Animal Crackers

NYSE Attempt to Appease AR Terrorists: Ripples

In the culture war in which Animal Rights people pit themselves against Animal Welfare people, there is a natural waxing and waning of success, as judged from either perspective.

Recently, Animal Rights people could claim a large victory when Catherine Kinney, President of the New York Stock Exchange, caved to AR pressure and slammed the door in the face of Life Sciences, reneging on an agreement to list them on the NYSE at the very last moment (literally — she announced that listing had been "postponed" at the breakfast organized to celebrate the listing, without first having consulted with the NYSE Board of Directors). (I blogged on this here.)

The implications of the President Kinney's cowardice are profoundly worrying: once word gets out that she can be stampeded into appeasing thugs who threaten her, and that her attempt to appease takes the form of who is and who is not listed on the exchange, where does it end?

If AR folks can intimidate the President Kinney and her cohorts at the NYSE into compliance, why can't Islamic terrorists, the Mafia, La Raza, or the American Nazi Party?

To me, this is a colossal story, because the stakes are so high, and President Kinney et al caved so easily.

But to my astonishment, the story appeared dead — the mainstream media, including the New York Times, simply ignored it. (There were a few exceptions — the New York Post being a notable one.)

But things now seem to be improving. First, Debra Saunders, a nationally syndicated columnist, has written a scathing article about all this:

THIS MONTH, forces who oppose scientific research scored a big victory when the New York Stock Exchange dropped its plans to list an animal-research firm, Life Sciences Research, on Sept. 7. A spokesperson confirmed yesterday that the listing was still postponed and refused to explain why.

Chalk this up as a victory for anti-science terrorists.

Their tactics succeeded in chasing Life Sciences Research -- formerly Huntingdon Life Sciences -- from the United Kingdom to the United States in 2002.

[ . . . ]

The London Times reported how these tactics may have worked on the New York Stock Exchange as the extremists boasted that they got to a market maker -- a business that facilitates exchange trades -- by vandalizing the market maker's yacht club. I called Carr Securities to ask if the story was true. Carr Securities Chairman Walter Carucci told me he was "tired of this issue" and hung up on me. Be it noted that the company did issue a press release in August that announced it doesn't deal in Life Sciences stock.

So why isn't the NYSE's appeasement a big story? A Nexis search showed no mention of it in the New York Times, even though it has a prominent business section and the harassment hit biggies in the gray lady's hometown. The Chronicle ran a brief.

My guess: The extremists are not members of the religious right; instead, these enemies of science hail from the rat-hugging left. They don't tote Bibles; they join groups such as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty), ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and WAR (Win Animal Rights) that oppose medical research on animals, as well as meat-eating. [My emphasis . . . ed]

I'm open to the possibility that she's wrong, but I can't think of any alternative explanation. "It's not newsworthy" just doesn't cut it when you stop to think of the slippery slope Ms Kinney and the NYSE have stepped onto: if they were unable to muster the resolve to resist the AR thugs, how are they going to resist pressures from other special interest groups who are inclined towards violence?

Ms Saunders gets it:

Allow me to explain why this story is important.

First, sick people are less likely to be cured if violent fanatics scare researchers out of business.

Second, as Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote in a letter to NYSE President Catherine Kinney, "What happens then to the other companies in the same business as LSR that currently trade on the NYSE? Would you not expect activists to pressure the NYSE to delist those companies?" [My emphasis . . . ed]

Third, if these tactics are successful, researchers could leave the country. As Frankie Trull of the Foundation for Biomedical Research said, "If the climate gets tough enough, these companies aren't going out of business, they're going to China," or some other country that would not tolerate these criminal tactics.

Yes . . . if the biomedical research is farmed out to other countries, what guarantee do we have that their facilities will be as concerned with animal welfare as our own are?

Put aside for a moment our country's economic loss, and consider this: If entire companies move overseas to develop and test their products, will we in the US refuse beneficial pharmaceuticals if they are developed using animals in ways that egregiously violate our own Animal Welfare standards?

I don't think so . . . which means that if you're an AR activist, and you win the battle and drive the use of animals in research from our shores, you aren't doing the animals any good at all. Quite the contrary.

Most important: Terrorism should never be a winning strategy. The activists would be a menace if they stuck to harassing medical researchers, but the animal-rights movement is so hate-filled that anonymous activists also harass civilians who are only loosely associated with the research. They don't just go after Wall Street execs, they also pick on paralegals. They don't just harass workers, they also harass their families. Like other terrorists, they apparently figure anyone who is not with them is guilty, and hence deserving of punishment. . . .

Exactly.

Happily, Ms Saunders wasn't the only one to pick up on this issue: so too did the Wall Street Journal (subscription required).

The New York Stock Exchange's decision earlier this month to yank a planned stock listing of an animal-testing company marked a success for the extreme tactics of animal-rights activists.

