Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news36~3.htm/text0008.txt

Text File | 1998-04-03 | 77.4 KB | 1,761 lines

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[taz]: (translation)

> Paul Watson, leader of Sea Shepherd, will not be extradited to
> Norway
>
> Berlin (taz) - Paul Watson escaped again.
> On Easter monday he was arrested in Bremerhaven, northern Germany.
> In 1994 Norway sentenced him to 120 days in jail because of
> the sinking of a whaling ship. Yesterday the OLG decided
> to set him free. The Bremer general public prosecution
> accounted for:
> "Because of the expected term of imprisonment an
> extradition/delivery would not be in accordance
> with the law of international legal assistance in
> criminal cases."
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:15:21 -0500
>From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (UK) VERDICT APPROACHES FOR McLIBEL, LONGEST EVER ENGLISH
TRIAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

posted for McLibel:
------------------------------
McLibel Support Campaign
5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX
UK
Tel/Fax [phone]
For information on the case and McDonald's (independent from MSC and the
McLibel Two):  http://www.McSpotlight.org/

Press Release
26th March, 1997


VERDICT APPROACHES FOR McLIBEL, LONGEST EVER ENGLISH TRIAL

- Campaigners prepare for international Victory Day mass leafletting,
whatever the verdict.
- Public urged to judge for themselves - complete set of official
transcripts of the proceedings now available on the Internet.
- Defendants, if verdict goes against them, intend to sue McDonald's
infiltrators.
- Also plan to appeal and take the British government to the European Court
of Human Rights over oppressive libel laws.
- Defendants' complain to Lord Chancellor over Appeal Court bias.
- McDonald's admit illegally underpaying staff - former workers urged to sue.

                    *     *     *     *     *     *     *

After 25 months of testimony and a further 8 weeks of Closing Speeches, the
McLibel Trial, described by leading QC Michael Mansfield as the 'Trial of
the Century', is finally drawing to a close.  Submissions were completed on
13th December 1996, so now all that remains of the trial is for Mr Justice
Bell, having denied the Defendants a jury, to give his personal verdict
(which could be anytime from May).

The McLibel Defendants - Helen Steel (31) & Dave Morris (43) - are available
for interviews.  They believe that the evidence in the trial has fully
vindicated McDonald's critics.


'VICTORY DAY' PLANNED  - THE PUBLIC INVITED TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES

The McLibel Support Campaign is calling an international Victory Day of
Action on the Saturday after the verdict to demonstrate McDonald's failure
to censor alternative views and information.  Thousands of people around the
world have pledged to leaflet outside their local stores on that day and
beyond, whatever the verdict in the trial.  It is expected that a large
majority of McDonald's 750 UK stores will be leafletted (384 have already
been 'adopted' by local campaigners) in a display of solidarity with the
McLibel Defendants and show of conviction that all the criticisms in the
"What's Wrong With McDonald's?" leaflets are true and have been proved to be
so in the trial (often by McDonald's own witnesses and documents).  Also to
be handed out will be the special leaflet for kids: "What's Wrong With
Ronald McDonald?" to help build up the growing "Kids Against McDonald's"
Network.

McDonald's are suing Steel & Morris for alleged libel over a 6-sided
factsheet produced in the mid 80's by London Greenpeace, entitled "What's
Wrong With McDonald's? - Everything they don't want you to know".  The
factsheet and later versions have now possibly become the most widely known
and distributed protest leaflet in history.  Over 2 million leaflets have
already been handed out to the public in the UK alone since writs were
served on the Defendants, and it is distributed in dozens of other
countries.  Every phrase in the current "What's Wrong With McDonald's?"
leaflet has now been fully referenced to documentary evidence and oral
testimony in the McLibel Trial, mostly from McDonald's own sources.  (The
Referenced Leaflet is available from the McLibel Campaign.)

The Defendants today stated: "Having been denied a jury trial, we believe
that the world's public are in effect the wider jury.  Campaigners are
providing a valuable public service in ensuring that people everywhere
continue to hear an alternative point of view to that put out by McDonald's,
and therefore are able to judge for themselves.  The Corporation spends $2
billion each year on advertising and promotions - our trial has shown the
huge contrast between their glossy image and the reality.  Whatever the
verdict, the need to scrutinise and challenge multinationals has never
before been greater and so the campaign is certain to continue to grow."


JUDGE FOR YOURSELF!
http://www.mcspotlight.org/
OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPTS NOW AVAILABLE ON-LINE

Since its launch on the 16th Feb 1996, the 'McSpotlight' Internet site has
been the focus of international media attention (including front page of USA
Today).  It has been accessed nearly 9 million times, and recently
quadrupled in size with the addition of all 313 days of the official court
transcripts, a historically unprecedented move.  Now accessible are an
estimated 19,000 pages (around 50 megabytes of data) of often riveting
testimony (including the grilling of top Corporate executives) and
controversial legal arguments.  Whatever the judge's personal verdict, the
public will have access to full information to enable them to judge for
themselves - exactly the reason why McSpotlight was created.  There is
nothing McDonald's can do to prevent the public's right of access to this
material - McSpotlight is here to stay as a public resource, uncensored and
unstoppable, the final nail in the coffin of McDonald's global censorship
strategy.


MULTINATIONALS SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE CRITICS FOR LIBEL -
DEFENDANTS
PREPARED TO APPEAL AND TO GO TO EUROPEAN COURT

As part of their final legal arguments, the McLibel Defendants submitted
that UK libel laws in general - and in this case in particular - are
oppressive and unfair.  They argued that multinational corporations, which
wield huge power and influence over the lives of ordinary people, should not
be able to use libel laws against their critics, as it is of vital public
importance that matters which affect peoples lives and health are areas of
free, uninhibited public debate.  They cited a House of Lords judgment in
1993 which admitted that the threat of a libel writ has a "chilling effect
on freedom of speech" and therefore ruled that it is in the public interest
that governmental bodies no longer be allowed to sue for libel.  So why
should multinational corporations?  They are often more powerful than local
or national governments, and even less accountable.

The Defendants also cited recent developments in European laws and existing
US laws which would in general debar a similar libel case.  They submitted
that the McLibel case was an abuse of procedure and of public rights,
particularly the denial of Legal Aid and a jury trial, that it was beyond
all precedent, and that there was "an overriding imperative for decisions to
be made to protect the public interest".  If the verdict goes against them,
the Defendants intend to appeal, and then if necessary take the British
Government to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over
oppressive UK libel laws.


DAMAGES AND COSTS

Outrageously, the $30 billion a year McDonald's Corporation has asked the
Judge to order the Defendants (total joint income less than 7,500 pounds
p.a.) to pay 80-120,000 pounds damages to the company for the criticisms
made in the London Greenpeace factsheet (if McDonald's wins the case).  This
is despite repeated claims by the company to the media, members of
Parliament and the public during the course of the trial that "it has never
been [McDonald's] intention to seek damages....from the Defendants".
McDonald's obviously have no compunction about lying to the public when it
suits their purposes.  Indeed, their UK President admitted as much during
cross examination by the Defendants on day 246 of the trial.  Paul Preston
said he was 'concerned' that the company's press releases about the McLibel
Trial contained 'errors', he was then asked "But you are not concerned
enough to actually do something to stop the dissemination of false
information by McDonald's?", to which he replied "Not at present, no".  To
this day the company continues to distribute the same inaccurate press
releases to the media.  (Proof of McDonald's lies on the damages issue is
available on request.)

The Defendants are seeking damages in their counterclaim against McDonald's
UK for libel in the Press Releases and 300,000 defamatory leaflets produced
by the company.  Both sides are claiming costs for the claim and
counterclaim (McDonald's costs have been estimated to total 5 - 10 million
pounds).


