Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news64~1.htm/text0002.txt

Text File | 1998-04-02 | 47.4 KB | 1,212 lines

In response to requests for an example of a letter to send to the Oregon Supreme Court asking
them to reconsider their decision not to review the Nadas case, I am posting the following.
Feel free to either modify or use in its entirety.

Letters can be mailed to the address below, or faxed to:
1-503-986-5560

____________________________
Honorable Justices
Oregon Supreme Court
1163 State Street
Salem, OR 97310

To the Honorable Justices:

I am writing to urge you to reconsider your recent decision not to review the
case of Sean Roach vs. Jackson County in the matter of the dog Nadas.
I believe there are significant legal issues to be decided in this case, and it is
also a case of considerable public interest.

1. Mr. Roach's dog was seized without a warrant while confined at Mr. Roach's
residence.

2. The administrative hearing under which Mr. Roach's dog was condemned did not
provide for due process of law.

3. The statute under which Mr. Roach's dog was condemned is vague in its interpretation
of the term "chasing".

4. In implementation of this law , the burden of proof is not on the accuser, but instead is
placed on the accused.

5. We the public are outraged that a government body can arbitrarily impose such a severe
penalty which does not fit the nature of the infraction, and then cover up the issue by attempting
to launch a public smear attack against the dog owner. Such mean spirited action on the part
of government diminishes public confidence in our legal system and does a great disservice to
the state of Oregon.

Please review this case and visit these issues.

Sincerely yours,

________________


Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 03:06:26 -0800
From: Mesia Quartano <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (US) FBI Statements re: "Special Interest Terrorist Groups"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION  BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

SUBJECT - THREATS TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28,
1998

(Federal News Service --  Congr Hearings; 01/28/98)

(snip -- topics unrelated to AR)

Special Interest Terrorist Groups:

Special interest terrorist groups engage in criminal activity to bring
about specific, narrowly-focused social or political changes. They
differ from more traditional domestic terrorist groups which seek
more wide-ranging political changes. It is their willingness to commit
criminal acts that separate special interest terrorist groups from other
law-abiding groups that often support the same popular issues. By
committing criminal acts, these terrorists believe they can force
various segments of society to change attitudes about issues considered
important to them. The existence of these types of groups often does not
come to law enforcement attention until after an
act is committed and the individual or group leaves a claim of
responsibility.

Membership in a group may be limited to a very small number of
co-conspirators or associates. Consequently, acts committed by special
interest terrorists present unique challenges to the FBI and other law
enforcement agencies. An example of special interest terrorist activity
is the February 2, 1992, arson of the mink research facility at Michigan
State University. Rodney Coronado, an animal rights activist, pled
guilty to arson charges on July 3, 1995. Other
acts of violence against animal enterprises have occurred recently and
are under investigation.

(snip -- other topics unrelated to AR)

CONCLUSION:

On July 26, 1998, the FBI will celebrate its 90th birthday. The FBI has
been a remarkable institution for many reasons, not the least of which
has been its ability to remake itself to address new challenges to U.S.
national security and criminal justice. On behalf of the men and women
of' the FBI who work tirelessly toward protecting
the American people against the threats we are discussing here today, I
wish to thank this Committee for its support. I am certain that our
efforts will justify your commitment and confidence in this important
area of the FBI's responsibility.


Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:20:06 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Animal GE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Forwarded on to AR-news by Marguerite ([e-mail])

Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:45:16 -0800 (PST)
From: MichaelP <[e-mail]>
Subject: gen down on the pharm