But it was only the most visible sign of a battle that has been raging with increased ferocity in recent years in courts, at corporate headquarters and sometimes at the homes of executives.

At one time known for throwing paint on fur coats, some animal-rights activists are now seen by the drug industry and law enforcers as home-grown terrorists who launch attacks against individuals connected to animal testing.

[ . . . ]

SHAC's targeting of the New York Stock Exchange is the latest in a string of actions it has taken against companies in recent years. The group is named in a suit filed in New Jersey State Superior Court by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and one of its divisions which alleges, among other things, that SHAC members broke into the home of an executive and charged goods on his credit card.

"There's been no other movement that has brought as much violence and destruction and vandalism" as animal-rights and environmental-rights activists, says John Lewis, Federal Bureau of Investigation deputy assistant director in charge of counterterrorism. (The FBI's international terrorism division tracks foreign terrorists.)

SHAC's quest to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British concern with facilities in the U.S., has spawned related groups. In July, members of Philadelphia-based Hugs for Puppies were arrested outside of drug company Hoffman-La Roche Inc. and charged with criminal trespassing, criminal mischief and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief.

Despite its cuddly name, Hugs for Puppies alarms drug-industry employees. The group, like many animal-rights activists, decries biomedical research that involves animal testing as cruel and unnecessary. One of its main tactics is to publicize personal information about employees and their families.

At a recent biotechnology conference in Philadelphia, the group distributed a flier and map with the names, home addresses and phone numbers of several drug-company employees in the area. The brochure said it didn't intend to promote illegal activity, but added, "Of course, what you do is up to you," and give "our friends in the pharma and biotech industries memories that will last a lifetime."

[ . . . ]

So — the bad news is that the radical Animal Rights people scored a victory, and the message is now clear: those favoring violence and intimidation within the AR movement have proven they can get results, and big ones at that.

But the good news is that in their victory, they may have watered a budding anti-AR opposition (like the CCF, the NAIA, and more recently, the NRA), one that is coming increasingly to see that the Animal Rights movement poses a real threat to our way of life, one that recognizes that there is no bright line separating above ground groups like PeTA and the violent underground groups like the ALF, ELF and SHAC.

That's a big step.

Brian

SHAC Targets Nursery - 2

As as follow-up to my post on yesterday's post, now have some details of the threats made against the Leapfrog Day Nurseries, courtesy of the BBC, in the form of quotes from a letter received by the LDN:

A letter was sent by the Animal Rights Militia to Leapfrog Day Nurseries because of a child care scheme for Huntingdon Life Sciences.

The note, seen by Channel 4 News, said employees of the nursery would "pay the consequences" for the links.

The scheme was withdrawn by the nursery to protect children and staff.

Leapfrog Day Nurseries - Britain's largest childcare provider - has 102 nurseries nationwide, with units in Beds, Bucks, Herts, Cambs, Essex and Northants.

They administered a scheme for Huntingdon Life Sciences to give employees child care vouchers which can be used at any nursery.

Huntingdon Life Sciences have long been targeted by anti-vivisection extremists. Supports, including the government, argue that its work is needed to prompt medical breakthroughs.

The letter read: "The company you work for is working with Huntingdon Life Sciences. This is a disgusting and cowardly act. You have a choice.

"You can walk away from those sick monsters or you can personally face the consequences of your decision." . . .

The note went on: "Not only you but your family is a target.

"... Sever your links with HLS within two weeks or get ready for your life and the lives of those you love to become a living hell." [My emphasis . . . ed].

[ . . . ]

This is, as I pointed out yesterday (op cit) without benefit of having read these quotes, is how "tertiary targeting" works:

This is a classic example of AR activists putting into practice the "tertiary target" strategy: if the directors of the daycare facility don't concede to the demands of the AR people, they place themselves, their families and their friends at risk. It's easier — and much safer — for the directors to dump on the families of HLS employees than to stand their ground on principle. Which is exactly the purpose of the threats.

Intimidating and coercing the clients and suppliers of your real target ("tertiary targeting") is a very effective strategy, one that when employed against HLS in the past, forced it to delist from the London Stock Exchange, and attempt to list on the New York Stock Exchange, an attempt that was thwarted at the very last minute when Animal Rights activists employed exactly the same tertiary targeting techniques on this side of the pond, frightening Catherine Kinney, the President of the NYSE, to cave in precipitously to AR demands.

The article goes on to say that the LDN is unaware that any children associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences attends their own nurseries — which one would have thought the AR thugs would have confirmed before selecting this particular target.

On the other hand, the threat serves a useful purpose, even if it's directed at a target that has nothing to do with HLS: it sends the message that our cruelty-free terrorists aren't only prepared to act violently, but to act violently and indiscriminately.

To my way of thinking, this further cements characterizing such people as terrorists, if further cementing was ever needed. To these thugs, it's more important to spread a general fear of them and what they might do than it is for them to accomplish a specific goal.