DEFENDANTS COMPLAIN TO LORD CHANCELLOR OVER APPEAL COURT BIAS

The McLibel Support Campaign has no illusions about British 'justice'.  It
is clear that libel laws are in place to protect the interests of the rich
and powerful and preserve the status quo.  During their trial, the McLibel
Defendants went to the Court of Appeal a number of times to challenge,
unsuccessfully, legal judgments made against them by Mr Justice Bell, the
trial judge.  Following an Appeal hearing on 2nd April 1996, the Defendants
wrote to the Lord Chancellor to express their concern that their appeal had
been pre-judged - a copy of the Appeal Courts' draft 'ruling' (prepared
before the hearing had taken place) had mistakenly been handed to the
Defendants.

The Lord Chancellor replied on 26th July 1996.  He confirmed that the
documents "were Lord Justice Hirst's note" and continued "Judges often have
notes to refer to, which they prepare to help them when giving their
judgment".  How can it be fair for a Judge to make any kind of note on what
the judgment will be when they have not heard any argument from the
appellants?  Lord Justice Hirst's 'notes' were read out virtually word for
word when he gave his judgment.

In the face of oppressive libel laws, the denial of Legal Aid and a jury,
and as a result of this and other judgments, the Defendants believe that
their battle to defend themselves and the right to criticise multinationals
must be taken directly to the public.

Even if McDonald's 'win' in the courts, they will in any event lose on the
streets.


DEFENDANTS INTEND TO SUE McDONALD'S SPIES

During the trial, McDonald's admitted that at least seven private
investigators were hired to infiltrate London Greenpeace, and that one or
more were present at nearly all weekly meetings between October 1989 to
March 1991.  Five of these spies gave evidence in the trial, one of them as
a witness for the Defence.  Three admitted they had distributed the London
Greenpeace Factsheet which is the subject of the libel action.  In the light
of this, the Defendants intend (if they lose the case and have damages
awarded against them) to sue those three investigators for damages.


UNDERPAID FORMER EMPLOYEES URGED TO SUE

During the trial there was controversy over McDonald's non-payment of UK
minimum statutory overtime rates (applicable up to 1992).   McDonald's
finally admitted in their closing submissions that it was "likely...that for
some workers, at some times, their overall pay...was less than their
statutory entitlement".  The judge calculated that one Defence witness,
former worker Siamak Alimi, had been underpaid and was owed 175 pounds,
allowing for 'compound interest'.  As a result, Mr Alimi has written to
McDonald's this week to demand the money he's owed.  Contrary to what many
had been told by the company at the time, all employees on the basic
starting wage were entitled to additional overtime minimum rates up to 1986,
and those over 21 were entitled up till 1992.  The Defendants are urging all
former UK employees who worked overtime before 1992 to seek advice, to write
to the company demanding payment, or to sue the company.


EMPLOYEES, FRANCHISEES & LOCAL RESIDENTS UP IN ARMS

Already facing the humiliation of declining sales in the US (despite
spending $200m promoting new products), McDonald's this month found itself
being attacked from all sides in disputes which have great potential to
spread.  At a store in St-Hubert (Quebec, Canada), 82% of the workers (fed
up with the poor pay and conditions) have joined the Teamsters union.
Although there have been a number of attempts to unionise in the past, this
is the first time that unionisation looks likely to succeed and it could
spread to other stores.

Meanwhile, local residents in the beautiful Blue Mountains (NSW, Australia)
have successfully resisted McDonald's plans to open a store at Katoomba.
After receiving 5,000 letters of objection to the proposal and only 15 in
support, the local council rejected the plans and McDonald's have decided
not to appeal against the decision.

Also, McDonald's attempts to halt its declining US sales are generating
opposition from many of its franchisees (over 80% of US stores are
franchises).  The company is trying to force the franchisees to reduce the
price of a Big Mac from $1.90 to a loss-making 55 cents, and to give free
sandwich vouchers to any customers not served within 55 seconds.

Elsewhere, the Bermudan premier, Dr David Saul, announced his resignation on
March 19th following uproar in the country at his unpopular decision to
allow former Premier Sir John Swan to operate a number of McDonald's
franchises on the island.  Strong opposition by rebel members of Dr Saul's
own party (the UBP) pushed a bill through the 'House of Assembly' called the
'Prohibited Restaurant Bill' banning McDonald's and other fast food stores
in Bermuda.  The bill has yet to be ratified by the Senate - a decision is
expected in late June.


BOOK & DOCUMENTARIES

Before Mr Justice Bell makes his ruling, Macmillan will publish the book
McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial (cost: 15.99 pounds) by John Vidal (a
Guardian journalist).  It was originally written with Helen Steel and Dave
Morris as joint authors, but rewritten after Macmillan (and their libel
lawyers) demanded substantial changes and the sidelining of the Defendants,
fearing a writ from McDonald's despite the book's accuracy.  A
reconstruction drama is being filmed for UK Channel 4 and is expected to be
shown after the verdict.  A definitive TV documentary is also currently in
production, and the producers have available for sale to the media a wide
range of relevant footage filmed and collected throughout the trial (contact
One Off Productions: Tel/Fax [phone] or E-mail
[e-mail]).


THE ISSUES AND THE EVIDENCE

The McLibel Trial began on 28th June 1994 and became the longest trial in
English history in November 1996.  The main reason that the case has taken
so long is because McDonald's is alleging that every criticism in the
Factsheet is libellous.  Those criticisms (see below) are common sense views
on matters of great public interest, not just directed at McDonald's but at
the food industry and multinationals in general.  Defending such views has
made the case very wide-ranging and has resulted in evidence being heard
from around 180 witnesses (corporate executives and consultants, experts for
both sides, and former employees etc).  Often, McDonald's has forced Steel &
Morris to prove the obvious - for example, that much of its packaging ends
up as litter, that diet is linked to ill-health, that advertising to
children gets them to pester their parents to take them to McDonald's, and
that McDonald's pays low wages to its workers.

Mike Mansfield, a leading UK QC, stated recently:  "The 'McLibel' case is
the trial of the century as it concerns the most important issues that any
of us have to face living our ordinary lives. This David and Goliath battle
has it all."

The issues in the case, on which 180 witnesses have given evidence, and
which were summarised in the Closing Speeches, are as follows:
*  The connection between multinational companies like McDonald's, cash
crops and starvation in the third world.
*  The responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage to the
environment, including destruction of rainforests.
*  The wasteful and harmful effects of the mountains of packaging used by
McDonald's and other companies.
*  McDonald's promotion and sale of food with a low fibre, high fat,
saturated fat, sodium and sugar content, and the links between a diet of
this type and the major degenerative diseases in western society, including
heart disease and cancer.
*  McDonald's exploitation of children by its use of advertisements and
gimmicks to sell unhealthy products.
*  The barbaric way that animals are reared and slaughtered to supply
products for McDonald's.
*  The lousy conditions that workers in the catering industry are forced to
work under, and the low wages paid by McDonald's.  McDonald's hostility
towards trade unions.

The Defendants believe that critics of the fast food giant have been
vindicated by the evidence in the case, particularly by admissions made by
McDonald's executives and paid consultants in the witness box under
cross-examination.  Here are some brief highlights from the trial, which
were referred to in the Closing Speeches:
RAINFORESTS - McDonald's are still obtaining beef for their stores in Brazil
from ranches situated on recently cleared Amazonian rainforest land
(testimony of experts S. Branford, Prof S. Hecht, based on facts supplied by
McDonald's suppliers in Brazil).
LITTER - McDonald's witness, the Director-General of the Tidy Britain Group,
admitted that McDonald's were in the top '1 or 2% of companies' whose
products end up as litter.
PACKAGING - McDonald's admitted that the polystyrene packaging collected
during a nationally-publicised UK scheme "for recycling into such things as
plant pots" was in fact "dumped" (testimony of Ed Oakley, Vice President of
McDonald's UK).
NUTRITION - A McDonald's internal memo (USA, 1986) was read out: "We can't
really address or defend nutrition.  We don't sell nutrition and people
don't come to McDonald's for nutrition".
ADVERTISING - The corporation's official and confidential 'Operations
Manual' was read out: "Ronald loves McDonald's and McDonald's food.  And so
do children, because they love Ronald.  Remember, children exert a
phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection.  This means you
should do everything you can to appeal to children's love for Ronald and
McDonald's."
ANIMALS - David Walker of McKey Foods (sole hamburger supplier to McDonald's
UK) admitted that "as a result of the meat industry, the suffering of
animals is inevitable".
FOOD SAFETY - McDonald's have admitted that they were responsible for an
outbreak of E.Coli 0157 food poisoning in the USA in 1982, and in Preston
(UK) in 1991, in which people suffered serious kidney failure.
EMPLOYMENT - Two dozen ex-McDonald's workers testified for the Defence about
the poor pay and conditions; and trade unionists from around the world gave
evidence about their experience of organising in the face of McDonald's
hostility to trade unions.  McDonald's admitted having paid some UK staff
under the statutory minimum and that employees 'would not be allowed to
carry out any overt union activity on McDonald's premises'.