London Times   January 26 1998 BRITAIN
  =20
   Nigel Hawkes looks at the implications of using genetically modified
   farmyard animals to compete with the pharmaceutical industry giants
  =20
   Dr James Robl, right, pictured with Steven Stice of Advanced Cell
   Technology, discussing the plans for the calves George and Charlie
  =20
   Drugs factory down on the pharm
  =20
   DRUG factories of the future will walk around on four legs and eat
   hay, according to the pioneers of "pharming", a new type of farming. A
   dozen goats, a flock of sheep or a few cows, modified by the insertion
   of a human gene, can produce as much as a large modern manufacturing
   plant costing tens of millions of pounds.
  =20
   Two products made in this way are already in clinical trials, with
   dozens more likely to follow. As well as promising cheaper drugs for
   the many, pharming offers hope to the few people with diseases so rare
   that pharmaceutical companies cannot justify producing remedies.
  =20
   The newest animals down on the pharm are two calves, George and
   Charlie, which have been cloned from foetal cells and incorporate
   human genes. Their births were announced last week at a conference in
   Boston by scientists from Advanced Cell Technology and the University
   of Massachusetts. George and Charlie prove that techniques proved on
   sheep and goats will also work with cows.
  =20
   One of the scientists, Dr James Robl, said that the technique was
   "repeatable and commercially viable". A single cow carrying the gene
   for human serum albumin, used in blood transfusions, could produce
   80kg a year in its milk, worth =A3150,000.
  =20
   Animals are not the only means of producing drugs or vaccines: plants
   can also be modified so that their leaves, seeds, fruit or tubers
   contain active materials. Dr Iain Cubitt, of Axis Genetics, a
   Cambridge company that has produced a vaccine against parvovirus in
   dogs using the cowpea, says that plant-based vaccine production would
   not only be simpler but "orders of magnitude" cheaper than today's
   complex procedures.
  =20
   Dutch researchers have engineered rabbits to produce an enzyme to
   treat people with the rare genetic Pompe's disease. They believe milk
   from 200 rabbits would produce enough to satisfy world demand.
  =20
   Most drugs consist of fairly small molecules created by chemists and
   manufactured synthetically. Animals cannot make these but they can
   make biological products - hormones, proteins and enzymes - that have
   a growing role in medicine but are so complex that they cannot be
   synthesised.
  =20
   Three companies own most of the important patents on transgenic animal
   technology: PPL Therapeutics, set up to exploit research at the Roslin
   research institute in Edinburgh where the cloned lambs Dolly and Polly
   were produced; Genzyme Transgenics, of Framingham, Massachusetts; and
   Pharming Holding NV, based in Leiden in The Netherlands. Advanced Cell
   Technology is a relative newcomer run by Steve Parkinson, a Scot who
   in the early 1990s was sales manager at PPL but then left to join
   Genzyme before setting up on his own.
  =20
   Over the past year Genzyme has made a string of announcements as it
   has successfully incorporated human genes for a variety of products
   into mice. These include human growth hormone, used for treating
   growth deficiency in children and a wasting condition linked to Aids,
   the market for which is worth $1.1 billion a year. Genzyme has also
   produced beta-interferon, a natural product used to treat multiple
   sclerosis.
  =20
   Mice do not produce practical amounts of a drug but they are a quick
   and cheap way of proving the technology. The genes can then be
   incorporated into sheep, goats or cows, "bioreactors that eat hay", in
   the words of Harry Meade, a vice-president of Genzyme.
  =20
   In a recent issue of Nature Biotechnology, he and Carol Ziomek, also
   from Genzyme, gave a breakdown of the costs of producing human growth
   hormone in cows. One cow, yielding 10,000 litres of milk a year, would
   produce 10kg of growth hormone. If it cost $10,000 a year to keep the
   cow, the hormone would be produced at $1 a gram, thousands of times
   cheaper than present production.
  =20
   Milk is not the only bodily fluid that can be used to yield drugs. In
   the same issue of Nature Biotechnology, a team led by Dr Robert Wall
   of the US Department of Agriculture reported that they had produced
   mice that generated human growth hormone in the lining of their
   bladder, so that it appeared in their urine. Since urine contains
   little protein, extracting the product may be simpler than from milk
   but production levels appear lower, at least in these experiments.
  =20
   Of the two pharmed products in clinical trials, one is alpha 1
   antitrypsin, produced by Roslin/PPL and intended for the treatment of
   patients with cystic fibrosis. The other is antithrombin III, made by
   Genzyme in goats, which is a blood plasma protein with many uses in
   the treatment of accident victims or those having organ transplants or
   hip implants.
  =20
   Products from milk should be safer than those derived from human blood
   donations because they will not run a risk of passing on human viruses
   such as HIV or hepatitis. But extreme care will have to be taken to
   ensure that animal viruses are not transmitted.
  =20
     The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has announced that it plans to
   hold a new inquiry into the genetic modificatiuon of plants that will
   include both practical and ethical implications. The working party
   will be chaired by Professor Alan Ryan, the Warden of New College,
   Oxford.
  =20
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. **


Bob Phelps
Director
Australian GeneEthics Network
c/- ACF 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy. 3065 Australia
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] {Int Code (613)}
email: [e-mail]
WWW: http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet  (under construction)
=====================================================================
========
                   /`\   /`\    Rabbit Information Service,
Tom, Tom,         (/\ \-/ /\)   P.O.Box 30,
The piper's son,     )6 6(      Riverton,
Saved a pig        >{= Y =}<    Western Australia 6148
And away he run;    /'-^-'\
So none could eat  (_)   (_)    email: [e-mail]
The pig so sweet    |  .  |
Together they ran   |     |}    http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
Down the street.    \_/^\_/    (Rabbit Information Service website updated
                                frequently)

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
       - Voltaire




Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:22:47 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: ACTION IDEA: Debate the proponents re GE food
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

ACTION IDEAS!

