Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news49~1.htm/text0000.txt

INI File | 1998-04-03 | 22.3 KB | 549 lines

[routine post]

Here are some items of general information (found in the "welcome letter"
sent when people subscribe--but often lose!)...included:  how to post and
how to change your subscription status (useful if you are going on
vacation--either by "unsubscribe" or "postpone").
---------------------------------------------------------------

To post messages to the list, send mail to [e-mail]
POSTING

To post a *news-related item* (no discussions), send your message to:

     [e-mail]

Appropriate postings to AR-News include: posting a news item, requesting
information on some event, or responding to a request for information.
Discussions on AR-News will NOT be allowed and we ask that any
commentary either be taken to AR-Views or to private E-mail.
------------------------------------------

***General Subscription Information***
ALL THE FOLLOWING SHOULD NOT be sent to ar-news !!!
(send them to [e-mail])
For all commands, use a blank Subject line.
---------------------------------------------------

To request a digest version, send mail to [e-mail]
with the following single line:

     set ar-news mail digest

To switch back to immediate mail, and to get copies of *your* postings
also, send the following command:

     set ar-news mail ack

or the following to not get your own postings:

     set ar-news mail noack

To see how you are set up ***(and to see if you are still subscribed!)***, use

     set ar-news

To temporarily stop mailings, use:

     set ar-news mail postpone

To re-enable it, use ack, noack, or digest as above.

To unsubscribe, use:

     unsubscribe ar-news

or:

     signoff ar-news

If you have to subscribe again, use:

     subscribe ar-news first_name last_name   (use false name if you want!)

If you have problems, please contact:

     Allen Schubert
     [e-mail]


Date: Mon, 18 Aug 97 08:41:47 UTC
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Lake Eucha Drowning in Algae (Oklahoma, USA)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

(Tulsa World): Parts of Lake Eucha look more like a stagnant pond than
one of Tulsa's main drinking water sources.

Green slime and thick algae several feet deep blanket about 20 acres of
the lake upstream near Brush Creek tributary.

"It's worse right now than it has ever been," said Harry Chichester,
environmental supervisor for Tulsa's Public Works Dept.

An Oklahoma Conservation Commission study released earlier this year
shows that the water quality of Lake Eucha is being threatened by
high levels of nutrients that likely are coming from the abundance
of dried poultry waste in the watershed upstream.

The study also shows that certain tributaries in the watershed have high
levels of bacteria, "which we are very concerned about," Public Works
Director Charles Hardt said.

Less than a month from the start date of a new law designed to regulate
animal production and protect the state's water supplies from animal
waste, alga growth in Lake Eucha is at its peak, Hardt said.

The dense algae that now hug the shoreline and stretch 50 to 100 yds.
into the lake have put an end to fishing from the bank and are playing
havoc with boats, Chichester said. "This is not static. It's a very
dynamic thing going on here," he said.

But for Northeastern Oklahoma, where dry chicken litter is the issue,
House Bill 1522, the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Act, which
becomes effective Sept. 1, will have no impact on most chicken farmers
because it does not address dry litter.


-- Sherrill

Date: 18 Aug 97 11:12:18 EDT
From: 0  <[e-mail]>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: latest update on the animal ambulance for Israel issue
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

LATEST UPDATE ON ANIMAL AMBULANCE FOR ISRAEL

I received a phone call Sunday afternoon (a regular work day in
Israel) from Avraham Poraz, the Knesset member who is spearheading
efforts in Israel to get the bill passed that will allow animal and
people ambulances into Israel on the same duty-free basis.  MK
Poraz said that although the Treasury agreed to pay the customs
duties on the first vehicle we want to ship - a donation to the
SPCA in Tiberias -  and although the Minister of Finance agreed to
accept the money from the Treasury in payment of the customs duties
and to allow the ambulance in, once again bureaucrats within the
Ministry of Finance are creating an obstacle.  In Israel, on
certain matters, career bureaucrats have more power than the
Minister, who is a political appointee.  MK Poraz believes he can
overcome this latest roadblock they have set.  I am leaving for
Israel on Friday for several weeks and will see what I can do while
I'm there.  Hopefully, we can surmount this last obstacle and
finally get the ambulance in!