Note: Summaries of relevant evidence and extracts from the official
transcripts on each issue are available from the Campaign.  Ask us for
'Trial News' bulletins, and 'Great McQuotes'.  For full summaries of the
evidence, read the Closing Submissions in the trial transcripts, Days 283 -
313 (on the 'McSpotlight' website).


NOTES TO EDITORS

(1)  The McLibel Trial is a mammoth legal battle between the $30 billion a
year McDonald's Corporation and two supporters of London Greenpeace.  Helen
Steel (bar worker, 31) and Dave Morris (single parent and ex-postman, 43)
have between them an annual income of less than 7,500 pounds.  McDonald's
are suing Steel & Morris for alleged libel over a 6-sided factsheet produced
by London Greenpeace, entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's?  Everything
they don't want you to know", which McDonald's allege they distributed in
1989/90.  (London Greenpeace was the original Greenpeace group in Europe -
set up in 1971.  It is independent of Greenpeace UK.)

(2)  The Trial began on 28th June 1994 and became the longest trial in
English history in November 1996.  The trial already has an entry in the
Guinness Book of Records as the longest civil case.  It is also over three
times as long as any previous UK libel trial (the previous longest being a
mere 101 days!).  A total of approximately 180 witnesses from the UK and
around the world have given evidence to the court about the effects of the
company's operations on the environment, on human health, on millions of
farmed animals, on the Third World, and on McDonald's' own staff.  They
include environmental and nutritional experts, trade unionists, animal
welfare experts, McDonald's employees, top executives, and five infiltrators
employed by McDonald's.  The judge's personal verdict is expected anytime
from May 1997.

(3)  Steel & Morris were denied their right to a jury trial and, with no
right to Legal Aid, have been forced to conduct their own defence against
McDonald's team of top libel lawyers.  The denial of a jury caused Marcel
Berlins, a leading legal commentator, to remark "I cannot think of a case in
which the legal cards have been so spectacularly stacked against one party".

(4)  After McDonald's issued 300,000 leaflets nationwide on the eve of the
trial calling their critics liars, the Defendants took out a counterclaim
for libel against McDonald's which is running concurrently with McDonald's
libel action, leading to two separate verdicts on each of the main issues.

(5)  At the time of the first anniversary of the Trial (June 1995), it was
widely reported that McDonald's had initiated secret settlement negotiations
with Steel & Morris.  They twice flew members of their US Board of Directors
to London to meet with the Defendants to seek ways of ending the case.
McDonald's were, and still are, clearly very worried about the way the case
has gone for them and the bad publicity they are receiving.

(6)  A confidential internal memo from McDonald's in Australia (leaked to
and broadcast widely by the media during the trial) revealed the
Corporation's dilemma around the world with media coverage of the case:
"Contain it as a UK issue".  "We could worsen the controversy by adding our
opinion".  "We want to keep it at arms length - not become guilty by
association".  "This will not be a positive story for McDonald's Australia".
The aim is to "minimise any further negative publicity".

(7)  It's clear that McDonald's aim of suppressing the "What's Wrong With
McDonald's?" leaflets has totally backfired.  Over 2 million leaflets have
been handed out to the public in the UK alone since the action was started
and thousands of people have pledged to continue circulating the leaflets
whatever the verdict.  Protests and campaigns against McDonald's continue to
grow in over 24 countries.  And now there is an Internet site called
'McSpotlight', an on-line library and campaigning tool, which makes
available across the globe 10,000 separate files containing everything that
McDonald's don't want the public to know (http://www.mcspotlight.org/).
McSpotlight has been accessed almost 9 million times since its launch in
February 1996.

- ENDS -


Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:34:15 -0500
>From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (US) Cattle Run Amok in Kansas City
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from AP Wire page:
-----------------------------
04/02/1997 05:22 EST

 Cattle Run Amok in Kansas City

 By The Associated Press

 KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Perhaps a steak house was not the brightest of
 destinations for a mock cattle drive.

 More than 100 cattle ran amok Tuesday in downtown Kansas City as riders
 attempted to steer them to the Hereford House, which specializes in T-bones,
 sirloins and ribs.

 The cattle drive was sponsored by a local radio station as a fun way to
relive the old
 days of the West.

 ``We had them under control in the pen before the parade, and in the pen
after the
 parade was done,'' rodeo cowboy Matt Wansing said. ``In between, they were in
 charge.''

 First, a lone steer trotted into the crowd of about 200 spectators. Then
five others
 headed to the Jones Store Co. department store. The rest ambled a block
past a
 planned turnoff and wound up in the parking lot of the Jackson County
courthouse.

 In all the confusion, cowboy Jeff Rector broke an ankle when his horse
slipped.
 Eventually the cattle were herded into a pen at the Hereford House,
although the
 cows were never on the menu.
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:40:25 -0500
>From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (CA) Tiger Recaptured in Ontario
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from AP Wire page:
----------------------------
04/02/1997 01:30 EST

 Tiger Recaptured in Ontario

 BARRIE, Ontario (AP) -- It took three tranquilizer darts, but Zarak the
runaway
 Siberian tiger had to end his romp around southern Ontario sooner or later.

 The 770-pound animal was recaptured Tuesday outside the Bear Creek Exotics
 animal sanctuary near Barrie, where he had escaped from Sunday.

 Animal tracker Norm Phillips said Zarak was hard to catch because of the
thick,
 swampy forest in the area 60 miles north of Toronto.

 ``He's not hurt at all ... he's just a big baby,'' Phillips said as the
drugged tiger was
 pulled from the snowy woods on a toboggan.

 ``I found one of the trails that he was using a lot, so I just waited for
him and he ...
 started to run towards me. I think he wanted to play,'' Phillips said.

 The four-year-old tiger had arrived Saturday evening at the farm along
with his
 mother, eight-year-old Korianah. He escaped by scaling a nine-foot fence.
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:44:03 -0500
>From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (PE) Man Accused of Animal Smuggling
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from AP Wire page:
----------------------------
04/02/1997 01:45 EST

 Man Accused of Animal Smuggling

 LIMA, Peru (AP) -- A man from the Czech Republic has been arrested for
allegedly
 trying to smuggle 35 animals -- monkeys, turtles and even crocodiles --
out of Peru
 in a suitcase.

 Police said Alex Havelka was arrested Tuesday at the Lima airport with an
 assortment of protected species inside a suitcase, stowed away in plastic
 Tupperware-type containers with holes punched in the top.

 The animals, all protected under Peruvian law, included 17 tiny monkeys of
two
 different species, 10 turtles, two boa constrictors, one lizard and five
crocodiles.

 Two of the monkeys and the lizard had suffocated, police said.
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:46:05 -0500
>From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (JA) Tokyo Zoo Displays Caged Human
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from AP Wire page:
----------------------------
 04/02/1997 01:22 EST

 Tokyo Zoo Displays Caged Human

 TOKYO (AP) -- Among the lions, tigers and gorillas, a Tokyo zoo set up a
cage for its
 ``most ferocious'' exhibit: a human.