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:27:31 EST
From: KMorrisD <[e-mail]>
Subject: Usenet Newsgroups

My recent message concerning Food Nazis/Fascists was posted to:

        sci.agriculture, sci.bio.food-science, and sci.bio-technology.

It has started some interesting discussion/debate.

These newsgroups
are open to everyone, although most people posting to them are
involved with industry in some way.  Some of the postings to
these newsgroups concern genetic engineering, but there's little
opposition.  They don't hear from the people who have to eat the
products that they invent, grow and market.

What do you say we try to change that?

If you don't know how to access these newsgroups, ask you ISP how
to do this on your system.  Speak up!  Speak out!

On a related topic:  A big part of the reason that genetic
engineers have been able to get away with all their tricks is
that they have been allowed to work in isolation from the rest
of society.

They commute between their suburban homes and their
laboratories and that's it.  They're totally isolated and
insulated.  If you know people involved in the GE industry in
your community, how about exposing them?  How about letting them
know that you know--and letting their neighbors know too?

What they are doing should not be allowed to proceed in anonymity
and secrecy.  Genetic engineering should not be a socially
acceptable career choice.  It should be as or more controversial
than nuclear engineering.

Karl Davies
People Against Corporate Takeover
Northampton, MA


Bob Phelps
Director
Australian GeneEthics Network
c/- ACF 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy. 3065 Australia
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] {Int Code (613)}
email: [e-mail]
WWW: http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet  (under construction)


=====================================================================
========
                   /`\   /`\    Rabbit Information Service,
Tom, Tom,         (/\ \-/ /\)   P.O.Box 30,
The piper's son,     )6 6(      Riverton,
Saved a pig        >{= Y =}<    Western Australia 6148
And away he run;    /'-^-'\
So none could eat  (_)   (_)    email: [e-mail]
The pig so sweet    |  .  |
Together they ran   |     |}    http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
Down the street.    \_/^\_/    (Rabbit Information Service website updated
                                frequently)

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
       - Voltaire




Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:24:06 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (USA)Organic food charade
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:21:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "A. Gayle Hudgens, Ph.D." <[e-mail]>
Subject: The National *Organic* Charade

The following article
was published January 22, 1998, in the _Hays Country Free
Press_ (a small Texas weekly).  It may also be archived on
The Simple Living Network before too long. http://slnet.com
- ---

The National "Organic" Charade
Genetically Manipulated Organisms and Sewer Sludge in Food
by A. Gayle Hudgens, Ph.D.              c1998

        After failing miserably to fix the problem of
contaminated foods (especially at packing plants) which
the Centers for Disease Control estimates causes illness
for 30 million Americans and death for more than 9,000
each year, the U S Department of Agriculture may have
blown it again.  This time, swayed by lobbyists for
corporate science and technology, the USDA now seemingly
wants to befoul healthy, safe, organic food.   As you
readmthis,  the most formidable technology ever devised --genetically
manipulated (or modified) organisms (GMO),
also known as genetically engineered (GE) food and
euphemistically as "biotechnology"--is being deployed
around the world with no attention to the repercussions
to health, society, all our futures.

        This might be fine and dandy were we assured of
the need for and safety of this new technology.  It,
however, strikes out  wretchedly in the needs category.
As Daniel Quinn, author of _Ishmael_ and the  _Story of
B_, has said,

"Unlike deer, which decline in number when their
increased population strains their food supply, we
humans grow more food when our population
increases... [furthermore] The starving millions are
used as an excuse for us to increase our food
production, yet the surplus does not reach the
starving millions."

        In the safety arena, the agricultural industrial
complex is equally clueless.  No one knows whether GMO
technology will alter Nature, cause more resistance in
antibiotics, jump to wild or other plant species, or cause
harm to bees, beneficial insects, pets, humans.  As Dr.
Suzanne Wuerthele, a nationally known expert in toxicology
and risk assessment in these matters, asserts:

"There is  no process--across all U.S. federal agencies--
to evaluate the hazards of GE organisms,... no formal risk
assessment methodologies.  No science policies....  No
understanding of the full range of  hazards from GE organisms."

        Moreover, she maintains  that GMO is being "promoted,
in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the
face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be
protecting human health and the environment."
Most damning, she says, concerned scientists "are told  to be silent."