Nina Natelson
Director, CHAI




Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:39:38 +0000
From: "Miggi" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [UK]Barry Horne's hunger strike: Press Release
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> From:          ALFSG <[e-mail]>

> BARRY HORNE SUPPORT CAMPAIGN
> Box M, 111 Magdalen Rd, Oxford, OX4 1RQ.
> Tel: [phone]. Mobile: [phone]. Email:
> [e-mail]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Press Release
> Monday 18 August
>
> Prison imposes punishment regime on animal rights hunger striker Barry
> **********************************************************************
>
> As Barry completes the first week of his hunger strike today (Mon 18
> Aug), the prison authorities have withdrawn all but his most basic
> privileges. In effect, this means Barry is confined to his cell for 23
> hours a day and not allowed to associate with any other prisoners.
>
> Barrys condition deteriorates
> ------------------------------
> This alarming development comes at a time when Barrys condition has
> begun to worsen as he is still weak from the effects of his previous 35-
> day hunger strike which only came to an end six months ago. Friends who
> visited Barry yesterday (Sun 17 Aug) have reported that although he is
> physically weaker, he is, as always, very strong in spirit.
>
> Messages of support flood in from around the world
> --------------------------------------------------
> Within days of the start of the hunger strike, messages of support began
> to arrive at Bristol Prison. By the fourth day, Barry had personally
> replied to fifty letters from around the world. Many other messages have
> been received at Barrys email address, which are immediately forwarded
> to him. Unfortunately, Barry now feels unable to concentrate to reply
> personally, but wishes it to be known that letters of support will be
> read and are still appreciated.
>
> Vigil planned at Bristol Prison to mark first week of hunger strike
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> A night-time vigil is planned for tomorrow (Tue 19 - Wed 20 Aug) to mark
> the first week of the hunger strike. While this is expected to be a
> token presence, there is no doubt that as time runs out, numbers will
> swell, as anger and frustration overwhelm Barrys friends and
> supporters.
>
> Campaign petition takes off
> ---------------------------
> The national petition against vivisection which is being run in
> conjuction with this campaign has already been signed by tens of
> thousands of people, including all the prisoners on Barrys wing and
> even two of his prison guards.
>
>
> For more information, contact the campaign as per letterhead.
> --
> ALFSG
>
>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 13:55:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Protecting habitat is bullet government fears to bite
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Nature Trail for Sunday, August 17, 1997:  The Toronto Star.  By Barry Kent
MacKay

PROTECTING HABITAT IS BULLET GOVERNMENT FEARS TO BITE

What do you do when you are a loyal Canadian who, like most Canadians, cares
deeply about the very nature of your country; when you share the majority of
Canadians' desire to protect our native wildlife from extinction; when you
know our government has committed itself to the same values so many of us
hold sacred, and then reneged on that commitment?

The quandary of what to do was faced by my colleagues and me at Animal
Alliance of Canada.  We knew that Canada boldly signed the Biodiversity
Convention in Rio, five years ago.  That action committed us to producing
federal legislation to protect endangered species.

The Liberal government went through the motions with Bill C-65.  Promised in
the 1996 Throne Speech and introduced in October of that year, the proposed
legislation passed committee hearings last February and was ready for debate
in Parliament by early March.

Bill C-65 was a weak-kneed, ineffective piece of rubbish widely ridiculed by
conservationists, but at least it was something.  Even it went nowhere
because it died with the closure of the last Parliament and election call.
 The interest the current government is showing in meeting its obligation is
as lively as a bloated fish carcass on the garbage-strewn bank of a polluted
stream.

The Animal Alliance, joined by the Council of Canadians and Greenpeace Canada
--- all three being not-for-profit, public interest, non-governmental
organizations who have previously gone to Ottawa about the need for effective
endangered species legislation --- issued a complaint on July 22 against the
Canadian government to the Commission for Environmental Co-operation, under
article 14 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation.

The commission's article 14 allows mere citizens to file a complaint that a
member country is "failing to effectively enforce its environmental law".  We
are represented by Clayton Ruby of Ruby and Edwardh, Barristers, in Toronto.

When Canada ratified the Biodiversity Convention by an order-in-council on
Dec. 4, 1992, it bound itself to fulfilling the requirements of the
convention.  Article 8(k) of the convention says that each signatory is
comitted to "develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other
regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and
populations."

Our own Canadian Parliament's standing committee on environment unanimously
ruled in April, 1992, that Canada had not met its obligation and recommended
"immediate steps" be taken to do so.