 Ueno Zoo curator Masaru Saito stood in a cage for a one-hour show Tuesday
to talk
 about his zoo's responsibility to educate people about animals -- and about
 themselves.

 While giving a lesson on the ethnic variety of the human race, Saito told
visitors the
 world's ``most ferocious animals'' are humans.

 It was the first time that any zoo in Japan had held a human exhibition, zoo
 spokeswoman Yoshimi Kobayashi said today.

 However, the exhibit wasn't much of a draw.

 ``Children were more interested in a gorilla cage next door,'' she said.
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:46:22 -0500 (EST)
>From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (US) Another Oklahoma Anti-PETA Editorial
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


This appeared in a local Oklahoma City newspaper today:

                             Amoral Compass

Are new laws needed to deal with environmental and animal rights
terrorism?  We think not, but a case could be made that extremists
representing these causes are as much a threat to society as pro-
abortion people claim their adversaries are.
  Federal protection extends to those seeking legal pregnancy
"termination."  Anti-abortion protestors are under severe restrictions;
the full weight of the the government is used to enforce those
restrictions.  Should the same standards be applied to the anti-fur crowd?
  The use of violence to protest abortion is as odious as the violence that
goes on inside the clinics.  Still, peaceful pro-lifers have a right to have
their voices heard.
  Animal rights activists also have that right, but this doesn't extend
to the type of protest demonstrated a week ago Sunday when US
Sec. of Agriculture Dan Glickman was hit by rotting bison entails thrown
by an extremist.  She was protesting the killing of bison near
Yellowstone National Park.  Anti-fur activists have thrown red paint at
women wearing fur coats.  This sort of terror tactic could escalate to
murder -- if the same argument used by pro-abortion forces is applied
to the animal rights people.
  Meanwhile, the moral ambiguity of AR activists continues .  In
"Straining at a Mink" (editorial, March 15), we challenged PETA to
explain how the group could remain neutral on abortion while
clamoring for humane treatment of animals.
  Responding in a letter to "Your Views" printed on today's editorial
page, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said criticizing PETA for
not speaking out on abortion "is as nonsensical as criticizing  pro-life
activists for not working harder to prevent starvation."  Her remark isn't
just nonsensical, it's a non-sequitar.  It doesn't follow.  The problem isn't
that PETA is working hard enough to prevent abortions.  The problem
is it's not working for that at all.  Newkirk is being obfuscatory.
  Pro-lifers aren't neutral on starvation.  Many of them agree with
PETA's concerns, but PETA's moral relativism is a stumbling block.
Life is precious in all forms.  Animals should not be treated cruelly, but
human babies shouldn't be either.
  Unlike PETA, we believe there is a hierarchy of suffering.  Near the
top of the list are babies whose brains are sucked out after being
pulled out feet first.  It's called partial birth abortion.  And PETA
says nothing about it.

                                             For the Animals,
                                             Jana, OKC
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:46:20 -0800 (PST)
>From: David J Knowles <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CA] BC hunt
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The following is a media release from Bear Watch.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - April 2, 1997

SPRING IS HERE AND ONCE AGAIN THE BEAR HUNT IS ON
Bear Watch launches provincial public public awareness campaign

VANCOUVER, B.C. - Yesterday marked the opening of yet another spring bear
hunting season in British Columbia. As Bear Watch has done every spring
since 1994, the group is launching a province-wide public awareness
advertising campaign to coincide with the opening of the spring bear hunt.
This year, Bear Watch's campaign is targetting the cruel and
biologically-unsound spring bear hunt, as well as focusing on the protection
of B.C.'s threatened grizzly bears.

"Bear Watch is using a new venue this year to air our message," says Bear
Watch campaigner Jana Thomas. "The past few springs, our television and
radio ads have been very successful in raising nation-wide awareness about
the threats facing bears in B.C. This year we wanted to focus in on the
communities across B.C. and so our ads will be seen across the province in
transit shelters, as well as in Sky Train stations in Vancouver."

A total of 141 transit ads altogether will appear in Vancouver, Victoria,
Nanaimo, Whistler, Prince George, Vernon, Penticton and Kamloops. The ads
are also timed to coincide with the launching of Bear Watch's new petition
strategy. Bear Watch has initiated two new petitions, one aimed at ending
the hunting of grizzly bears, and the second looking to end the spring
hunting of bears and bear hunting with hounds. With the new petition, the
petitions will now be addressed to the provincial legislature instead of the
Wildlife Branch. Bear Watch is also enlisting "Bear Ambassadors" to meet
with their MLA's [provincial MP's] to talk about bear hunting in B.C.

Finally, Bear Watch plans to present the provincial Minister of the
Environment with all signatures collected in a meeting scheduled for June.

:Our old petitions to end all bear hunting served to enlighten the Wildlife
Branch about our cause, with more than 28,000 signatures subnitted," says
Eric Donnelly, Bear Watch campaigner. "The Wildlife Branch admitted they
received more letters requesting an end to trophy hunting of bears in B.C.
than on any other issue. Unfortunately, they also admitted they don't intend
to do anything about it, so we're taking the issue to the provincial
legislature."

"The hunting in the spring, of bears just out of hibernation and while
mothers are still nursing their young, is not just biologically unsound,
it's also unethical," says Jana Thomas. "About 1/5 of black bears and 1/3 of
grixxlies killed are females, leaving behind an unknown number of orphaned
cubs. 80% of cubs orphaned in the spring will not survive their first year
of life. Furthermore, only two other provinces in Canada still allow hunting
of bears with hounds and mant jurisdictions across North America have banned
the use of hounds for hunting bears for being unnecessarily cruel."

"As for B.C.'s threatened grizzly bears," says Jana Thomas, "even a limited
entry trophy hunting season constitutes an unnecessary and serious threat to
their survival."



Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 13:00:57 -0500 (EST)
>From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (US) PETA's Letter - Oklahoma
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


This appeared today in an Oklahoma City news source:

                                Save Animals

TO THE EDITOR:
  Your charge in "Straining at a Mink" (editorial, March 15) that we
are "moral relativists" because we work to prevent the slaughter of
the fur trade but do not speak out about abortion is as non-sensical
as critizing pro-life activists for not working harder to prevent
starvation.  There is much real suffering in this world; all of it needs
to be addressed. the real "moral relativists" are those who attempt
to create a hierarchy of suffering yet refuse to do something as simple
as not wearing the skins of animals.  Yes, stick and stones may break
your bones as surely as leghold traps and electrocutors break those
of the animals used in coats and glove linings, but words provoke
discussion and so can never hurt us.  Won't you please find a place
in your hearts for the animals who suffer terribly for nothing more
than a frivolous item?

                         Ingrid Newkirk, president PETA

                                              For the Animals,

                                              Jana, OKC
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:37:19 -0500
>From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (US) U.S. Restricts Shark Fishing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from AP Wire page:
-----------------------------
 04/02/1997 16:23 EST

 U.S. Restricts Shark Fishing

 By H. JOSEF HEBERT
 Associated Press Writer

 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government put tight restrictions Wednesday on
 shark fishing, saying overfishing is jeopardizing the survival of some
species.

 ``Atlantic shark populations are at a precarious state and fishing
pressure needs to
 be reduced,'' said Rebecca Lent, a senior official of the National Marine
Fisheries
 Service, which imposed the new fishing quotas.

 The restrictions go into effect immediately in waters stretching from the
North Atlantic
 to the Gulf of Mexico. Most shark are caught in southern waters from the
Carolinas to
 Florida as well as in parts of the Gulf.

 The agency, in a move that had been expected among fishermen and
 environmentalists, directed that commercial fishermen cut in half their
annual catch
 of large coastal shark to no more than 1,275 metric tons a year.

 It also placed tighter limits on how many shark recreational fishermen can
catch,
 imposed new limits on fishing for small coastal sharks and banned all
fishing for
 five species of shark considered particularly vulnerable, including the
white shark
 made famous in movies.