        This is not what Congress intended in 1990 when it
passed the Organic Foods  Production Act, to which the USDA
was supposed to have given life via rules, regulations, and standards by
1993.  It's 1998 and they still haven't done so.

        Hays County farmer Steve Sprinkel calls this Act
"The  Mouse That Roared."  The certified organic grower and respected
national leader in organic foods production contends that

"when USDA finally attempted to implement the little
thing, when they really started to figure out what
organic farming implies about conventional agriculture
and food safety, there was no recourse but to set a
trap for it by  creating an implementation procedure
that would kill it."

        Thus, in some Brave New World Order of doublespeak,
the USDA seems to be collapsing the distinction between organic and
non-organic foods.  Contrary to the spirit of the 1990 Act,
USDA has left the door open to foods that are
        1) grown in toxic sewage sludge (most of which not
only contains germs of pandemic proportions but often
industrial heavy metals like cadmium, mercury, and 31
varieties of radioactive materials);
        2) factory-farmed (where cows, etc., are raised in
such cramped conditions that they become ill, and are then
force-fed large amounts of antibiotics, chemicals to kill
larvae, flies, and other pests,  and a concoction made from
their ground-up diseased and dead neighbors--the last
practice of which studies have shown contribute to the rise
of Mad Cow Disease);
        3)  irradiated (what else can be done with all that nuclear waste!);
and
        4) genetically engineered, the most recent _sine qua
non_ of Big Agriculture.  With this lack of commitment to
public health, is it any wonder that millions are getting
sick and thousands are dying annually?  Sounds like a perverse sci-fi plot
to control population!

        Judy Kew, also of Hays County, agrees with Ronnie
Cummins of the Pure Foods Campaign who says this is nothing
short of  an "unfriendly take over" of the natural foods
industry by agribusiness, chemical-biotech corporations, and
giant supermarket chains.  Judy transformed her initial disgust into a vital
organization, Texas Consumers for Safe Food,
which works to save organic standards and to educate people
about GE foods.

        Kew, Sprinkel, Wuerthele, and countless others
concerned about the gutting of  organic standards will tell
you: the single most important thing you can do to stop this horrendous
charade is to write (with a copy to your congressperson) and express your
concerns to

Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator
USDA-AMS-TM-NOP,
Room 4007-So.
Ag. Stop 0275
P.O. Box 96456
Washington, DC 20090-6456

Docket #TMD-94-00-2  (Be sure to include this docket number
or your letter won't count).

If you want more information or help in composing your letter, check out
Whole Foods on the Web at
http://www.wholefoods.com/wfm/healthinfo/bioengineering.html
or call Sprinkel at 512.328.7922 or E-mail [e-mail].  Do it
today!
It's the People vs. the Brave New World Order.

###

Garden Gab Column, Hays County Free Press, Jan. 22, 1998
A. Gayle Hudgens, Ph.D., c1998  All rights reserved.
May be freely transmitted if all copyright data is left intact.
[e-mail]


Bob Phelps
Director
Australian GeneEthics Network
c/- ACF 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy. 3065 Australia
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] {Int Code (613)}
email: [e-mail]
WWW: http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfgenet  (under construction)


=====================================================================
========
                   /`\   /`\    Rabbit Information Service,
Tom, Tom,         (/\ \-/ /\)   P.O.Box 30,
The piper's son,     )6 6(      Riverton,
Saved a pig        >{= Y =}<    Western Australia 6148
And away he run;    /'-^-'\
So none could eat  (_)   (_)    email: [e-mail]
The pig so sweet    |  .  |
Together they ran   |     |}    http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
Down the street.    \_/^\_/    (Rabbit Information Service website updated
                                frequently)

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
       - Voltaire




Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:18:46 -0800 (PST)
From: "Christine M. Wolf" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (US) Bird-baiting letter
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

FYI - H.R. 741 has been re-written and is now H.R. 2863.  Please use that
bill number in correspondence regarding Don Young's baiting bill.

Watch our website and newsletter for updates on this issue.

******************************************************************
Christine Wolf, Director of Government Affairs
    The Fund for Animalsphone: 301-585-2591
     World Buildingfax:   301-585-2595
   8121 Georgia Ave., Suite 301e-mail: [e-mail]
    Silver Spring, MD 20910web page: www.fund.org

"The fate of animals is of greater importance to me than the fear of
appearing ridiculous; it is indissolubly connected with the fate of men."
         - Emile Zola

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:22:13 -0800
From: Bob Chorush <[e-mail]>
To: "'[e-mail]'" <[e-mail]>
Subject: LFA SONAR - TOO LOUD TO ALLOW
Message-ID: <0036E62F4D76D111AD4B004095020B36CE11@EXCHANGE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

I am posting the following for someone else, so please direct
communications with her (email at the end of this message) rather than
responding to the sender.

