“Is This Animal Research ‘Ridiculous’ or Warranted?”
http://www.parade.com/news/2012/04/18-most-ridiculous-research-on-animals-list.html

“Drugged rat research hits a sour note” (includes a great 14-picture slideshow corresponding to every experiment on the list)
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Drugged-rat-research-hits-a-sour-note-3489770.php

“Rats on cocaine love Miles Davis, and other dumb animal research paid for with tax dollars”
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rats-cocaine-love-miles-davis-dumb-animal-research-paid-tax-dollars-article-1.1063528

“Cash them out” (editorial)
http://www.ldnews.com/opinion/ci_20413909/cash-them-out

“‘Real Ridiculous Research’ fueled by tax dollars”
http://blogs.ajc.com/news-to-me/2012/04/17/real-ridiculous-research-fueled-by-tax-dollars/

“U of M Makes Watchdog Groups’ ‘Most Ridiculous Research on Animals’ List”
http://kstp.com/article/stories/s2586901.shtml

“Hamster sex study at Lehigh University makes ‘most ridiculous’ list”
http://articles.mcall.com/2012-04-17/news/mc-lehigh-hamster-sex-20120417_1_animal-research-nih-hamster

“Group calls Lehigh University study of hamsters’ sex drive a waste of taxpayer dollars”
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/04/group_calls_lehigh_university.html

“Do yawning chimps amount to ‘white-coated welfare’?”
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/04/17/do-yawning-chimps-amount-to-%E2%80%98white-coated-welfare%E2%80%99/
http://www.cantonrep.com/georgia/elections/x668520041/Do-yawning-chimps-amount-to-white-coated-welfare
http://www.lenconnect.com/georgia/elections/x668520041/Do-yawning-chimps-amount-to-white-coated-welfare
http://www.wickedlocal.com/wakefield/georgia/elections/x668520041/Do-yawning-chimps-amount-to-white-coated-welfare

“University of Minnesota makes most ridiculous animal research list”
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/04/university_of_minnesota_makes_most_ridiculous_animal_research_list.php

“Top Ten Tax-Funded Bizarre Experiments”
http://www.zoenature.org/2012/04/how-your-taxes-fund-bizarre-experiments/

Washington, DC (April 17, 2012) – Today, as Americans file their 2011 tax returns, In Defense of Animals (IDA) is unveiling its Top 10 List of Most Ridiculous Research on Animals for 2011 and relaunching its Real Ridiculous Research (RRR) campaign in recognition of ridiculous, wasteful experiments funded by your tax dollars.

“With unemployment sky-high and our economy still suffering from the Great Recession, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) still spends billions of your tax dollars every year to fund animal experiments,” said IDA Research Director Eric Kleiman. “Our own research indicates that this is little more than ‘white-coated welfare’ for experimenters living off of a grant gravy train funded by hard-hit American taxpayers.”

IDA’s “Top 10” list is comprised of NIH-funded experiments that were selected from scientific papers published in 2011, approved by federally-mandated oversight committees, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Below is a sampling of experiments that made IDA’s Top 10 List.

•    Labs are Stressful Places for Monkeys (Tulane Primate Center and Wisconsin Primate Center);
•    Rats Find Miles Davis is Better with Cocaine (Albany Medical College);
•    Lemon-fresh Scent Can Induce Erections in Monkeys (Wisconsin Primate Center, Northeastern Univ.);
•    Alligators’ Sounds and Anatomy Differ from Humans (Univ. of Utah);
•    Contagious Yawning in Chimpanzees is Empathetic (Emory University / Yerkes Primate Center).

According to Kleiman, these types of experiments get funded because of the NIH’s fundamentally broken  system of funding, which has:

•    Resulted in a glut of researchers and scientific misbehaviors as fierce competition for funds increases;
•    In a March 2012 expose published in Nature, called into question the reliability of highly-prestigious, highly-cited preclinical research;
•    Been blasted by past NIH Directors, thousands of NIH-funded researchers and eminent scientists as preventing innovative, risk-taking research;
•    Spawned predoctoral grants in which taxpayers help fund “underrepresented” researchers’ obtaining Ph.D.’s by experimenting on animals, thus breeding the next generation of animal experimenters;
•    Funded the National Primate Research Center System to the tune of $1.5 billion over the past 20 years simply to keep the Centers open (half of IDA’s Top 10 List contains experiments conducted or supported by these Primate Centers).