Brian

SHAC Targets Nursery

So just how low will Animal Rights activists stoop? We've seen a village terrorized for a duration of 6 years, and we've seen a grave desecrated . . . but here's a new wrinkle:

A children's nursery has become the latest target of animal rights threats, forcing it to stop providing child care vouchers to parents working for the animal testing group Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Leapfrog Day Nurseries, part of the education business Nord Anglia, said it was reviewing whether extra security measures were needed at its Peterborough nursery, which is nearest to the Life Sciences headquarters in Cambridgesire. It said it already employed "stringent security measures" to protect the children in its care.

"While threats of any sort are totally unacceptable, we have to take them seriously," the company said. "The care of the children and our staff is of paramount concern."

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which has claimed responsibility for a recent campaign of bombs and arson attacks, is thought to be behind the threats.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac), which has been responsible for previous letters to HLS customers, said it had not sent anything to the Leapfrog directors.

Greg Avery, from the campaign, said that Shac did not condone the ALF's actions.

"I have said a thousand times that we are a peaceful organisation," he said. "We are not connected to the ALF in any way."

Readers of AC will recognize, immediately, Mr. Avery's "do not condone" position for the lateral arabesque it is. When it comes to animal based research, Mr. Avery can easily find it within himself to condemn the practice.

When anybody — Mr. Avery or anyone else — takes a position of "not condoning" something, it is exactly the same as "not condemning" something.

Mr. Avery is dissembling, pure and simple.

The ALF did not return calls last night.

Brian Cass, the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, said that while he understood that it was especially difficult where children were involved, it was "important to keep things in proportion".

HLS found out on Monday that Leapfrog, which provides the child care vouchers under a contract with the Government, would be listed as a target on Shac's website. Then it discovered that the organisation had received threatening letters.

"They were not threatening the children," Mr Cass said. "They were threatening the directors."

This is a classic example of AR activists putting into practice the "tertiary target" strategy: if the directors of the daycare facility don't concede to the demands of the AR people, they place themselves, their families and their friends at risk. It's easier — and much safer — for the directors to dump on the families of HLS employees than to stand their ground on principle. Which is exactly the purpose of the threats.

He added that the ALF had planted a number of incendiary devices but they were still "very few".

It emerged this week that an incendiary device was left outside the home of Paul Blackburn, an executive of GlaxoSmith-Kline, causing minor damage.

The ALF also said that it attacked a sports pavilion belonging to Corpus Christi College, Oxford, on Saturday night. The university is building a new facility for use in animal research.

Of course, anybody who has a child at the Leapfrog Day Nurseries must be alarmed: what will the fanatics do if they are dissatisfied with the response of the Leapfrog board of directors? Target the director's families? Other nursery employees?

Or . . . will they target the children enrolled at the nursery themselves?

Brian

Gladys Hammond: Arrests Made

Police have arrested several people in connection with the desecration of Gladys Hammond's grave. A brief UPI report specifically describes them as "Animal Rights supporters, and a longer report from the Guardian provides the details:

Police investigating the theft of the remains of an elderly woman from a grave in a Staffordshire churchyard yesterday arrested five people in the West Midlands and Manchester. Gladys Hammond, who died aged 82 in 1997, was the mother-in-law of Christopher Hall, who runs Darley Oaks guinea pig farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, with his brother John.

The guinea pigs are bred for medical research and the farm, its owners, employees and suppliers have been the subject of a prolonged and at times violent six-year campaign by animal rights campaigners.

Staffordshire police said that a 35-year-old man was detained in Manchester, a 36-year-old man in the Edgbaston area of Birmingham and a man aged 38 in Wolverhampton. A woman aged 23 was also detained in Wolverhampton on suspicion of obstructing police and assaulting an officer, and a 38-year-old woman was arrested in Burntwood, Staffordshire.

All five, held on suspicion of conspiracy to blackmail the farm, were questioned at a police station in Staffordshire and released on police bail.

Interesting — conspiracy to blackmail . . . I suspect additional charges may be added as the investigation continues.

Police said all but the woman held in Wolverhampton had been arrested previously in connection with the inquiry.

The theft in October of the remains of Mrs Hammond from the graveyard at St Peter's church, Yoxall, near Newchurch, is thought to have been the work of extremist protesters whose tactics, denounced as mob rule by some in the science research industry, included hate mail, malicious phone calls, fireworks, a paedophile smear campaign, paint stripper on cars and arson attacks. Every Sunday afternoon peaceful protesters had also gathered opposite the farm entrance to shout slogans and wave banners.

Activists were determined to close the farm and in August the Halls said that by the end of the year they would shut down the business, which was started by their father 30 years ago. They said they planned to return to traditional farming and would have no further connection with medical or scientific research.