Whenever professional wildlife experts discuss means of protecting endangered
species, or preventing endangerment, the emphasis inevitably falls on the
need to protect habitat.  That is the bullet the Liberal government cannot
bring itself to bite.

Although the concern is short-term and absurdly simplistic, the fear is that
protecting habitat means disappointing big-buck commercial interests, a fear
fueled by extremist right-wing rhetoric and fanned by the failure of the
environment to become a major issue in the last election.

The animals and plants we are destroying cannot wait until environmental
losses trigger public concern, which has never wavered inits support of
protection for endangered species.

-30-
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Heidi Prescott <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: letters needed re: anti-hunting video
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

LETTERS NEEDED

Many of you may be familiar with The Fund's educational video, What's Wrong
With Hunting.  It is an entertaining and factual anti-hunting video that is
currently being distributed to high-schools around the country.

The Fund recently applied for a grant from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(which funded a pro-wildlife video) for funding to distribute the video.
The hunters have been ballistic about the application and the fact that the
video is already being distributed to schools across the country.  I guess
someone on that side recognized that our arguments are more persuasive to
children and when presented with both sides, children will more likely
choose not to become hunters. The Safari Club is worried enough to publish a
fact sheet called What's Wrong With What's Wrong With Hunting and most
hunting publications and hunting organizations have published alerts to
their members requesting letters in opposition to the grant.  Our grant
request was denied.

Now that the grant was denied, they are turing their attention to Marv Levy,
Coach of the Buffalo Bills, for his narration of the video.  Not only are
the hunters sending annoying letters to Coach Levy, they are complaining to
the owner of the Bills and also to the NFL Commissioner.  Our side needs to
voice our support of Coach Levy for the wonderful work he did for the video.

Letters of support should be sent to:

Ralph Wilson
Owner
Buffalo Bills
1 Bills Drive
Orchard Park, NY  14127

Paul Tagliabue
Commissioner
National Football League
410 Park Ave.
New York, NY  10022

Letters to Marv Levy would also be appreciated.

Coach Marv Levy
Buffalo Bills
1 Bills Drive
Orchard Park, NY  14127

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mike Markarian <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail]
Subject: Vt. Moose Advocates File Motion in Court
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, August 18, 1997

CONTACT: Mike Markarian, [phone]

MOOSE ADVOCATES FILE MOTION IN LAWSUIT
Affidavits from Moose Experts Claim Vermont's Hunt is Scientifically Unfounded

RUTLAND, Vt. -- Today, in their continuing lawsuit to halt Vermont's
controversial moose hunt, The Fund for Animals and several Vermont residents
filed a 63-page motion for summary judgment in U.S. District Court for the
District of Vermont. The plaintiffs seek judgment on the merits of their
arguments before the next moose hunt, scheduled for October 18-21, 1997.

The lawsuit charges that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Vermont
Department of Fish and Wildlife violated the National Environmental Policy
Act by using federal money to fund 75% of the moose hunt. The Court
initially dismissed the case as moot because the federal government asked
for part of the money back, but last year the U.S. Court of Appeals noted
that "the continued federal funding of recommendations for 'harvest
regulation' affecting 'moose densities' reflects an unambiguous involvement
by the federal government in the design, magnitude, and conduct of a moose
hunt" and that "the exclusion would likely be overridden by the 'highly
controversial environmental effects' of the financed activity, which is,
after all, moose hunting."

"This is the fifth year of Vermont's moose hunt, and this is the fifth year
it continues to violate federal law," says Mike Markarian, Director of
Campaigns for The Fund for Animals. "This hunt simply must be stopped before
more moose and more federal tax dollars are shot to pieces."

Today's motion includes an affidavit from Dr. Brian L. Horejsi, one of North
America's leading moose biologists. Dr. Horejsi questions Vermont's moose
population estimate, and concludes that "it is my professional opinion that
Vermont's moose management program is not founded on either a solid database
or on good science. As a consequence of these deficiencies the hunt could
well prove detrimental to the long-term survival and viability of Vermont's
moose population."

Adds Markarian, "Vermont officials really have no idea how many moose are in
the state, and they believe the only way to count the moose is to shoot
them. We are just thankful that these people are not also in charge of the
U.S. Census Bureau."

The number of moose hunting permits has increased every year, from the
original 30 permits in 1993, to 165 permits in 1997, representing a 550%
increase. The moose hunt has also expanded geographically from the Northeast
Kingdom into additional areas that arguably have very few moose in them,
areas that this year will include Montpelier, Barre, and Waterbury.