Kleiman said that these systemic problems – of which stupid and wasteful animal experimentation is a clear symptom – have prompted IDA to ask the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to re-launch and expand its 2003 investigation of NIH’s management and oversight of billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants.

“In today’s exigent economic climate, the need for Congress to re-open and widen this investigation is more urgent than ever,” concluded Kleiman. “For Tax Day 2011, we hope this is a wake-up call about how NIH wastes your tax dollars. IDA’s RRR campaign plans to regularly reveal the sad reality of animal experimentation and the fundamentally broken, taxpayer-supported NIH system that continues to fund this ‘white-coated welfare.’”

IDA’s complete Top 10 list and more details regarding NIH’s systemic problems are available at http://idausa.org/rrr

In Defense of Animals, San Rafael, CA  94901
For Immediate Release
Contact:  Eric Kleiman, 717-939-3231

Mother carrying dead fetus may also be at risk of death

San Rafael, Calif. (March 22, 2012) — In Defense of Animals (IDA) is calling for an end to elephant breeding, starting at the Memphis Zoo in Tennessee, following the in utero death of an elephant calf. The calf is still being carried by the mother and may threaten her life. Gina, a 29-year-old African elephant, was due to deliver in August. This would have been the second birth at the zoo. The first, in 2009, ended in tragedy when mother Asali killed her one-day-old calf.

“Inadequate conditions for elephants in zoos, including lack of space for movement, contribute to high rates of birth complications and, too often, the death of the mother,” said IDA Elephant Campaign Director Catherine Doyle. “We sincerely hope that Gina does not also lose her life due to the irresponsible and inhumane practice of breeding elephants in zoos.”

At least four elephants in U.S. zoos died after the in utero deaths of their calves, some due to massive infection: Babe at the Ft. Worth Zoo, Ibala at Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Tika at Six Flags-Vallejo, and Ruby at the Phoenix Zoo.

Since 2000, at least 25 elephant pregnancies have ended in stillbirth or other complications, including death of calf during labor, euthanasia of premature calf, failure to thrive, death of mother, and infanticide. The infant mortality rate for elephants in U.S. zoos (ages 0-1) is four times higher than that of documented free-ranging populations in Africa and Asia.

Elephant experts believe that lack of exercise and physical fitness, stress, and excessive weight gain contribute to captive elephants’ inability to successfully give birth to calves. Adverse birthing conditions, including the routine isolation and chaining of laboring elephants at most zoos, may also contribute to the problem.

Elephants in zoos endure a host of problems seen only in captivity, such as high rates of birth complications and infant mortality, infertility, abnormal repetitive behaviors, and deadly conditions including crippling arthritis and foot disease. A study in the journal Science found that elephants in zoos die far younger than those in wild populations.

“Breeding elephants in zoos has nothing to do with conservation because no calf born in a zoo will ever be returned to the wild,” stated Doyle. “Continuing this dangerous practice puts elephant lives at serious risk.”

For more information, please visit www.helpelephants.com.

Contact: Catherine Doyle, 323-301-5730, Catherine@idausa.org

Last year it was Bob Parsons, head of the Internet domain hosting company Go Daddy, who was pictured with his grisly trophy – a dead elephant he slaughtered in Zimbabwe. (Parsons has since stepped down as CEO of the company.) This time it’s Donald Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald, Jr., whose photos taken during a big game hunt a year ago are sparking public outrage.

Click here to read the entire story on IDA’s blog.