"The business ... will undergo a phased closure until then to ensure the welfare of animals involved," the Halls said in a statement at the time. "The business has continued during a sustained protest from animal rights extremists for six years, which included the desecration of the grave of Gladys Hammond last October. We now hope that, as a result of this announcement, those responsible for removing Gladys' body will return her so she can lie once again in her rightful resting place."

But since then no information has been received about Mrs Hammond's body.

If the case against the alleged perps turns out to be a strong one, it may well be that mystery of the whereabouts of Ms Hammond's remains will be resolved. If the evidence is compelling, the cops should be able to play the perps off against one another. At least I hope so.

I continue to believe that there is no way that those who did the deed would have (or will, if other than those arrested) come forward and point out where she now lies, absent strong incentive to do so. Why should such anonymous hooligans risk exposing themselves to capture, and all that would come with that, by communicating information to anyone?

Would they do so out of the goodness of their heart?

After hearing of the announcement, John Holmes, a spokesman for the Save Newchurch Guinea Pigs campaign, hailed the planned closure as a victory. He said he could not justify the desecration of Mrs Hammond's grave but could understand it. "We have to encourage any activist to return those remains. We cannot say any more than that," he said.

As I've pointed out, at least one Animal Rights activist (Mel Broughton) did condemn the desecration early on — but only because it didn't further the AR cause! (Translation: "good", "morally acceptable tactics," etc. are defined in terms of furthering the AR cause . . ..)

You make the call — which is worse: Mr. Holm's neutral, tepid "couldn't justify" the desecration, or Mr. Broughton's implication that he'd have been all for it had it, at the time it was done, driven the Halls out of business?

Earlier, Mr Holmes had rejected claims made by the local Conservative MP, Michael Fabricant, that the Halls' decision would "hearten animal rights terrorists" and said that he had always protested peacefully. "There has been no violence by any animal rights protester against that family or any worker," Mr Holmes said.

Mr Holmes is dissembling . . . he would have you believe that the AR campaign has been blissfully peaceful. The facts are otherwise link, link, link, link.

The campaign has asked the Halls to hand over the guinea pigs so that "loving new homes" can be found for the animals.

At about the same time as the Halls' announcement, more than 500 leading UK scientists and doctors pledged their support for tests done on animals in the name of medical research, but acknowledged that where possible experiments should be replaced by methods not using animals. The scientists signed a declaration drawn up by the Research Defence Society "reaffirming" that animals were required "to achieve advances in medical research" that enabled "people throughout the world to enjoy a better quality of life".

The government is reported to have reassured scientists that another supplier will replace Darley Oaks. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Of course there will be others to supply all the Guinea Pigs researchers need. But for the AR people, reducing the number of Guinea Pigs used in research is less important — far less important — than the symbolism of having forced the Halls out of business.

Symbolism is the stuff of propaganda, and propaganda is important in establishing an aura of invincibility, of effectiveness, and most of all, of progress. It is just such symbolism that provides a tipping point to a certain percentage, albeit a small one, of AR true believers who are inspired and take up violent tactics in the name of the cause. (You don't need very many acolytes acting out to keep fear alive in those they target.)

In any event, let's keep our fingers crossed that the remains of Ms Hammond can be recovered and returned to her place of internment, where, surely, they should be allowed to rest undisturbed.

Brian

ALF Claims Credit for Firebomb Attack

From time to time, we are told that the good folks who take "direct action" are not terrorists. Here's a "communiqué" that appeared on the web page of an ALF support group (I'm intentionally omitting the URL). It's date is 26 September 2005. (UPDATE: 9:53 PM PDT: I have confirmed that the attack took place. Fortunately, there was little damage.)

On the night of Weds 7th Sept we Brigade G of the Animal Liberation Front detonated a bomb on the doorstep of GlaxoSmithKline director Paul Blakburn, Beaconsfield, Bucks **** ***.

This contained 2 litres of fuel and 4 pounds of explosives. We did this because GSK is a customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences and GSK we realise that this may not be enough to make you stop using HLS, but GSK this is just the beginning.

We have identified and tracked down many of your senior executives and also junior staff, as well as those from other HLS customers.

Drop HLS or you will face the consequences. For all the animals inside HLS, we will be back.

The defenders of ALF's "direct actions" try hard to represent them as "not terror," but it's hard to imagine such going's on being anything other than an attempt to terrorize a person into compliance.

Such episodes are by their very nature contradictions of a fundamental precept of Animal Rights faith: that animals and humans are morally equivalent, because they have an equal capacity to suffer.

Clearly, that is not the case, for reasons I wrote here:

But then, there is an implied, but not so subtle, message behind the ALF's announcement of its acts — the messasge behind the message, if you will: "We know where you live. Next time, we may do worse. We can come at any time, and there's no guarantee we'll stop with a mere smoke grenade, or vandalism. We may target your family. So comply, or risk the consequences."

The gloating words of the obligatory ALF after-action report are stereotypically chilling, a carefully calculated and important component of the terrorist's script.