# # #

http://www.fund.org

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:20:02 -0700
From: Coral Hull <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Guardians Media Release (Australia)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subject:
            GUARDIANS MEDIA RELEASE
       Date:
            Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:56:04 +1000
       From:
            Guardians - A Group Exposing Vivisection
<[e-mail]>
Organization:
            Guardians - A Group Exposing Vivisection
         To:
            [e-mail]


GUARDIANS MEDIA RELEASE
DAFFODIL DAY - DEMAND A CHANGE. at
http://www.werple.net.au/~antiviv/new.htm
Guardians, a mojor Australian group dedicated to exposing vivisection
slams the Anti-Cancer Council's funding of animal research.

http://www.werple.net.au/~antiviv/new.htm
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 01:18:36 +0200
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The General Motors kills animals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I am Nuria from Barcelona.
I have just found out about the terrible experiments that The general
Motors does on animals. You can read about it here:
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/ranch/1231/generalmotors.htm
Thanks a lot for your concern. For the animals,

Nuria  http://www.geocities.com/heartland/hills/3787
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 23:15:26 -0300
From: Ty Savoy <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: US Importing Canadian Grizzlys ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

                        Monday, August 18,
                                1997

                            The Halifax Herald
Limited


            U.S. ponders bear imports

            By BOB WEBER / The Canadian Press

            Edmonton - Importing Canadian grizzly bears is the best way to
help restore the animal to an American wilderness where they were once
hunted to extinction, a U.S. study concludes.

            The study, dated July, recommends that up to 15 bears over five
years be moved from British Columbia to the Bitterroot Mountains of central
Idaho and western Montana.

            "That's the biggest piece of wild country we have left," said
Chris Servheen, who
            is in charge of the project for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. "It's a huge potential habitat."

            But a coalition of 49 environmental groups on both sides of the
border opposes the transfer, saying Canada has no bears to spare.

            "We have to know the source population is stable," said Mike
Sawyer of the Rocky Mountain Ecosystem Coalition.

            "We can't say that about any Canadian population. Everything
points to declining populations."

            The plan is the preferred option among four alternatives in the
study. It will go before public hearings Aug. 27-29.

            Although the British Columbia government will take no stand on
the plan until it gets a formal request for bears, the province is already
talking about it with the Americans.

            "There have been informal discussions," said Matt Austin, a
large carnivore specialist with the B.C. environment ministry.

            The plan suggests bringing about 25 bears to the Bitterroots
over five years, half from B.C. and half from U.S. sources. Alberta, which
has relatively few grizzlies, will not supply bears.

            The animals would be brought to the centre region of the
Bitterroots and allowed to range over a wide area that borders on cities
such as Missoula, Mont., and Coeur d'Alene, Ida.

            The bears would be considered an experimental and not threatened
population, said Servheen. Experimental status gives the department more
flexibility to manage the bears while still protecting them, said Servheen.

            "In terms of killing, there's almost no difference between
experimental status and fully listed (as threatened)," he said.

            Only a bear on private land destroying private property could be
shot, said Servheen. Even then, the landowner could only shoot the bear
after Fish and Wildlife failed to fix the problem.

            The plan recalls a controversial 1995 transfer of wolves from
Alberta to Yellowstone National Park. That transfer is now considered a success.

            But like those wolves, any transplanted bears are likely to face
an uncertain welcome.

            Servheen acknowledges widespread public fear of grizzlies. In
1996, the Idaho state legislature passed a motion opposing reintroduction.

            The plan admits some of the transplanted bears would likely die
as a result of the move.

            Although Austin says no studies have been done into the
long-term effects of transferring bears, he adds that grizzly numbers are
stable in the south part of the province.

            But Sawyer maintains that mining, oil and gas exploration and
forestry in both Alberta and B.C. are encroaching on grizzly habitat at
near-record levels. The effects of that development are unknown, he says.

            "You don't conserve bears unless you conserve habitat...You have
to put constraints on human economic activity and nobody seems to want to do
that.

            "If (the Americans) want our bears, maybe they should be willing
to fund the research to make the case that our bears can support the transfer."

            There's something about bears that stirs up controversy, Austin
says.

            "Grizzly bears are always a delicate issue. There's a lot of
factors to be weighed here."