 The move was applauded by conservation groups, although environmentalists
said
 a long-range shark management plan will be needed if the fish are to be
protected.

 ``Unfortunately the serious depletion of these magnificent but vulnerable
fish will
 take decades to repair,'' said Sonja Fordham, a shark specialist at the
private Center
 for Marine Conservation. She said the new restrictions are long overdue.

 All variety of sharks -- there are some 400 species -- have been a hot
commodity for
 both commercial and recreational fishermen since the 1980s with millions of
 pounds hauled in annually for restaurants as well as trophy cases. Their
carcasses
 are prized for their meat, fins, teeth and various parts that are used as
a lubricant or
 in cosmetics and vitamins.

 The large coastal sharks have been such a popular target of commercial
fishermen
 that some species have declined by as much as 80 percent, according to
 conservationists, although a good count of the shark population has been
hard to
 come by.

 Lent, chief of the fisheries service's high migratory species division,
said new fishing
 restrictions were needed ``before they dwindle to a point where fishermen
and the
 American public are left without this important resource.''

 The new restrictions:

 --Limit commercial fishermen to 1,285 metric tons per year. Because the
quota for
 half the year already has been exceeded, no fishing will be allowed after
April 7 until
 July 1, the start of the year's second season.

 --Limit recreational fishermen, effective immediately, to two sharks per
vessel per
 trip with the exception of the more abundant small coastal sharpnose
shark, of
 which each fisherman can bag two. Previously each vessel could haul in
four large
 shark and each fisherman five of the small species.

 --Establish annual commercial limits of 1,760 tons for small coastal
sharks such as
 blacknose and bonnethead, so they do not become substitutes for the larger
shark.

 --Ban direct fishing for five species -- whale, basking, sand tiger,
bigeye sand tiger,
 and white shark -- which are considered extremely vulnerable.

 The agency also said it would convene a panel of scientists, fishermen and
 environmentalists to develop a long-term shark management plan.

 Marine conservationists say the government contributed to the problem by
promoting
 sharks as an alternative to tuna and swordfish.

 Unlike most fish, sharks reach sexual maturity at a late age and then give
birth to
 only a small litter. In recent years they have been harvested twice as
fast as the fish
 are being reproduced.

 And then there have been the ``Jaws'' movies, which prompted heightened
interest
 in sharks among recreational fishermen, said Ms. Fordham. In fact, she added,
 most species are fairly harmless and do not attack humans.
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:55:48 -0800 (PST)
>From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: ILL HEALTH FORCES ACTIVIST OFF HUNGER STRIKE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 2, 1997





ANIMAL ACTIVIST FORCED TO END
HUNGER STRIKE AFTER ILL HEALTH

SYRACUSE -- Animal rights activist Jeff Watkins -- who had gone without food
for 30 days -- has officially ended his hunger strike, for now, on the
advice of doctors and as a result of two trips in three days to the
University Hospital emergency room.

Watkins, jailed at Jamesville Penitentiary since Feb. 28, began eating small
portions of all vegetarian food this weekend after 30 days of refusing all
nourishment.

The decision followed his hospitalization March 27, when he was taken to the
hospital after suffering convulsions and losing a major part of his vision.
Watkins says that most of his vision has returned. He also was hospitalized
March 25 after he experienced severe stomach cramping.

Watkins said he regretted going off the strike, but added his hunger strike
had already accomplished much.

"My understanding is that the Beaver Trapping bill, which we wanted to see
dead as one of our demands, is dying in the New York legislature, and that
now a bill has been introduced in Congress to ban the leghold trap, another
demand," said Watkins. There has been no progress on the third demand. It
called for the Clinton Administration's end to opposition of the European
Union's wild fur ban, which would stop the importation to EU countries of
fur from nations not yet banning the trap.

"But, we had gain in other areas, too," said Watkins. "There has been a
major increase in energy in the animal rights movement from coast-to-coast
because of the hunger strike, a major goal of mine."

He also reported the Syracuse jail is now allowing cruelty free personal
care products into the facility, and Watkins is working with jail
administrators to come up with a list of products not tested on animals for
the jail commissary. The jail also is providing vegan (all vegetarian) food
to Watkins, something that was not readily available before his jailing.

Nicole Rogers, who was jailed with Watkins Feb. 28, was released from jail
March 27 after 28 days on a hunger strike. She has now begun to eat regular
meals and is reporting no discomfort.
And, Chris Tarbel was released March 11, after 12 days in prison. All were
jailed for participating in peaceful, anti-fur protests in Syracuse.

In Indianapolis, Tony Wong, another animal activist, has now gone 38 days
without food. Authorities disobeyed the wishes of Wong's parents (Wong is
16) and began force feeding him through a tube in his nose last Thursday.
Stacey Schierholz, 17, is also jailed in Indianapolis. She was jailed March
13, but is not now on a hunger strike, leaving Wong as the remaining striker.
-30-


Activist Civil Liberties Committee
PO Box 19515, Sacramento, CA 95819 [phone]

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:41:29 +0000
>From: "Karen Bevis" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Cats in Australia
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

There seems to be a lot of mis-information over this issue
internationally.

There IS NO PLAN to eradicate cats from Australia.

If anyone would like more information/clarification, please contact
me.

Karen Bevis


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Bevis
Animal Liberation (Victoria) Net Site Co-ordinator
Email:  [e-mail]
http://www.vicnet.net.au/~animals/alibvic/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vegetarianism won't cost the earth"
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:46:09 -0500 (EST)
>From: **** <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Fly Wisconsin.... And LIVE! Canada Geese Saved. (fwd)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:38:16 -0500 (EST)
>From: **** <[e-mail]>
Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Fly Wisconsin.... And LIVE! Canada Geese Saved.


PRESS RELEASE

Fly Wisconsin...
             And LIVE!!

COALITION TO PROTECT CANADA GEESE (TM)

The Wisconsin Canada Goose may not know it, but they are safer tonight.
The DNR Urban Waterfowl Task Force failed to muster the 2/3 majority to
approve the round up and slaughter of Canada Geese under the auspices of
USDA APHIS/Animal Damage Control and the Wisconsin DNR.  The Task Force
also failed to muster the votes to recommend hunting as a measure to kill
the Canada Goose.  The vote would not affect the regular hunting seasons,
but would not take the step of encouraging hunting on golf courses and
urban areas.

Circulated at the DNR Urban Waterfowl Task Force was a letter from the
Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese in New York.  The
Canada Goose Task Force there had recommended only non lethal measures,
except that they did include the possibility of egg addling.  The DNR and
the town of Clarkstown proceeded to kill the geese anyway over the task
force's recommendation.  There has evolved out of this killing a popular
protest against the town supervisor and the DNR.  The town has also
sought to send the goose bodies out to the food banks, but Public Health
Department found lead in the tissue and ordered the goose bodies sent to
the land fill.

Tonight's action by the DNR Urban Waterfowl did include numerous
recommendations that neighborhoods can take to help discourage the geese
from nesting in an area including some modification of the landscape so
that the area won't be attractive to geese, detractors such as plastic
alligators in a pond, "Scaryballs" (plastic eyes that frighten geese
away), and chemical repellents.

A manual will be drawn up to assist the public in knowing how to use
these measures.


Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:46:38 -0500 (EST)
>From: **** <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Letter-Writers Read: Canada Geese Saved!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:43:52 -0500 (EST)
>From: **** <[e-mail]>
Subject: Letter-Writers Read: Canada Geese Saved!


Thanks to you who called Mayor Norquist and Lake Mills Mayor Johnson to
urge them to NOT KILL Canada Geese.  Mayor Norquist's representative on
the Wisconsin DNR Urban Waterfowl Task Force abstained on the issue,
helping to make the measure fail, Johnson's representative still voted to
kill.