This kind of subliminal message is intended to create a chronic fear, a fear that is crushing and inescapable. (Whether it works or not depends on the individual — in the case of Catherine Kinney, the cowardly president of the NYSE who slammed the door on Life Sciences' bid to list on the NYSE at the very last moment, words alone were apparently enough to intimidate her into compliance. The courageous Hall family, they of the Darley Oaks guinea pig farm, proved a far tougher nut than Kinney.)

What is interesting about the fear created by the ALF recipe of harassment-followed-by-threatening-communiqué is how unique the human capacity to suffer is, relative to other animals.

Humans can be threatened by symbols of violence, be they spoken words, written words, video-clips, drawings or any combination thereof, and can be made to fear some hypothetical future event, an event constructed psychologically by the target — who fears not only for his own future, but also for the future of other people — family, friends, etc. — in addition to mere property.

The human mind, unlike the mind of any other animal, translates such symbols as ALF presents into real fear, and the fear causes suffering that can manifest itself in the form of varying degrees of worry, sleepless nights, loss of appetite, distraction, ulcers, and conceivably, mental breakdown.

Which, of course, is the entire point.

But there's irony here — and it is profound. Animal Rights activists justify their entire enterprise on the basis that "suffering is suffering" and that humans and animals deserve the same moral consideration and legal protections because they suffer alike.

"Likeness of suffering" is the conceptual underpinning of the Animal Rights ideology, the one that that leads Animal Rights activists to regard the life of an animal and that of a human to be of equal value: they suffer alike, animals and humans, so they must be treated alike both morally and legally.

But AR "likeness of suffering" is palpably not true, a figment of the AR imagination, a fantasy.

Humans and animals may share some kinds of suffering — like pain when burned — but humans have in addition a unique capacity to suffer not present in any animal that lacks the ability to communicate abstract thoughts using symbolic communication.

The irony deepens and thickens to a quagmire when you appreciate that the ALF, ELF, SHAC and other terrorist groups prey on the single kind of suffering that separates humans from animals, even as justify their actions on the grounds that all animals suffer in the same ways!

In other words, even if you accept that "suffering" is a moral trump card (I do not, for a great many reasons), the capacity of humans to suffer psychologically from symbolic threats in ways that animals cannot must logically place them (humans) in a "moral category" separate and above that of animals.

The AR logic itself dictates this to be the case.

Brian

UK: SAS Denied Use of Private Land

I've posted a few times on the anti-hunting law newly enacted in England that have made it illegal to use dogs for hunting. The controversy pitted (mostly) urban dwellers and the liberal majority in Parliament who generally opposed hunting against (mostly) rural folks, and Parliamentary conservatives, who generally wanted to retain the status quo.

The enactment of the law was heralded as a major victory by the winners, who saw it as a "win" for compassion, and was received with much bitterness by the losers, who saw it as a loss of a highly-valued traditional way of life, almost a sacrilege.

It turns out that much of the private land where hunts were conducted was voluntarily made available to the government by landowners for the military to use for training.

Now, the land owners are making things difficult for the government.

The Special Air Service's grueling selection course has been thrown into chaos by farmers who have refused the elite troops permission to train on their land in protest over the Government's hunting ban.

The move in the Elan Valley area of mid-Wales and in parts of the Brecon Beacons in South Wales is one of the most damaging revolts by landowners since the ban was introduced in February.

Senior SAS officers had considered the unprecedented step of postponing one of the regiment's two annual six-month long selection courses, but that was ruled out by a severe manpower shortage within the unit.

The SAS - which comprises around 500 troops - has been severely depleted over the past two years after dozens of soldiers left for lucrative jobs as security advisers in Iraq.

The Ministry of Defence had hoped to avoid a clash, but talks earlier this year with the Welsh National Farmers' Union failed to come to any agreement.

Last night a senior defence official described the ban as "irritating, irresponsible and frustrating".

He said: "The ban was the last thing the SAS needed. Like many busy Army units it is under-strength and over-committed and is desperate for new recruits.

"But they have to be selected and carefully trained. Suitable training areas can not simply be acquired at the drop of a hat."

The Hereford-based regiment holds two selection courses a year to which anyone under the age of 32 - although that limit is flexible - can apply.

The summer and winter courses attract up to 150 candidates, although historically only 10 per cent of those volunteering to serve with the regiment are accepted.

Each course begins with an endurance phase, lasting three weeks in the Brecon Beacons. This phase is essentially a test of physical stamina and volunteers have to complete a series of marches carrying loads of up to 50lb and a rifle.

One of the toughest tests is known as the Long Drag, when soldiers have to complete a 40-mile march in 24 hours.

[ . . . ]

Those who pass move on to the escape and evasion section of the course, which also involves the dreaded tactical questioning, when soldiers are questioned as if they are a captured prisoner of war.

It is understood that it is the escape and evasion phase that was worst hit by protesting farmers.