Ocean Mammal Institute -  Science Protecting Nature
LFA SONAR - TOO LOUD TO ALLOW

The Navy?s LOW FREQUENCY ACTIVE PROGRAM (LFA) will be used to detect
enemy submarines.  Sonar pulses between 230 and 250 decibels will be
broadcast in U.S. coastal waters and ocean sites worldwide.  A sound of
this intensity is very dangerous to all marine life and especially to
dolphins and endangered whales whose most important sense for survival
is hearing.

- Standing next to a jet engine at take-off is 140 decibels.  LFA sonar
at 235 decibels is 100,000 times louder than a jet engine.
- Sounds of 170 decibels cause generalized tissue damage to the human
body (Environmental Protection Agency, 1974).  Noise above 155 decibels
causes immediate ear damage in humans.
- The pressure wave from LFA sonar can cause tissue damage and
hemorrhage in whales and dolphins.  Even 5 to 10 miles from the sound
source LFA will be about 150 decibels.  This noise level can seriously
damage the hearing of whales and dolphins which will interfere with
their ability to communicate, navigate, and find mates.

LFA sonar will be tested in Hawaii this winter to study its effect on
the endangered humpback whale.  A team, hired by the Navy, will monitor
the effects of this loud sound on the whales.  Over the past few years
the Navy hired scientists to monitor the effects of 195 decibel sound on
whales.  The Navy reported no negative effects from the sound even
thought 3 dead humpback whales were found after testing the 195 decibel
sound in California and one dead whale was found after testing at 195
decibels in Kauai this fall.

Help to fund an independent research team to monitor the LFA sonar on
humpack whales during the Hawaiian test which is scheduled within the
next few weeks.

Please call or write your congressional representatives now on this
issue.

For more information, contact Dr. Marsha Green at The Ocean Mammal
Institute, [e-mail].

www.oceanmammalist.com
P.O. Box 14422, Reading, PA 19610.

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:53:20 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Carter-Long)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Probe planned of endocrine disrupters
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Probably worth an inquiry to find out what type
of tests they are planning to do.

-Lawrence

=====================================

Worldwide probe planned of endocrine disrupters
 Thursday, January 29, 1998

 Representatives from industrialized countries
 have  agreed to establish international testing and
 assessment strategies for chemicals that are
 suspected of possibly disrupting the endocrine
 systems of humans and wildlife, according to the
 Endocrine/Estrogen Letter.

 The chemical industry and national governments
 are investing millions of dollars to determine if trace
 quantities of synthetic chemicals that are used in
 plastics, detergents, pesticides and other products
 adversely impact the endocrine systems of humans
 or wildlife. There is widespread concern that such
 endocrine disruption could reduce male fertility,
 cause cancers and reduce the intelligence and
 mental health of children.

 Herman Koter, principal administrator of the
 Environmental Health and Safety Division the
 Organization for Economic Cooperation and
 Development, said that national coordinators from
 OECD members have agreed to work together to
 develop common approaches to testing for
 endocrine disruption.

 As a first step, the OECD is establishing an Endocrine
 Disrupter Testing and Assessment Working Group,
 which will hold its first meeting on March 9-10 in Paris.
 The work group will consist of 25-35 people, including
 representatives from governments, non-governmental
 organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, labor
 unions and industry.

 At the March meeting, the EDTA Working Group "will
 consider first of all which [endocrine disrupter-sensitive]
 endpoints need to be validated before they can be added
 to existing test guidelines and which new endpoints are
 sufficiently established to draft into new test guidelines.
 They will also consider the selection of tests that  could
 be the first screen," that chemicals would be subjected to,
 Koter said.

 OECD nations have agreed that a series of current OECD
  test guidelines should be revised and updated to cover
 endpoints that are important to the assessment of endocrine
 disruption. Industry representatives have  offered to validate
 those endpoints in systemic toxicity tests.

 The EPA is currently working with an advisory committee to
 develop a screening and testing strategy for  endocrine disrupting
 chemicals. The EPA is working closely with the OECD in an
 attempt to ensure that U.S.   policies are similar to those adopted
 by other industrialized nations, according to EPA officials.

 For more information, contact the Endocrine/Estrogen Letter,
 email: [e-mail].

Story by ENN Affiliate The Green Business Letter

Copyright 1998, Environmental News Network, All Rights
Reserved

Thank you for your interest in ENN Newswire, a FREE
service of the Environmental News Network. Please
pass this package along to others who may find it of
interest.

