinarian, Dr. Max Redfern, who was attempting to act responsibly and with integrity, to enforce the federal Animal Welfare Act on the UC Berkeley campus where he was employed. After meeting with him I came face to face with the unbelievable arrogance, negligence, horrific cruelty and misinformation of vivisection–or as some call it “animal research.” Thousands upon thousands of animals were not only dying due to horrific mutilation, but due to overcrowding in facilities, lack of ventilation and lack of sanitation. Because my colleague was trying to do the right thing, the responsible thing, the university was retaliating against him. It was an incredible, and for me, an unbelievable situation.

Dr. Redfern asked for my help. I promised him I would do all in my power to help and so In Defense of Animals was born. Ultimately, we sued the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for not enforcing the Animal Welfare Act on the UC Berkeley Campus. It resulted in the USDA issuing a cease and desist order against the University, fining the institution $12,500. This was a precedent-setting development in those days–some 30 years ago.

IDA has grown due to how closely I was and am aligned with the millions upon millions of people who care so deeply for the well being of other species. Those who realize in the depths of their souls how wrong it is and how evil it is to exploit, mutilate, torture and kill billions upon billions of individuals of other species for fun, science, entertainment, fashion, profit and food–simply because we have the power to do so.

Caring, aware and intelligent people know that what we do to “animals” today is truly what we as a species have done, and continue to do, to members of our own species–and would like to see an end to it once and for all. From throwing Christians to the lions, to the many holocausts millions upon millions of people have been subjected to, to the ownership and slavery of men, women and children, to the domination of the rich and powerful over the poor, weak and vulnerable, to the colonization of one country, one people by another more powerful one at that moment of time.

And so the fight for justice and compassion goes on– each in our own way fighting to make the world a more just and compassionate place.

What advice would you offer to other people who are being told they can’t, they shouldn’t try or they will fail?

When you feel strongly enough about a cause or about an injustice and have the determination and passion to make a difference–to right a wrong–you will likely succeed. If you believe that your approach is innovative, not being used by existing organizations to improve a situation–and it resonates with others that you know and trust–and you are in a position to begin, then go for it—especially in this day and age of the Internet and social networks. If there is no other organization out there interested in doing it your way, then you have no other choice, especially if your passion is keeping you up night after night, then to go for it.

I’ve done a lot of things–many of them in hindsight were mistakes. But as they say, if you don’t fail sometimes, you’re never really going to learn how to do it better. If you have a core of people who believe in you and what you are about– that it is both right and necessary–then go for it.

What are you working on right now?

I’m spending much of my time focusing on IDA’s Guardian Campaign. Several years ago I realized that in spite of all of IDA’s accomplishments, that unless I did something to change the existing paradigm that sees and treats other species as no more than mere property, commodities, objects or things to be “owned,” to be bought and sold, exploited, abused and ultimately killed at an “owners” choice or whim, many of our victories and accomplishments would only be Band-Aid cures. I realized it was time to move away from the concept of “animal ownership” in favor of “animal guardianship.”

The very use of the term “animal owner” reinforces the concept that our fellow beings are “things” that have little or no interest and needs of their own. It implies that they do not need or deserve to be treated responsibly and respectfully.

Throughout history, language has been at the forefront of the fight to end exploitation and cruelty–from Gandhi’s quest to free his people to Martin Luther King’s dream of a better world. Every social movement and every hard-won victory in the name of justice and compassion began with the courage to question the words and actions in order to change an existing custom or paradigm for the better. The animal protection movement is no different.

What has been your greatest challenge?

The belief going back centuries and centuries that other species were put on the earth for the benefit of “mankind.” The concept that other beings are here to be our resources and our property. These long-held customs and ideologies are so very, very difficult to change. The animal exploitation industries and corporations, our government—run primarily by corporate America, maintains this status quo, of other species (grouped together under the term “animals”) are ours to do with as we want–that they are our property, objects, commodities and things.

What has been the most rewarding part of creating and growing In Defense of Animals?

The lives we have saved, the hearts and minds we have opened, all the cruelty and suffering we have ended, to have been at the forefront of the fight for the rights, welfare and habitats of “animals.” All the advances we have made, despite the opposition, the deceit we have faced to stop our efforts to make the world a kinder, healthier, more just and compassionate place for all our fellow beings. In addition, to the faith, and support so many thousands upon thousands of deeply caring IDA supporters have given to us—gifts of their time and resources to my staff and me over the years since I founded IDA.

What inspires you?