The SAS has been carrying out escape and evasion within the Elan Valley for more than 20 years. It is regarded as an ideal training area because of the harshness of the terrain.

During this section, potential SAS troopers have to escape from a hunter force of soldiers who are under orders to capture them.

The exercise usually lasts three days, at the end of which most of the soldiers have been captured by the hunter force.

Those who pass this phase are allowed to join the regiment.

A spokesman for the MoD refused to comment on SAS selection but did confirm that much of the military training on private land in many areas of Wales had been cancelled because of action by landowners who were in dispute with the Government over the hunting ban.

"Some landowners in Wales, including those in the Elan Valley, have refused to allow training exercises to take place on their land," he said. "In most cases we have been able to make other arrangements."

Unlike the loss of elite SAS troops to private security companies, the farmers' action might well be a temporary inconvenience to the SAS's training program, but it seems unlikely to me that the SAS couldn't find suitable terrain elsewhere, if not in England, then outside her borders. (Parenthetically, I'd imagine that many who supported the hunting ban would just as soon see the military unable to train at all, if that would hasten the end of England's participation in Iraq. For these people, the hunting ban is a "win - win" proposition.)

Be that as it may, the deep animosity of the rural people at having one of their most hallowed traditions trashed is going to fester for a very long time. This ban is the kind of legislation that creates deep animosity and drives permanent wedges between constituencies.

I suspect the losers will be on a constant watch for any opportunity to extract a little revenge. For their part, I think the winners will wonder why the losers can't be good losers and just go away quietly, and will quickly lose patience with them — which will only aggravate matters more.

I don't see a resolution because there is a conflict of core values: one side would sacrifice "tradition" for "compassion" and the other would sacrifice "compassion" for "tradition," and those who favor "tradition" can't understand, much less respect, what they see as a faux and contrived "compassison," and those who favor "compassion" can't understand, much less respect, what they see as an immoral anachronism.

Brian

ALF: Targets LA Official

(We're going to be entertaining house guests for the next week, so blogging may be a little slower than normal.)

Here's another one of those stories I failed to jump quickly on, but one that certainly merits attention. It's about a "Direct Action" targeting the general manager of the Los Angeles City's Animal Services (his predecessor had been targeted as well).

Ratcheting up their campaign of harassment against city workers, animal rights advocates claimed to have detonated smoke grenades in the home of the general manager of the city's Animal Services Department.

The Animal Liberation Front carried out the attack, according to a news release issued Tuesday by a second group. ALF is on the U.S. Department of Justice's list of domestic terror organizations.

"The Animal Liberation Front has taken advice from our commander in chief to 'smoke terrorists out of their holes.' The target was Los Angeles' No. 1 terrorist" Guerdon Stuckey, said the release from a group calling itself Animal Liberation.

Animal Liberation said ALF sent it the information about the attack.

"Military strength smoke grenades were detonated on the floor of this animal killer's abode. Sleep light … ALF," the news release said.

Of course, such goings on serve a dual purpose. First, for the target, it's just a real hassle to confront such an event. There is the sheer inconvenience of having your day disrupted, and the immediate, acute, momentary fear that slowly dissipates.

But then, there is an implied, but not so subtle, message behind the ALF's announcement of its acts — the messasge behind the message, if you will: "We know where you live. Next time, we may do worse. We can come at any time, and there's no guarantee we'll stop with a mere smoke grenade, or vandalism. We may target your family. So comply, or risk the consequences."

The gloating words of the obligatory ALF after-action report are stereotypically chilling, a carefully calculated and important component of the terrorist's script.

This kind of subliminal message is intended to create a chronic fear, a fear that is crushing and inescapable. (Whether it works or not depends on the individual — in the case of Catherine Kinney, the cowardly president of the NYSE who slammed the door on Life Sciences' bid to list on the NYSE at the very last moment, words alone were apparently enough to intimidate her into compliance. The courageous Hall family, they of the Darley Oaks guinea pig farm, proved a far tougher nut than Kinney.)

What is interesting about the fear created by the ALF recipe of harassment-followed-by-threatening-communiqué is how unique the human capacity to suffer is, relative to other animals.

Humans can be threatened by symbols of violence, be they spoken words, written words, video-clips, drawings or any combination thereof, and can be made to fear some hypothetical future event, an event constructed psychologically by the target — who fears not only for his own future, but also for the future of other people — family, friends, etc. — in addition to mere property.

The human mind, unlike the mind of any other animal, translates such symbols as ALF presents into real fear, and the fear causes suffering that can manifest itself in the form of varying degrees of worry, sleepless nights, loss of appetite, distraction, ulcers, and conceivably, mental breakdown.

Which, of course, is the entire point.

But there's irony here — and it is profound. Animal Rights activists justify their entire enterprise on the basis that "suffering is suffering" and that humans and animals deserve the same moral consideration and legal protections because they suffer alike.