Please consider sending a "thank you" to Mayor Norquist:

Telephone: [phone] or 414-286-8531
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:11:57 -0700 (MST)
>From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Carter-Long)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: PAUL WATSON ARRESTED, RELEASED, REARRESTED
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

WATSON ARRESTED, RELEASED, REARRESTED

MARINA DEL REY, California, Apr. 2, 1997 (ENS) - Paul Watson, founder of
the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and co-founder of the Greenpeace
Foundation, was arrested this morning at Schiphol Airport outside of
Amsterdam, the Netherlands on a request for his detention registered by
Norway with Interpol. It is Watson's second arrest in three days on the
same Norwegian request.

Norway has asked that Watson be detained pending an application for his
extradition to face charges for the scuttling of the illegal whaler
Nybraena in a Lofoten Island port in 1992. Watson was not in the Lofotens
at the time, but in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, according to Sea Shepherd
international director Lisa Distefano, who says she was with him in
Amsterdam at the time of the scuttling.

In the port of Bremerhaven, Germany, Watson was taken into custody late in
the evening of March 31 by German harbor police, who saw Watson's name on
an Interpol list.

Watson entered Bremerhaven as captain of his society's newest ship, the Sea
Shepherd III. He was moving the vessel from Scotland where it had been
refitted to an undisclosed port in the Mediterranean in preparation for a
campaign against widespread illegal driftnet activity in the Mediterranean
Sea.

After the German high court reviewed the Norwegian court documents
presented, officials in Bremen ruled that the 120 day sentence imposed on
Watson in absentia by the Norwegian government was too short to provide an
extradition to Norway. The ruling also noted that the Norwegian extradition
document did not reflect the official court record of the case against
Watson, and in fact revealed questionable discrepancies.

"The German authorities were just doing their job, but Germany is now in
the position of deciding on the extradition of a political prisoner to a
non-EU member nation on charges stemming from Norway's defiance of the
international ban on commercial whaling," Distefano said Tuesday.

German authorities dismissed the Norwegian extradition request Tuesday, and
Watson was free to go. He travelled to Schiphol Airport to catch a flight
to the United States where he was arrested again.

Attorney Lewis von Utenhove, of Den Haag, representing Watson, says he
feels confident that the Dutch authorities will come to the same decision
as the German authorities, based upon documentation provided by Norway.

The preliminary hearing will be held on April 3.

Watson, a Canadian citizen, has been actively opposing Norway's commercial
whaling operations since 1992, when Norway began violating the global
moratorium on whaling imposed in 1986 by the International Whaling
Commission (IWC). Norway is a member of the IWC.

"For twenty years, Paul Watson has been a thorn in the side of governments
and corporations who are accustomed to being accommodated and co-opting the
opposition in their quest to pillage the environment for every dollar they
can squeeze out of it," said Distefano from the Society's headquarters in
Marina del Rey.

"Sea Shepherd is one of the only organizations anywhere that is dedicated
to taking direct action in defense of the natural world. Paul is for real -
he makes himself a target and he never backs down, so he is the one they go
after."

Norway was further angered in 1994 by a confrontation between a Norwegian
Coast Guard cutter and a Sea Shepherd ship.

"Norway rammed our ship, claimed we rammed them, then declined to prosecute
when they realized we had videotape of their naval vessel smashing into our
bow to prevent us from reaching the Norwegian whaling grounds," said
Distefano.

"After Norway tried and failed for two and a half years to prosecute on the
absurd charge that our unarmed conservation vessel rammed the flagship of
their navy, this arrest does come as a surprise, but if they're really
going to try it, we'll be delighted," Distefano declared. We will defend
ourselves vigorously against Norway's charges, and look forward to giving
the world a full courtroom briefing on that country's illegal and expanding
slaughter of whales."


Lawrence Carter-Long

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 23:23:15 -0500
>From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (US) Sorry Sucker: Fish Not on List
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from AP Wire page:
----------------------------
04/02/1997 20:58 EST

 Sorry Sucker: Fish Not on List

 By MATTHEW FORDAHL
 Associated Press Writer

 SAN DIEGO (AP) -- The Santa Ana sucker, a fat-lipped fish that vacuums
scum from
 stream beds, is threatened with extinction but won't be listed as endangered
 because other species are in more jeopardy, the government said Wednesday.

 ``It's our conclusion that we should propose it for listing,'' said Paul
Barrett, a
 biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Carlsbad. ``But we
have such a
 large workload that it's not the highest priority. When we close the books
on those,
 we'll work on this one.''

 The Fish and Wildlife Service's Pacific region -- covering California,
Hawaii, the
 Pacific Islands, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- oversees more
than 100
 endangered species with a higher priority, Barrett said.

 The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, representing several environmental
groups,
 requested in 1994 that the fish be considered for protection. A court
ordered the
 Service to make a preliminary determination by March 28.

 Defense Fund attorney Hank Bates said his clients may return to court.

 ``It's clear this is part of the same pattern of practice -- ignoring
their requirements of
 law and ignoring the suckers' plight,'' Bates said.

 The sucker was common as late as the 1970s in the Los Angeles, San Gabriel
and
 Santa Ana river streams, but urbanization, dams, water diversions,
pollution and
 non-native fish have significantly reduced its population.

 Barrett said population numbers are not available, but the decline can be
measured
 by its diminishing habitat.

 The fish now lives in four areas: the headwaters of the San Gabriel River,
Big
 Tujunga Creek in the Los Angeles River basin, portions of the Santa Ana
River and
 the Santa Clara River in Ventura County.

 Barrett said biologists do not expect the sucker population to disappear
completely
 because some still live in the Los Angeles National Forest, where they are
protected
 from urbanization.

 ``If we think that it's an extremely imminent event, we could go forward
with an
 emergency listing,'' he said. ``But we don't think something's going to
happen
 tonight.''

 With its large lips and small mouth, the suckers usually live in cool,
clean and clear
 water, although it can tolerate seasonal variations. It eats algae and
invertebrates
 living on stream beds.

 Researchers are not sure what role it plays in the region's ecology.

 ``It's part of our natural heritage and biodiversity,'' Barrett said.
``We're not sure how it
 fits in, but we don't want to throw away parts. Once it's gone, it's gone
for good.''
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:32:12 -0800
>From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Bad winter at Yellowstone
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bison killing leads to winter of discontent

Scripps-McClatchy Western

ESTES PARK, Colo. (Apr 2, 1997 8:13 p.m. EST) -- The killing of bison
outside Yellowstone made it a gloomy winter for staff at the nation's
oldest national park.

More than 1,000 of the animals were killed this winter after they
crossed into Montana, because of fears they carry brucellosis -- a
disease that can cause cattle to spontaneously abort. Park rangers
also watched winter recreational use from snowmobilers and cross-country
skiers drop 18 percent this winter, Superintendent Mike Finley said
Tuesday.

"I've thought a lot about it. This was supposed to have been a wonderful
winter leading up to the big celebration of Yellowstone's 125th
birthday. Instead, it's been a winter of discontent," Finley said.

"We are very troubled with what has happened to the bison," said Finley,
in Estes Park to attend the Intermountain Region conference of park
superintendents.

Finley and his staff spent most of the winter season coping with the
park's roaming bison.

Nearly half of the park's herd died. Some Yellowstone rangers placed
black tape over the bison on their National Park Service badges in
protest of Montana's practice.

Finley said the park is re-entering negotiations on an environmental
impact statement about how to cope with a "risk-management" problem.

"It's a complex issue when you are dealing with diseases and emotions
and economics," Finely said.  "There are a lot of concerns, and you have
people staking out territory on sides of the issue.

"But as it is unfolding now, the bison are the losers," he said
Yellowstone also is grappling with how to manage its winter visitation.

"We are not sure why the numbers dropped," Finley said.
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:38:45 -0800
>From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Of mice and men
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mice in stimulating environments build more brain cells

The Associated Press

NEW YORK (Apr 2, 1997 4:19 p.m. EST) -- Young mice living in a miniature
playground built up a startling increase in brain cells, suggesting
sports and challenging classes could do the same for kids as late as
high school, a researcher says.