Looking into the eyes, hearts and souls of the beings we have saved, and have yet to save. The calls, letters, cards and emails from our supporters thanking us for our work—for our very existence. Hearing of their sacrifices on behalf of our work, on behalf of our fellow beings we are working so very hard to protect and save. Knowing that with every IDA achievement and victory, with every victory of the animal rights and protection movement, and the environmental movement, millions upon millions of caring people around the world will sleep a little better at night. Including my two beautiful daughters Raquel and Danielle, and their mother, Gloria, who bring their own talents, energy and compassion both to me, and to the benefits of so many, many others.

What are three trends that excite you?

1. The growing acceptance of animal protection and animal rights by the media and the general public. That it is ok to care deeply for the well being of other species. When I was a young man, people who expressed a deep concern for other species, particularly dogs and cats, were dismissively referred to as “little old ladies in tennis shoes.”  We definitely have come a long way since those days.
2. The growing ecology and environmental movements.
3. That more and more people, organizations and communities are recognizing the value and importance of replacing the concept of “animal ownership” with the term “animal guardianship.”  Recognizing how important language truly is in helping protect our fellow beings. That growing numbers of people of all ages who are listening to the advice, and following in the footsteps of such great visionaries as St. Francis of Assisi, Albert Schweitzer, Cesar Chavez, Alice Walker and Dr. Jane Goodall.

St. Francis of Assisi

Dr. Albert Schweitzer

Cesar Chavez

Alice Walker

Dr. Jane Goodall

What’s one mistake you’ve made?

Waiting so long before realizing how so very much of our work, of our accomplishments were only Band-Aid cures without the accompanying work to change the existing paradigm that sees and treats our fellow beings as no more than resources, commodities, objects and things—property and things to be bought and sold, exploited or killed at an owners choice or whim.

Is there a book or tool that helps you do your work?

Periodically reading Les Miserables reinforces for me the importance of forgiveness and the importance and value of fighting for those treated unjustly by society, and the more powerful, selfish and greedy among us.

Connect:

In Defense of Animals Website: http://idausa.org
In Defense of Animals on Facebook: http://facebook.com/indefenseofanimals
In Defense of Animals on Twitter: @IDAUSA
In Defense of Animals on YouTube: http://youtube.com/user/idapdx

By Jason Koestenblatt, LongValley Patch | October 26, 2011
http://longvalley.patch.com/articles/resident-pizzeria-join-to-offer-vegan-option

World Go Vegan Week goes through Oct. 31.

Some say there’s nothing simpler than ordering a pizza.

For one Long Valley resident, that’s how she came to lean on a local eatery to help spread the word about World Go Vegan Week.

Christine Money, a vegan and local volunteer for In Defense of Animals (IDA), thought it would be a great idea to spread awareness of the cause and share her way of life with her neighbors.

“IDA came up with this particular campaign, asking local pizzerias to offer vegan pizza, as it was such a simple way for people to make a vegan choice,” Money said.

Money’s next step was to head over to Bob’s Long Valley Pizza, Deli & Bagel, to see what could be done about it.

“Christine approached me with the idea, and brought over a bag of this stuff called Daiya mozzarella shred,” said Bob Prudente, owner of the pizzeria. “I made a pie with it, and I was shocked. It was surprisingly good.”

The Daiya mozzarella shred is dairy and lactose free, and includes tapioca and arrowroot among its ingredients. Bob’s Pizza offered a gluten-free crust before World Go Vegan Week, which runs through Monday, Oct. 31.

A handful of people have ordered the vegan pizza, Prudente said, with more promising to return before week’s end.

“Some of these people have said they haven’t had pizza in so long because they’re allergic to dairy or have a gluten allergy, and they’re so happy about this option,” Prudente said.

For Money, though, it’s not just about allergies and sensitivities to various foods.

“Some may question why this choice is such an all-round benefit, not just for their own immediate health, but that of global health,” Money said. “It’s about the impact of animal agriculture on environmental degradation, clear-cutting forest, water pollution, production of methane, and the egregious brutality of factory farming, with dairy farming being one of the worst.”

For more information about World Go Vegan Week, visit worldgoveganweek.org.

Click here to visit site and video.

The City Council voted Tuesday to prohibit the sale of live chickens at the Richmond’s Certified Farmer’s Market, igniting an eruption of cheers from animal rights supporters who filled City Hall.

The crowd, which consisted mostly of visitors to Richmond, was there on a larger animal-rights agenda, fueled by a recent victory in banning live chicken sales at the Heart of the City Farmer’s Market in San Francisco. Despite the determination of supporters, the ban will affect only one vendor at Richmond’s Farmer’s Market, and then only for two months.