Email : [e-mail]

=========================================

Lawrence Carter-Long
Science and Research Issues, Animal Protection Institute
email: [e-mail], phone: [phone] x. 215
world wide web: http://www.api4animals.org/

"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause
comedy in the streets?" - Dick Cavett

-----Long, but Important Warning Notice -----

My email address is: [e-mail]

LEGAL NOTICE: Anyone sending unsolicited commercial
email to this address will be charged a $500 proofreading
fee. This is an official notification; failure to abide by this
will result in  legal action, as per the following:

By U.S. Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
 meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
 advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section
 is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or
 $500, whichever is greater, by each violation.



Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:16:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Letters Needed--St. Louis Cemetary Deer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

 People who want to respond in writing to proposals on what to do with the
deer herd at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetary have until February 11 to
submit their letters.
  They should write to:  Jefferson Barracks Environmental Assessment, USDA-
APHIS-WS, 2407 Industrial Drive, Columbia, MO  65202-1862.
  Federal officials say they will probably make a decision in March on how to
handle the growing deer herd.  Officials have proposed culling the herd by
using police sharpshooters or trapping the deer and euthanizing them.

cecily westermann
(source--St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:48:38 -0600
From: "Alliance for Animals" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: ZOO COMM MTG FRIDAY AM!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

HURRY and make those important calls tonight!
Thanks.

!URGENT! ZOO COMMISSION MEETING FRIDAY, JAN 30TH, 7:00AM!

Please Contact the following committee members who are assigned to
work on Resolution 241: Directing the Zoo Commission and Zoo Director
to Develop options to retain the monkey colonies at the Henry Vilas
Zoo.
 Ask that they work to keep the Vilas Monkeys here in Madison.  We
 know it takes time to make so many calls, but if we fail to generate
 enough phone calls, the monkeys are sure to be sent to Tulane Primate
 Research Facility where they will be used in invasive research.
They do NOT deserve such a fate.
We CAN still work to keep them safe!

       Zoo Commission
Name, District
   Karen West, Chair,Hm:273-0061
   Gail Goode,Hm:836-8618
    Jonathan Becker,11Hm:238-7076Wk:267-0647
   Linda ScheidHm:838-8245
     Paul FrancoisHm:424-3979Wk:257-3674
     Napoleon SmithHm:255-6468Wk:266-4071
   Philip O'LearyHm:274-0646
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:41:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Nicola Thompson <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: request for animal issues college programs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

hello all, i'm sorry if this is not the right forum for a request.  please
respond to me directly rather than to the group...

i'd like to know what colleges in the usa and canada offer programs related
to animal rights, such as ethics/philosophy (directly tied in to animals),
law, behavioural studies, etc.  i'm providing career guidance to some high
school students and want to make these options available to them.

many thanks,
nicola thompson

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:51:58 -0500
From: Jeri Giesler <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: FCC Message
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This is to inform you of a very important matter currently under review by
the FCC.  Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to
impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your
usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network.

E-Mail, in my opinion, will diminish if users were required to pay
additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your
comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1998. Send your
comments to "[e-mail]" and tell them what you think. Every phone company
is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire
for litigation. Let everyone you know hear about this one.

Get this e-mail address to everyone you can think of.

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:58:35 -0500
From: "Bina Robinson" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mexican wolves out of cages
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mexican wolves return to Arizona wild for first time in decades
by Kate Hunger, AP writer  in "The Evening Tribune" Hornell NY  January
28,1998

Hannigan Meadow, Ariz--The female and her 9-month-old pup bounded into the
enclosure, scouting the relative freedom of their new home--a snow-covered
patch of of rugged wilderness in the Southwest.

The male wolf was more cautious, remaining in his kennel and trying to
avoid the eyes of spectators watching the Mexican gray wolf's return to the
Wild Monday, decades after it disappeared from the forets of Arizona and
New Mexico.

The releases brought out similar emotions to those engendered by the
high-profile 1995 introduction of its cousin , the norther gray wolf, to
Yellostone Natinal Park and central Idaho.  Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt and environmentalists cheered the release.  Dozens of ranchers
protested the return.

They are hamstringing me with these endangered species," said Tim Robart,
who has a cattle ranch in the Blue Range of eastern Arizona, about 20 miles
from one of the release sites.

The wolves brought here Monday--one of three families to be released this
year--will remain in their one-third acre (roughly the equivalent in
whatever shape of 130 ft. x 130 ft.) fenced enclosure while they get used
to their surroundings in the Apache National Forest.  The program calls for
establishing a population of 100 in the Apache and Gila and national
forests of Arizona and New Mexico, drawn from a captive breeding program.