A SEISMIC SHIFT IN THE WAY WE VIEW AND UNDERSTAND ANIMALS

In a nutshell, The Guardian Campaign is an international effort which aims to instill a sense of respect, responsibility and compassion for the animals with whom we share our lives and our planet.  The way it works is through a switch-out of one word which defines our relationship with animals: “owners” are out.  “Guardians” are in.   Rather than “owners”, we must be the “Guardians” of animals in our midst.

Guardian Dr. Elliot M. Katz and Charlie

The term “Guardian” speaks volumes.  It implies a protective posture.   It implicitly acknowledges that animals are living, breathing sentient beings that have highly evolved emotional systems with the ability to feel love, joy, pain, fear, loss, depression.  It challenges us to remember that animals are not mere property, objects or things that can be bought and sold at will, dumped, abused, exploited and killed when they are no longer useful.

The term “Guardian” opens up new vistas of possibility for our relationship with other species. As Guardians, as protectors, we accept an inherent responsibility and an unspoken promise to treat them with compassion and respect and to make decisions on their behalf that will enhance their lives.

THE POTENTIAL TO REDUCE CRUELTY AND ABANDONMENT, REDEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF COMPASSION FOR ANIMALS

The IDA Guardian Campaign is an idea whose time has come.   This campaign not only has the potential to significantly reduce animal cruelty and abandonment, but also to redefine the boundaries, to expand the definition of compassion, and to rewrite the script for treatment of animals in a way that has not been accomplished before.

The Guardian Campaign has already made substantial headway in this regard.  They have partnered with organizations and individuals who have committed to spreading the word about Guardians.  They have influenced legislation, working with city officials to develop new language for resolutions and ordinances.  Thus far, twenty-one communities have formally accepted the term “Guardian” into their codes which describe human-animal relationships.

This is more than a good start.  It is the beginning of a sea change that can sweep the country, change the lives of the animals we love, and in the process, our own as well.

Sheila Wasserman, Founder
Action Now+Network
www.actionnownetwork.com



Sacramento, Calif. (February 24, 2012) – A hearing in the groundbreaking wild horse lawsuit challenging the roundup and removal of nearly 1,579 wild horses and 159 burros from the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area (HMA) in northeastern California, in 2010, was heard on Friday, February 24. Both plaintiffs and defendants presented their arguments at the hearing and will now wait for Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.’s ruling.

Last April, in a precedent-setting decision, Judge England refused to dismiss the case on legal technicalities, meaning it will be decided on the merits. Judge England also ruled that the plaintiffs – animal protection organization In Defense of Animals (IDA), ecologist Chad Hanson, Ph.D., wild horse sanctuary founder Barbara Clarke, DreamCatcher Wild Horse and Burro Sanctuary, and wild horse enthusiast Linda Hay – have standing to challenge the action and that the case is not moot.

“The American Mustang is a native wildlife species; few people realize that the western United States is actually the evolutionary birthplace of the horse,” said plaintiffs’ pro bono legal counsel Rachel Fazio. “This suit seeks to ensure that, in accordance with the laws of Congress, this majestic species is protected as wild and free-roaming, safe from illegal interference by the Bureau of Land Management and immune to the pressures of the livestock industry and other commercial interests that wish to exploit our public lands.”

“Because of Judge England’s decision last April, this hearing and this case are about the merits of our lawsuit, not legal technicalities,” said Eric Kleiman, Research Director for In Defense of Animals. “Finally, America’s wild horses had their day in court.”

Kleiman also noted that one of the lawsuit’s major claims involves BLM’s failure to euthanize old, sick, or lame horses “in the most humane manner possible.” He said that the legislative history cited by plaintiffs clearly shows that Congress expected that such euthanizing should occur on the range – and before any roundup would take place.

Plaintiffs’ pleadings repeatedly cite what Kleiman termed a “devastating” photograph and description in the lawsuit’s administrative record (from IDA’s comments on the proposed Twin Peaks roundup) of a “crippled sorel stud” who had been observed on the range in 2003 in the Nevada Calico Complex HMA by a BLM wild horse specialist. This horse – who was not part of the 2010 Twin Peaks roundup – had a “broken front right pastern” that was so “curled back” that “He carries this leg when traveling at a hop,” and was in such bad shape that he might have to be euthanized “at some date.”

