I finally got around to reading the article about the LAPD’s crackdown on animal cruelty which was in last Sunday’s Los Angeles Times. According to the article, animal cruelty charges were up 50% from 2007 so the LAPD’s crackdown is actually having some results. The cases they cite in the article are heartbreaking, but it’s nice to know that LA Animal Services and the LAPD are being a bit proactive in the cases against animal abusers. You can read the full article here.

The LA Times is reporting that The Los Angeles City Council today temporarily halted construction of the Los Angeles Zoo’s controversial $42-million elephant exhibit. Last Chance for Animals started their campaign to permanently close down the elephant exhibit and to move the elephants to a proper elephant sanctuary nearly 20 years ago. Today’s approval by the City Council was a step in the right direction, but the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association offered to contribute another $14 million to the exhibit to push forward with the completion. The issue has been postponed until Jan. 24. You can read the full article on the the LA Times “L.A. Now” blog here.

There have been a couple of mentions of the latest attacks on UCLA vivisectors by the ALF in The LA Times this past week. UCLA researcher Goran Lacan has been singled out by the ALF because of his horrific procedure of implanting invasive electrodes into monkey’s brains. They placed an incendiary device beneath an automobile belonging to him as well as a second vehicle. The interesting take on the story is UCLA is saying the ALF accidentally targeted the wrong address trying to make them sound like uninformed and idiotic. The Animal Liberation Press Office is obviously disputing the claim and point out that the same UCLA press release is also trying to portray Lacan as a “former” primate vivisector even though he has had papers published this year detailing his research. You can read the LA Times articles here and here as well as the Animal Liberation Press Office rebuttal which I have pasted below.

(more…)

As I’m sure most are aware, Proposition 2 passed in California. Today’s Los Angeles Times has the best reaction I’ve heard so far:

The American College of Poultry Veterinarians, decried the measure as economically disastrous for California egg producers

Congratulations to The Humane Society and Wayne Pacelle. You can read the full LA Times article here.

Last week the Los Angeles Times published an editorial by columnist George Skelton and his conclusion after “research” into Prop 2. At the end of the article he comes to the conclusion that he is “for chicken compassion. But [he] feels more compassionate about the chicken farmer in this bankrupting economy” and the issue of ethics should be worked out “through the marketplace.” It was nice to see that The Times ran Jason Brancazio’s counter-argument in last Saturday’s “Letters to the Editor”:

By endorsing cage-free eggs at the end of his column, George Skelton implies that he finds industrial chicken-farming practices abhorrent. I disagree, however, with his counter-assertion that the marketplace is an appropriate arbiter of ethical issues. Would the marketplace ever have eradicated slavery?

When business losses are at stake, and when our legislators rely on businesses for campaign funding, only the ballot initiative process will allow a motivated minority to raise questions that merit statewide consideration.

You can read George Skelton’s full column here.

The Los Angeles Times recently published an article regarding an FDA proposal to create and potentially market animals that were developed in a laboratory. Based upon the article the FDA is targeting salmon, cows, pigs and fish as potential candidates for a Petri dish birth. Through this form of engineering animals are intended to fulfill three potential objectives: food, drugs, and organs suitable for human transplant.  William Flynn of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine suggests that “There are very compelling and real benefits for humans and animals [...] but we must show that they are safe before they enter the marketplace.”

How can growing animals in labs be beneficial to animals?  Flynn does not offer a more in depth explanation. Flynn’s discussion of safety in his quote is not directed towards animals but intended solely as a cautionary suggestion for human health.

Does the FDA truly believe the public will agree with this man’s opinion simply due to his profession as veterinarian? The article does not quote any representatives from animal rights organizations and for good reason… they would be appalled. The article reads much like one could expect of an atrocious steakhouse menu. It discusses animals openly as items for human consumption and clearly side steps the issue of animal rights.

The full article can be found here.