"It was hard to keep from screaming." said Bobbie Holiday, the executive
director  of Preserve Arizona's Wolves who helped carry one of the kennels
into the pen.  I just wanted to burst out of my skin."

The Mexican gray wolf, also known as the lobo, was trapped, shot and
poisoned to virtual extinction.

It was placed on the Endangered Species List in 1976, just before the last
wild lobo seen in this country was found dead at the southern tip of the
Arizona-New Mexico line.

The last wild lobo was seen in Mexico in 1980.  All Mexican gray wolves
come from a handful captured in Mexico in the late 1970's and raised in
captivity in zoos from both countries.

The U.S. government estimated the recovery program will cost more than $6
million.  It promised to pay ranchers for any livestock losses attributed
to wolves.

"These wolves, if they're managed properly, can be pretty good neighbors,"
Babbitt said.  "There's room enough and space enough."

Some people being asked to share the space believe the wolves will feast on
their cattle, the area's mule deer and even their dogs.

Bobby Fite, who raises sheep and cows in Alpine, said the government asked
to hear their concerns and then ignored them.

"The say they want local input, but then Big Brother comes in and does it
anyway." he said.

I'd like to see the wolves in the environmentalists' back yards," added
Alpine Chamber of Commerce President Margaret Lock.

Authorities admit their challenge is to build trust in the community.  But
Babbitt said returning the wolves to the wild can right the wrongs done to
the lobos over the years.

"I grew up in this country," he said. "I always had a sense something was
missing."  -30-


Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:37:54 -0500
From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (US) Oprah employee: Beef critic was the better guest
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from @marillo Globe-News http://www.amarillonet.com/oprah/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Web posted Thursday, January 29, 1998 6:20 p.m. CT

Oprah employee: Beef critic was the better guest
Cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey

By CHIP CHANDLER
Globe-News Staff Writer

An employee of Oprah Winfrey was told to tell vegetarian activist Howard
Lyman to "hammer home" his beliefs but never got a chance to do so,
according to testimony today.

Ray Dotch, an associate producer of "The Oprah Winfrey Show," also said he
thought Lyman was a better guest than Dr. Gary Weber of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Dotch said he made a notation on his to-do list to tell Lyman he needed to
"strongly express his opinion." He said he was told by his immediate
supervisor to talk with Lyman if he got a chance, but Dotch said he never
did.

He said he thought Lyman should hammer his point home because Lyman was
outnumbered.

"There were two people with one opinion and one person with another
opinion, so since it was two against one, we wanted to make sure it wasn't
lopsided," Dotch said.

Lyman faced off against Weber and Dr. William Hueston of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, who also testified in the case this week.

Dotch said that he still felt the show was balanced, even though he thought
Lyman was "more TV savvy."

Jurors watched Dotch testify in a videotaped deposition filmed last year.

Dotch said he was in charge of researching some segments of the show,
including a woman who said she thought her mother-in-law died of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease that she contracted by eating beef in England.

There have been no confirmed cases in America of CJD that is related to
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.

The woman, Linda Marler, and her mother-in-law's doctor both appeared on
the episode that prompted the lawsuit.

Attorneys asked Dotch whether he thought it should have been pointed out
that there was no scientific evidence to say whether the woman got CJD from
eating beef.

"It was made clear that was a possibility," Dotch said. "The fact that it
was a possibility meant that it could be or it couldn't be."

Dotch also said he did not consider if the show would have an effect on the
cattle market.

"For my purpose on the show, this wasn't important for me to know," he
said.

Dotch was the second witness to testify in the trial by video deposition.
His testimony followed similar testimony by another associate producer,
Andrea Wishom.

Wishom said Lyman was not the only guest considered for the show that
opposed eating beef.

Wishom said she talked with another vegetarian activist, but "I didn't ask
him because I thought he might communicate some of his views, he might
scare our viewers. He seemed a little extreme, and he had an agenda - that
beef wasn't good - and I wasn't sure he saw a way for it to be good."

But Wishom said the show was not concerned about the biases of Lyman and
Weber.

"What we do is present a forum for different opinions and ideas," she said.
She said both Weber and Lyman had knowledge about the issue and good
communications skills.

Wishom was questioned by plaintiffs' attorneys about how guests were
chosen; what she knew about the guests; how much research she conducted;
and what she knew about BSE. In many instances, she replied she knew only
what she was told by those she interviewed.