"Likeness of suffering" is the conceptual underpinning of the Animal Rights ideology, the one that that leads Animal Rights activists to regard the life of an animal and that of a human to be of equal value: they suffer alike, animals and humans, so they must be treated alike both morally and legally.

But AR "likeness of suffering" is palpably not true, a figment of the AR imagination, a fantasy.

Humans and animals may share some kinds of suffering — like pain when burned — but humans have in addition a unique capacity to suffer not present in any animal that lacks the ability to communicate abstract thoughts using symbolic communication.

The irony deepens and thickens to a quagmire when you appreciate that the ALF, ELF, SHAC and other terrorist groups prey on the single kind of suffering that separates humans from animals, even as justify their actions on the grounds that all animals suffer in the same ways!

Stuckey would not provide details about the attack, . . . Police also would not provide details Wednesday other than to confirm that an incident had occurred.

"There is an ongoing investigation," said Sgt. John Romero of the Los Angeles Police Department.

According to the release, ALF also said it took action against another animal services employee: "Prostitutes, pizza deliverymen, taxis and gang members were directed to her residence at late hours on two recent nights."

Cute . . .

Stuckey confirmed that those incidents took place.

Animal activists have for several years been pushing Los Angeles to stop putting to death dogs at its six shelters and place them into homes.

Stuckey and other officials have said that they are trying to reduce the number of dogs put to death, but that some dogs are too sick or vicious to be put up for adoption. In fiscal 2004-05, the city euthanized 34,932 dogs, down from 39,086 in 2001-02, according to animal services statistics. Activists have disputed those numbers.

Activists have held regular protests at the Larchmont Village home of David Diliberto, who oversees field operations for animal services. A bomb threat in August caused police to evacuate the area outside Diliberto's home.

A group that calls itself the Animal Defense League Los Angeles organized those protests, but the group says it doesn't engage in illegal activity.

Pamelyn Ferdin, one of its leaders, told The Times earlier this month that the group had long wanted to hold protests at Stuckey's home but couldn't find his address. Her husband, Jerry Vlasak, said Wednesday that he didn't know who was responsible for the incident last week. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Ferdin and Vlasak face a criminal trespass charge for refusing to leave Diliberto's property during a protest.

Some City Council members questioned whether police were doing enough to protect city employees.

Yes. Dr. Vlasak — he who believes assassinating a few scientists to save the lives of a greater number of research animals is morally acceptable, and he who openly advocates the practice.

Dr. Vlasak believes that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal worth. The logic of his position is this: If you can save "N + 1" animals by killing "N" humans, you are performing a moral duty.

With his call for assassination, Dr. Vlasak has lowered the bar for murder. It's just a matter of time before murder happens, and the members of the City Council have good reason to be worried.

"No one should be harmed because of a belief they have or a service that they provide," said Councilman Tom LaBonge. "This keeps escalating a little bit more each time and all of a sudden we're going to have a tragedy, and I don't want to see that."

Stuckey said the LAPD was helping. "There is a great deal of focus on this issue by the police," he said.

[ . . . ]

For much of 2003, the activists' primary target was then-director of animal services Jerry Greenwalt.

Activists held protests at his Santa Monica home, leafleted his neighborhood and spray-painted "murderer" on his car before he resigned in March 2004.

Activists dressed as skeletons and carrying photos of dead dogs also protested several times at the San Pedro home of then-Mayor James K. Hahn.

[ . . . ]

Stuckey said he does not plan to leave his job.

"I'm absolutely staying and sticking with the job at hand," he said. "I came here to save these animals' lives and I am committed to that."

I wish the courageous Mr. Stuckey luck.

And if he decides he wants to move to New York, I'd be happy to write him a letter of recommendation to replace Catherine Kinney as President of the NYSE.

Brian

AR Opposition to Animal Based Research

Animal Rights activists base their opposition to the use of animals in resesearch on two fundamentally different bases or, for those who hedge their bets, both together.

First, there is the person who says they don't care whether the results of such research are valid or not, the research is intrinsically immoral. Such people are simply exercising their right to worship as they please, and there is no point in arguing with them, because their belief is an article of faith — they cannot be persuaded away from their belief by facts or logic. Ingrid Newkirk's declaration that "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." (Vogue, 1989) is an example of just such an "article of faith" (no fact, no logic, will cause her to change her mind).

Then, there are those who claim to oppose research because the differences between animals and humans are so great that you can't extrapolate from animal experiments to the human condition. This defines the "lacks scientific merit" camp.

It's worth debating these people, because even if you don't change the minds of very many of them, by debating them you can influence the minds of third parties, showing them that while animals are not identical to humans, they are close enough so that we can learn worthwhile things from experimenting on them.

Up until now, Dr. Jerry Vlasak has steadfastly maintained that animals are too different from humans to be of use in biomedical research. Now, he's changed his mind — crossed the threshold, in fact — and admitted as that we can learn things from animal based research, though he still opposes it on purely moral/ethical grounds.