Kleiman said that this horse exemplifies the old, sick, or lame whom BLM does nothing to preclude from being rounded up. “This horse is the face of BLM cruelty,” said Kleiman. “How many countless other old, sick, or lame horses like this ‘crippled sorel stud’ has BLM deliberately and indiscriminately stampeded by helicopter in clear defiance of the law and Congress’s mandate that BLM treat horses humanely?”

Twin Peaks horses have been scattered across the country at Interior Department’s BLM holding facilities, and untold numbers have perished while in captivity.

Plaintiffs have revisited the Twin Peaks area and report difficulty locating wild horses to view in the aftermath of the roundup.

Between August and September, 2010 – the hottest months of the year – the BLM removed 1,579 wild horses and 159 burros from the HMA. The roundup was a devastating blow to California’s wild horse and burro population, removing more than one-third of California’s entire mustang and burro population which is estimated to be only approximately 5,000 throughout the entire state. The Twin Peaks HMA encompasses 798,000 acres of public land, yet the BLM allows just 448 to 758 wild horses and 72 to 116 burros to reside in the area. Meanwhile, the agency authorizes up to four times more cattle and nearly seven times more sheep to graze this federally designated wild horse and burro habitat.

Wild horses comprise a small fraction of grazing animals on public lands, where they are outnumbered by livestock nearly 50 to 1. The BLM has recently increased cattle grazing allotments in areas where wild horses are being removed. Currently, the BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public lands of which cattle grazing is allowed on 160 million acres; wild horses are only allowed on 26.6 million acres of this land, which must be shared with cattle. The Obama Administration has accelerated the removal of wild horses and burros from public lands. There are currently thousands more wild horses warehoused in government holding facilities than living free on the range.

Contacts:        Rachel Fazio, Esq., (530) 273-9290; Eric Kleiman, In Defense of Animals, (717) 939-3231

Many years ago, during a graduate course on ethics, I posed a question to our distinguished professor vis-à-vis the definition of ethics in its most distilled form. He replied, “Simply listen to one’s heart for the answer, not all the great thinkers who preceded us.” This seemed a bit simplistic to me, as the heart—like the mind—can often lead us astray. He responded to my doubts without hesitation, “True, but in matters of compassion and justice, the heart does not deceive.”

In the subsequent 40 years, I’ve endeavored to sharpen my capacity to hear those heart rhythms, and I’m still learning. I trust that I’ll never stop. In 1989, I penned an essay on companion animal overpopulation that resonated deep within me, and the timing was fortuitous as it had the same effect on others. Shortly thereafter, I departed from the animal protection publication that I founded two decades earlier, and dedicated myself solely to change the supply-demand ratio that cost 18 million innocent lives each year.

I have written many hundreds of articles as an essayist and ethicist, and the strongest moral conviction prompts me to write you now. Almost 15 years have passed since I asked for your help in ending the vicious cycle of overpopulation, and words alone could never do justice to my profound debt of gratitude. Now I come to you again as a friend and colleague, and it would be patently unfair to request your assistance without first sharing the path that led me here. In addition to my passionate commitment to empty our shelters of homeless animals, I am also ardently supporting a complementary road to the same destination.

As someone who articulates visions which transcend the limitations of today to the possibilities of tomorrow, I became concerned as to whether our efforts to combat overpopulation were strategically sound. Yes, we have an ever-growing infrastructure in place that is making exciting progress. My fear, however, is that we’re pursuing a quantitative approach that places a disproportionate emphasis on numbers alone. If the predominate societal values remain largely untouched, that might well result in a Pyrrhic victory.

The populace doesn’t want to see animals die in shelters, but what will prevent overpopulation from recurring in the future if our friends are still viewed as disposable? In Defense of Animals (IDA) shared these concerns, and launched the Guardian Campaign to alter the perception of animals as objects and things. The campaign has two intertwined prongs, with the first being “guardian” language to replace “owner” in all written/verbal usage and animal ordinances.