When asked whether she knew anything about Lyman before calling him, she
said no, but during the call she learned "he was passionate, and he seemed
knowledgeable."

Attorneys asked what he seemed passionate about, to which she said what he
thought were bad practices such as feeding cows to cows. She considered him
knowledgeable because he was a former cattle rancher.

Wishom agreed she did not talk to any other cattle ranchers before taping
the show.

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:38:08 -0500
From: allen schubert <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (US) Producer considered other guest
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

from @marillo Globe-News http://www.amarillonet.com/oprah/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Web posted Thursday, January 29, 1998 2:05 p.m. CT

Producer considered other guest
Cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey

By KAY LEDBETTER
Globe-News Farm and Ranch Editor

Howard Lyman was not the only guest considered for the April 16 Oprah
Winfrey show that opposed eating beef, according to an associate producer
of Harpo Productions Inc.

Andrea Wishom, in a taped deposition played this morning to the jury in the
cattleman vs. Oprah Winfrey trial, said another individual was visited
with, but "I didn't ask him because I thought he might communicate some of
his views, he might scare our viewers. He seemed a little extreme, and he
had an agenda - that beef wasn't good - and I wasn't sure he saw a way for
it to be good."

Wishom was questioned by plaintiffs' attorneys about how guests were
chosen; what she knew about the guests; how much research she conducted;
and what she knew about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. In many instances
she replied she knew only what she was told.

When asked whether she knew anything about Lyman before calling him, she
said no, but during the call she learned "he was passionate, and he seemed
knowledgeable."

Attorneys asked what he seemed passionate about, to which she said what he
thought were bad practices such as feeding cows to cows. She considered him
knowledgeable because he was a former cattle rancher.

Wishom agreed she did not talk to any other cattle ranchers before taping
the show.

Tears flowed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court as a weary Dr. William
Hueston explained he meant no racial inferences when he referred to a
"lynch-mob mentality" during earlier testimony.

The plaintiffs' expert witness had used the term during his Tuesday
testimony, describing how he felt at the taping of "The Oprah Winfrey
Show," on which he was a guest.

Hueston, a former U.S. Department of Agriculture employee and a leading
expert in bovine spongiform encephalopathy, said he had expected to appear
on the show as the "calming voice" on the mad cow issue being discussed.
Instead, he said he was dismayed and disappointed with the tone the show
took.

Defense attorney Charles Babcock aggressively questioned Hueston during
Wednesday morning's cross examination. At one point, he asked if Hueston
knew where the term "lynch mob" originated. Babcock said the term first was
used in reference to keeping slaves under control.

"Did you mean to imply there were people with ropes, clubs and torches," in
the audience, Babcock asked.

Plaintiff lawyer Joe Coyne, in redirect Wednesday afternoon, asked Hueston
to tell him about his family background.

Hueston openly wept, often struggling to make words come out, as he
explained how his father was active in the civil rights movement. He said
his father would take him to "the black side of town" to meet people there
and learn that "people were people and it didn't matter the color of their
skin."

Hueston apologized to Winfrey in the courtroom. He said he did not intend
to imply anything racial with the term.

Coyne asked Hueston if he were trying to conjure up images of black people
being prosecuted.

"I was not. It was an analogy from my own experience about how I felt,"
Hueston said.

Asked whether he had ever faced a lynch mob, Hueston said as a civil rights
worker, he had come home one night and had a Ku Klux Klan sticker on his
mailbox, a bullet hole through his window and cars driving slowly past the
house. He crawled on his hands and knees to call a sheriff who refused to
come out and help, he testified.

In other questioning, Coyne also addressed Babcock's assertion that Hueston
would say anything for money, since he is being paid $1,500 a day. Hueston
said he could just as easily have been the defense's expert witness.

Asked whether he knew how much Babcock's expert witness will be paid,
Hueston said $350 an hour for preparation time, $500 an hour while on the
stand, not to exceed $4,000 per day. Hueston said the other expert told him
Hueston wasn't charging enough.

As Coyne neared the end of his questioning, he said "Sir, it's been a rough
day for you." Hueston said "That's an understatement."



</pre>



     <!-- END OF PAGE CONTENT -->







     <!-- 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/msgs21.htm#2179" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/cgi-bin/relocate.cgi?http%3a//www.outpost.com/promos/valentines/%2aCyberian+Outpost" target=_top><img
src="../../SUPPORT/BANNERS/OTHERS/CYBERIAN/2VALENT.GIF" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/support/banners/others/cyberian/2valent.gif" border=1
alt="Cyberian Outpost"></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>









</BODY>







</HTML>