The ban will take effect October 31, when the Richmond Certified Farmer’s Market contract is due for renewal. The state of California is banning the sale of live animals in parking lots and on sidewalks beginning in 2012. Though there was some confusion over the state’s legislation, Richmond City Attorney Randy Riddle assured the council that the ban will include poultry.

“When we know that in January this will be banned, my position is such that, let us get comfortable with the contract that is inline with what we know will be state law coming up very soon,” Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said.

The live-chicken vendor, Raymond Young, has had repeated public confrontations in San Francisco with two of the groups present Tuesday night: LBGT Compassion Group and In Defense of Animals. In Richmond, the groups said they found the same health code violations and animal cruelty instances that they found at Young’s previous operation in San Francisco.

San Francisco’s ban left Richmond as the sole city in the Bay Area where Young could sell live chickens. He sells about 700 birds a week at the Richmond Certified Farmer’s Market, according to the market’s president, Tom Cloman.

Live animal sales are allowed, but not within 20 feet of produce and eggs, according to the California health code. Violations occur whenever a customer buys a chicken, which Young and his workers put into paper and plastic bags, and the customer then walks around the market shopping for produce.

The health regulation exists to prevent feces, which carries bacterial disease, from spreading through the farmer’s market. The public is directly exposed to feces on the outside of the plastic bags and on the workers, said Andrew Zollman of the LGBT Compassion Group, and the feces is then carried around the market and onto public transit.

According to the code, signs must be posted instructing customers in three languages – English, Spanish, and Chinese – not to walk around the market after they have purchased the chickens.

But it’s a difficult rule to enforce and requires extra resources from city.

“We can’t fix the this problem, it’s impossible,” said Denise Bolbol in the public comment session. “I watched multiple security guards unable to keep these people 20 feet from other vendors with chickens in their bags.”

Though the chicken-vendor Young has received several environmental health code violations at Richmond, he has corrected his violations prior to the next inspection every time, said LaShonda Wilson, the assistant city manager. Cloman, the market manager, confirmed this in his brief objection to the prohibition.

Pathogens and disease were also a common theme in the argument against selling live chickens. A statewide surveillance program that conducts health inspections on chickens “that are spotty” only checks for Avian influenza and Newcastle virus, and does not check for bacterial infections, Wilson said.

Due to lack of resources, the state has given Young kits to test the chickens himself and then requires him to submit the results to the state. Animal rights supporters said they didn’t trust his reporting.

The LGBT Compassion group has questioned Young’s credibility before, arguing that he is not actually involved in raising the chickens, but instead buys them from large producers such as Gemperle Farms. Since these farms are fully automated, Zollman said, Young couldn’t possibly be doing any of his own farming.

One concern, said Councilmember Jeff Ritterman, is that selling factory-farmed chickens at a farmer’s market misleads the consumer into thinking the chicken is organic.

Though he agreed that factory farming was disturbing, Councilmember Tom Butt said that it is important for children to see where their food comes from, which was the primary reason that he didn’t vote to support the ban.

“Most people don’t know where food comes from,” Butt said. “They think it comes from the grocery store. I think it does people good to see where food comes from, to realize that that chicken breast comes from an animal with feathers on it and it doesn’t come from a package.”

The ban is an act of discrimination, Cloman said, which is the same argument brought against the animal rights groups in San Francisco by Young.

“These groups have literally pounded this Asian farmer to run him out of business,” Cloman said.

Cloman barely got through his argument when his public comment time ran out and the crowd loudly interrupted and hurried him off the podium.

Over the yells of the crowd, Cloman turned to the council. “Don’t let this group bully you,” he said, his voice barely audible.

Cloman found his only other support from a dissenter in the crowd who labeled the issue one of meat-eaters versus vegetarians.

The dozens who had come out to speak against Young had already been protesting Richmond’s Certified Farmer’s Market, and had bombarded Mayor McLaughlin with 1,015 emails.

The City Council’s ban will only be effective for two months – starting October 31, when the contract is redrawn, and ending in 2012, when the state laws override the council. McLaughlin said she didn’t want the city to spend valuable resources on this issue, even for two months.

“I certainly believe that our staff will have to continue to monitor this and I do not think this is good use of our staff’s time over the next two months,” McLaughin said.

“I am torn,” Councilmember Jovanka Beckles said. While she said she didn’t necessarily agree with the animal rights’ groups, she agreed that the city needs to allocate its valuable resources to other issues.

The final vote was 4-2. It was hard to hear the announcement of the votes over the roar of excitement from the ban’s supporters, but with Councilmember Nat Bates absent, Butt and Councilmember Corky Booze were the only voters against the prohibition.