Experts said the study is the first demonstration that a stimulating
environment can boost the number of brain cells in a mammal, but
researcher Fred Gage cautioned that the effect in mice has not yet
been shown in humans.

When the experiment began, the mice were 21 days old, which corresponds
roughly to teen-age years in people.

The study, appearing in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, suggests
environment might continue to have a dramatic effect on brain
development long after preschool, when it has gotten the most
attention.

Gage, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif.,
said the mice showed a 15 percent increase in cells at one brain site,
compared with rodents not exposed to the playground.

"We were not expecting this big of an effect," Gage said.

The brain site, in the hippocampus, is involved in learning and memory.
Mice that spent three months in the playground also did better at a test
of learning than other mice, but it's unclear whether the extra brain
cells were the reason.

Janice Juraska, a University of Illinois psychology professor who
studies brain development in rats, said prior work had shown that a
stimulating environment can increase the number of connections
between brain cells in rodents. By actually boosting the number of brain
cells, "you're not stuck wit the old circuits. You can start afresh,"
she said.

Heather Cameron, a brain researcher at the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said men and women probably do make
new brain cells in that region. But there's no evidence that building up
a greater number of brain cells there does any good, she said.

What's more, the average person already lives in a more stimulating
environment than lab mice do, so it's not clear whether further
improvement would make any difference in brain cell numbers, she said.

The researchers used 24 female mice. Half spent three months in a
special playground cage, while the others stayed in regular cages.

In the special cage, which held 12 animals at once, mice could scurry
through plastic tubes and a tunnel with several openings, and run on an
exercise wheel. They got to forage for treats such as cheese, crackers,
apples and popcorn.

The standard cages, which were smaller and held four mice apiece,
contained a water bottle and a food tray so mice could eat and drink
when they wanted to.
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:45:28 -0800
>From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: National Marine Fisheries Service calls for shooting sea lions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Feds may loosen protection for sea lions and seals

Scripps-McClatchy Western

MONTEREY, Calif. (Apr 2, 1997 12:37 p.m. EST) -- Federal officials have
recommended loosening the law to allow wildlife authorities to shoot sea
lions and harbor seals that are particularly troublesome.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has recommended that Congress drop
blanket protection for the marine mammals in order to protect declining
salmon stocks.

An 18-page report also recommends that state and federal wildlife
authorities be allowed to shoot individual sea lions and harbor seals
that can't otherwise be stopped from interfering with marina or
fishing activities.

The recommendations aren't intended to allow immediate kills of sea
lions or harbor seals, said Brian Gorman, a Seattle-based spokesman for
the marine fisheries' parent, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

They are intended to shorten the current process, which can require two
years of review before any waivers are granted to allow exemptions to
state and federal wildlife authorities so they can shoot animals that
won't otherwise leave the salmon or marinas, said Gorman.

"I'm sure there will be passionate arguments on both sides," he said.

The federal officials have recommended that Congress change the shooting
restrictions when they renew the Marine Mammal Protection Act, probably
this fall or next spring.

The basic rationale for the change is that six wild runs of salmon are
currently listed as endangered or threatened species, and others are
expected to be.

Gorman said it is possible that all runs of wild salmon and steelhead
will be on the endangered species list in the next few years.

Although sea lions and seals aren't the major reasons for the troubles
within the salmon fisheries, their numbers are growing and they are
setting themselves up near dams and fish-passage facilities with
increasing frequency, said the report to Congress.

"Rather than an issue due strictly to pinniped population size, the
impact on salmonoids is likely due to opportunistic behavior by certain
individual pinnipeds that have learned to exploit situations where
salmonoids are concentrated and particularly vulnerable," the report
said.

Since the no-shooting restriction took effect in 1994, only one
exemption has been sought, Gorman said.

That case was in Seattle, where five or six sea lions stationed
themselves near a lock and feasted on salmon trying to get to their
spawning grounds.

In the two years it took to explore, review and discuss that situation,
Sea World in Florida volunteered to house the troublesome sea lions so
they wouldn't be shot as wildlife officials intended, Gorman said.

The federal government shouldn't expect much support from the SPCA for
its shooting proposal.

"I don't think the salmon are truly in trouble because of six sea
lions," said Lisa Hoefler, director of community services for the
Monterey County SPCA.

"Shooting sea lions seems a little bit shortsighted at this point," she
said. "If we've got a problem with the salmon populations, we need to
take a look at the populations."

Pollution in spawning streams should be considered before sea lions are
blamed for the salmon shortage, Hoefler said.

The city of Monterey has had some celebrated run-ins with the barking
sea lions -- in the summer of 1991, when a number of them tried to take
over some docks in the marina, and last summer, when hundreds of
juveniles showed up and spread from the traditional rookery along the
jetty at the Coast Guard pier.

But the city found fences and people with brooms provided effective
behavior modification, said Carl Anderson, the city's public facilities
director.

"I can't imagine us ever having to resort to lethal removal," Anderson
said.

The Fishermen's Alliance of Monterey Bay has been lobbying for controls
on the California sea lion population, which has grown to more than
161,000, with a reproduction rate of 5 to 6 percent a year.

"Our biggest concern is that there be maintenance of the population,"
said Rich Hughett, director of the association. "The most we have
recommended is sterilization."

Hughett said scientists from the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, the
Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary are
studying sea lions in Monterey Bay and their interaction with salmon and
steelhead.

He said they are expected to have a report in August.
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 20:50:40 -0800
>From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Another wonder drug
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Glaxo Wellcome warns epilepsy drug can cause fatal rash

The Associated Press

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. (Apr 2, 1997 10:31 a.m. EST) -- Glaxo
Wellcome's epilepsy drug Lamictal can cause potentially fatal rashes, it
warns in a new label and a letter sent to 360,000 doctors and health
care professionals.

"Rare deaths have been reported, but their numbers are too few to permit
a precise estimate of the rate," says the new boxed warning on
Lamictal's label.

London-based Glaxo Wellcome, whose U.S. headquarters are in Research
Triangle Park, developed the new warning label in collaboration with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, The News & Observer of Raleigh
reported Wednesday.

The label and the warning letters sent March 22 and March 23 advise
doctors to discontinue use of the drug "at the first sign of rash,
unless the rash is clearly not drug-related."

FDA officials say the precaution is expected to halt the rashes in most
cases. If unchecked, they can have the same devastating effect as
third-degree burns, officials said.

"The reason you get the boxed warning and the 'dear doctor' letter is
that we are saying, 'Be aware of this, public,"' said Dr. Paul Lieber,
director of the FDA's division of neuropharmacological drug products.

"It is very important that the drug be used properly to be sure it is
used safely," said Dr. John Messenheimer, senior clinical research
physician at Glaxo Wellcome.

Dr. W. Edwin Dodson, president of the Epilepsy Foundation of America,
said a number of epilepsy drugs have deadly side effects.

"Epilepsy patients have to make tough decisions, decisions other people
don't often have to deal with," he said.

About 2.5 million Americans have some form of epilepsy, according to the
Epilepsy Foundatiion. Fifteen percent to 20 percent of them suffer
seizures that cannot be controlled well with traditional medications,
the foundation said.

Glaxo Wellcome says the frequency of the two life-threatening rashes --
known as Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis -- is 1
in every 1,000 adult patients, but much higher in children.

The new label says "as many as 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 pediatric patients
develop a potentially life-threatening rash."

While the FDA has not approved Lamictal for patients under age 16,
doctors prescribe it in extreme cases. Glaxo Wellcome has been seeking
FDA approval for the drug's use with children.

"The reason this off-label use (of Lamictal by children) is occurring is
because there is this need out there," said Messenheimer.

The drug was launched in the U.S. market in early 1995 and is one of the
few found to be effective for epilepsy patients with hard-to-control
seizures. Glaxo Wellcome's sales of Lamictal reached $163.8 million last
year.

Messenheimer said clinical trials on 7,000 patients did not reveal the
severity of Lamictal's side effects. The problem was recognized after
field reports came in from an estimated 600,000 patients worldwide.