Language has historically proven to be a precursor to social change, and 30 communities—as well as the State of Rhode Island—have laudably codified “guardian” terminology in their animal ordinances. Words such as “guardian,” “caretaker,” and similar terms engender a positive and permanent bond between two living beings, requiring ongoing care and affection for a thriving relationship. Conversely, “owner” denotes possession of an object, as though our closest companions were mere “things.”

Guardian language not only promotes the highest standard of treatment and hastens an end to overpopulation, but communities reap multiple benefits for themselves—ranging from cost reductions in animal control to teaching the full measure of compassion to our children. Through treating animals with respect, youngsters learn the values of responsible citizenship—which translates into a more caring and less violent community. Indeed, ordinance revisions not only speak well for the sensitivity of Guardian cities, but also serve their enlightened self-interest.

The campaign’s second prong is a moral concept, “guardianship,” utilizing language as a vehicle to illuminate the underlying causal factors of mistreatment and overpopulation. This addresses the very essence of my above-mentioned concern: the vital need to “dig” at the systemic roots which fuel the suffering of companion animals. Only beneath the surface do we uncover the most efficacious means to elevate the well-being of our friends, and “guardianship” seeks to plant fertile seeds for attitudinal and behavioral modification—ultimately resulting in enduring change.

We must alter the present perception of companion animals, which continues to result in their use, abuse, and abandonment. The moral imperatives of a humane culture demand no less from us. If we fail in this quest, any short-term gains will inexorably dissipate over time. Since language reflects prevailing values, the crucial transition to “guardian” terminology opens the door for the fundamental principles of “guardianship”—creating a societal ethic in which the needs and interests of companion animals are recognized and respected. Perhaps Henry Beston depicted it best: other species are “nations” unto themselves.

This campaign speaks to the need for a compelling new vision, painting an inviting landscape for our relationship and responsibility to companion animals. It is not a magical elixir in itself, but ideally complements other programs to end the tragic plight of our friends—a critical effort to penetrate the behavioral dynamics that create and perpetuate the grievous suffering.

This is not a campaign that “belongs” to IDA, as it reflects the collective contribution of kind-hearted individuals and organizations—initiating local efforts to change animal ordinances and values. Every Guardian community serves as a testament to the capacity we each have to make a difference, as ordinance revisions begin with one caring hand that reaches out and becomes a catalyst for compassionate change. Please be that “caring hand” that ignites the process of creating the next Guardian city.

Be it an individual or organization, I urge you to utilize every means at your disposal to galvanize support for ordinance changes—including emails, flyers, newsletters, websites, and the essential word of mouth network of friend-to-friend, neighbor-to-neighbor, and colleague-to-colleague…until momentum begins to take on a life of itself. Many of you are involved in other issues, but this is an undertaking that crosses all boundaries. It attracts immense media coverage, as virtually all fair-minded people are uncomfortable with the notion of “owning” those beings with whom we share our homes and hearts. Moreover, in gaining the embrace of political and civic leaders, it brings instantaneous credibility and support for all efforts on behalf of our beloved companions.

There are many superb programs underway to ameliorate the misery endured by millions of companion animals, and they are all deserving of our unequivocal support. However, my fervent belief is that the Guardian Campaign is the common thread that binds all of our efforts—extending beyond any single abuse or condition to reach the most salient dimensions of the tragedy. The apathy and maltreatment are manifestations of an all too common mindset, perceiving companion animals as property, objects, and things to be “owned.” This represents the primary source from which all the other ills emanate.

The Guardian Campaign seeks to bring this lamentable tragedy to the fore, changing language and values to reflect what is clearly axiomatic: companion animals are not inanimate, but living beings who are dependent upon us for physical and emotional nourishment. IDA cannot do it alone, however, as your able assistance is desperately needed at the community level. Please contact IDA for comprehensive guidance and material in starting an ordinance-revision campaign, and thank you in advance for heeding the counsel of my former ethics professor who forever touched my life: the heart does not deceive.

Visit In Defense of Animals

Learn more about The Guardian Campaign

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.