"You can count on one hand" the number of deaths among Lamictal patients
possibly caused by adverse reactions, he said, adding there is no way of
knowing for sure whether the drug caused the deaths, especially because
it frequently is taken with other medication.

Dr. Robert J. Gumnit, who heads an epilepsy center in Minneapolis, said
the warning might stop some doctors from using Lamictal, but he will
continue to prescribe the drug.

"We have literally hundreds of patients on Lamictal," he said. "I think,
of the new anti-epileptic drugs in the last few years, it has the most
promise of all. Unfortunately, it has to be used carefully, even in
adults, because of the rash situation."
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:56:58 -0800 (PST)
>From: David J Knowles <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CA/US] Enviromentalists take Canada to NAFTA tribunal
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

VANOUVER, BC - The Sierra Legal Defence Fund, together with several other
environmental groups, today launched an action against the Canadian
government under the environmental side-agreement of the NAFTA pact.

The action, filed in Montreal, alleges that the federal government and
provincial utility corporation BC Hydro, are responsible for the wiping out
of several salmon runs in BC as a result of water release practices that
discourage both spawing and the migration of salmon -  BC Hydro allows the
flow of excess amounts of water in spawning season, and insufficient water
levels when migration occurs. This has led to the wiping out of several
salmon runs, including the Capilano River, on the North Shore of the Lower
Mainland  The steelhead run used to one of the biggest wild summer runs in
the province. Now , there are no wild steelhead left in the Capilano.

The reason for this is the sale of electricity to US utilities, who find
themselves with a shortage of power because environmental regulations
prohibit the very practices carried out by BC Hydro.

The federal DFO is accused of turning a blind eye to the salmon wipe-outs,
even though they are in breach of the Fisheries Act.

Federal Environment Minister Sergio Marchi. speaking on CBC TV, said that
when the government signed the environmental side-agreement, they did so
with the full knowledge that they could be taken to a tribunal. "We expected
that sometimes our dirty laundry would be displayed in public," Marchi said.

Dan Miller, BC Minister Responsible for BC Hydro, could learn a thing a two
from Marchi's openess. Interviewed by local media today, he condemned the
environmentalists, and asked why they weren't down in the USA going after
the Americans instead of attacking BC Hydro. The deal between Hydro and the
US utilities is worth several million dollars per year to the Crown-owned
corporation.

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:57:01 -0800 (PST)
>From: David J Knowles <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CA] Grieving pet owners try to save cemetery
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>From The Province - Tuesday, April 1st, 1997

By Kent Spencer, Staff Reporter

Surrey's pet cemetery is turning into a Stephen King horror story for 670
animals resting there - and their bereaved owners.

"I could have a nervous breakdown," Ellen Dufort, 63 said yesterday.

Dufort's four pets - Sonny, Misty, Tiny and Mork - are burried under a
black-granite headstone with  their pictures carved on it.

When her pair of Siamese cats, a Pomeranian dog and a ferret died more than
a decade ago, the Newton burial spot was one of only two pet cemeteries in B.C.

But in 1992, owner Mary Blair sold a four-hectare plot, including the
cemetery, to Turnberry Developments Ltd. for about $900,000.

"Mrs Blair said that the land would be a pet cemetery forever," said Dufort,
"She said she would make sure the land would pass to the city as a park."

Dufort said cremated human remains are also on the land. "There's about 10
to 12 human cremations. Oe lady was cremated and buried with her horse."

Turnberry director Mike Weir said the company is willing to sell the
cemetery portion of the property for $172,000.

"We offered to give it to Surrey as a park, but Surrey said it would rather
have the cash," he said.

Developers in Surrey are required to contribute five per cent of a project
to the city in either land or money.

Claudine Leblanc, who is trying to raise the $172,000 through the Surrey Pet
Cemetery Society, said Blair sold the land without a restrictive covenant,
which allows future developers to do as they please.


Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:57:03 -0800 (PST)
>From: David J Knowles <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [UK] Greenpeace calls for whale death inquiry
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


>From The Electronic Telegraph - Thursday, April 3rd, 1997

Greenpeace calls for whale death inquiry
By Auslan Cramb, Scotland Correspondent

GREENPEACE called for an inquiry yesterday into the death of  "Moby", the
sperm whale that became stranded in the Forth.

The environment group said it would be reporting the Government to the
European Commission for "driving whales like Moby to their death". A
spokesman said that failure to comply with EU rules on oil drilling could
have caused Moby's death. Drilling noise could have disorientated the whale,
making it take a "wrong turning" into the North Sea.

 A spokesman said the Government had flouted a 1985 directive by failing to
ensure that environmental impact assessments were carried out before
drilling began in the new Atlantic oilfields west of Shetland. Whales such
as Moby feed on deep sea squid and should remain in the Atlantic during the
migration.

Greenpeace has written to Michael Forsyth, the Scottish Secretary, claiming
that more whales could die.

Mirella Lindenfels, a spokesman for the group, said: "Whales are very
sensitive to noise. Something is clearly driving them off course in
increasing numbers, and we are calling for an urgent investigation."  The
Marine Conservation Society, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and
the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds are backing the action.

Meanwhile, Moby was towed to a slipway yesterday and winched out of the
Forth. Following a post mortem, its remains were dumped in a local authority
landfill site.

⌐ Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997.

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:57:05 -0800 (PST)
>From: David J Knowles <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [UK]Ruddy duck saved as cull is cancelled
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


>From The Electronic Telegraph - Thursday, April 3rd, 1997

Ruddy duck saved as cull is cancelled
By Charles Clover

A CULL of ruddy ducks has been called off by John Gummer, the Environment
Secretary, because many landowners will not allow marksmen on to their property.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds supported the cull because the
duck is spreading to Spain where its inter-breeding poses a threat to an
endangered species, the white-headed duck, which numbers only 800. One
animal welfare group, Animal Aid, accused the RSPB of "species racism".

Owners of lakes in Shropshire and Cheshire, including local authorities,
blocked the scheme. They were alarmed at the prospect of losing their ruddy
ducks and worried about danger to the public.

The Department of the Environment intends to put the ducks, which originate
from North America, on the legal quarry list. This means legitimate shooters
can destroy them.

⌐ Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997.




</pre>
                            <!-- END OF PAGE CONTENT -->

    </TD>


    <TD width=50 align=center>

    </TD>
</TR>

                            <!-- THE BOTTOM TOOLBAR -->

<TR>

    <TD colspan=3 align=center fontsize=2>
    <a href="../SUB~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/sub.html">ARRS Tools</a>  |
<a href="../NEWSPA~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/newspage.html">News</a>  |
<a href="../ORGS~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Orgs.html">Orgs</a>  |
<a href="../SEARCH~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/search.html">Search</a>  |
<a href="../SUPPOR~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Support.html">Support</a>  |
<a href="../ABOUT/INDEX.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/about">About the ARRS</a>  |
<a href="mailto:[e-mail]">Contact ARRS</a>
    </TD>
</TR>


                                <!-- END OF MAIN -->

</TABLE></center>




        <!-- THE UNDERWRITERS -->

<table border=0 width=100%>
    <tr><td>

<center>    <hr width=285>
<Font Size=1>THIS SITE UNDERWRITTEN IN PART BY:</FONT>
<BR>


<a href="../../../tppmsgs/msgs9.htm#981" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/cgi-bin/show_support.pl?id=t889237342&sec=sbn_bottom&url=http%3a//www.go-organic.com/" target=_top><img src="../../SUPPORT/BANNERS/CROSS-~1/GO-ORG~1.GIF" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/support/banners/cross-promotion/go-organic.gif" border=0 alt="Go Organic"></a>


<hr width=285>

    <br><font size=2>
    <b>The views and opinions expressed within this page are not
necessarily those of the <br>EnviroLink Network nor the Underwriters.  The views
are those of the authors of the work.</b></font>
    </center>
    </td></tr>

</table>

</BODY>

</HTML>