The 25th anniversary of animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) brought out activists of more than one kind, as a coalition of advocates for AIDS patients chose the occasion to launch a campaign criticizing PETA’s stance against animal testing in medical research.

[ . . . ]

"The whole notion of testing on animals or doing research on animals was viable when we knew so little, but today we’re trying to distinguish facts based on individual humans," commented C. Ray Greek, MD, president of the California-based Americans for Medical Advancement, a self-described patient advocacy group that opposes animal experimentation from a scientific standpoint, not an ethical one.

We still don't know enough to dispense with animals altogether, Dr. Greek's protestations to the contrary not withstanding. It is particularly important for the reader to understand that key breakthroughs in research occur when things don't go as predicted — that's when animal based research is particularly important (the Thalidomide story is one such example.)

And then, there are issues interacting systems, and/or the functioning of the nervous system: to what extent is peripheral sensory innervation important in protecting joints? How do Central Pattern Generators work, and what is the role of sensory innervation in building new ones, or maintaining established ones? How do Central Pattern Generators decay?

Questions of this sort happen to be in my (former) area of expertise, and I defy Dr. Greek or anyone else to test a hypothesis about any of these questions using tissue culture (an animal-based technique, one based on serum, a fluid derived from blood, that AR advocates (and, alas some scientists) like to pretend is a "non-animal alternative" to whole animal research), computer models, or any other technique that doesn't use whole, intact animals.

I could wax for hours on the significance of such research, but I'll spare you . . .

“I don’t think we ought to be treating non-human animals any different than we treat other disenfranchised -- or less powerful, I should say -- groups in humans.” -- Dr. Jerry Vlasak

This, of course, is an ideological/religious view, not a scientific one.

"Today, we are studying diseases at the genetic level, and at the genetic level, even a man and a woman are different -- and two species are incredibly different," Greek noted.

Dr. Greek needs to familiarize himself with the literature . . . for the lay amongst my readers, Dr. Greek is saying, essentially, that because we are understanding metallurgy in ever greater detail, we don't have to worry about the way we assemble automobiles so that the parts work together.

Greek believes that the time and money spent on animal testing could be better put toward human-based research involving technology, as well as in vitro methods that use testing in artificial environments outside living organisms. He and Pippin both pointed to positron emission tomography (PET) microdosing as a human-based research technology, in which a human subject is given a very small amount of a drug and then imaging techniques are used to follow it through the body.

PET is fine, but it is one tool of many in our biomedical armamentarium. It is not a substitute for the use of whole animals.

"If you do this test, in combination with the usual clinical testing that we do and the usual in-vitro testing and so on and so on, that would give you a far safer drug supply than you have now," Greek said.

Pippin added that PET microdosing is a "dramatic example of how you can apply a superior test and eliminate animal testing at the same time."

In some cases . . . but PET is hardly a panacea.

However, as Lin pointed out, microdosing studies "are purposely designed not to cause toxicity." Thus, he said, "the true ‘safety’ of the drug used at a realistic dose cannot be obtained by such studies. Microdosing studies in humans cannot be used to bypass thorough preclinical animal studies and it would be dangerous to do so since the behavior of the drug at a therapeutic dose would be unknown."

Correct.

Greek also proposed that the scientific community should be "looking at these drugs on a genetic basis." He said that genetic profiles of thousands of people should be collected and then the drug should be tested on each of the genetic profiles in vitro to see which genes are turned on and which are turned off.

"That’s what’s going to give us safe drugs for you as opposed to me as opposed to your mother… testing these drugs on your DNA and then your mother’s DNA and then my DNA," Greek commented.

Dr. Nancy Haigwood countered that the complex interactions that take place in the body cannot be predicted. "I frankly would be appalled to see humans in Phase I trials being given drugs that have the potential for extreme toxicities or death," she said.

Let's invite Dr. Greek to make his wife or children guinea pigs to test his theory . . .

Haigwood, who is the director of the viral vaccines program at the Seattle Biomedical Research Institute and professor of pathobiology and microbiology at the University of Washington, explained that tests for toxicity must be done on every compound in a drug being considered. "That’s the main use of animals, really, in drug testing," she said.

One of the big problems I face when dealing with such issues is that few people understand the difference between product/compound testing, preclinical trials, and basic research. I did basic research — research in which I attempted to identify fundamental biological processes and interactions that could be exploited by other scientists, those with an eye focussed more on diagnosis and treatment than was my own eye.

Nothing I did would, by itself, result in a new diagnostic procedure, or a treatment for a disease. But my research did contribute to how those who study such things would approach their own problems. That's important. (I won't bore you with details, though I could make a compelling case for how the system works, on a conceptual level.)

Proponents of animal testing do not deny the validity of alternative research techniques that also include computer models and in vitro studies on human tissue samples, but say that these methods should be used in conjunction with animal testing.

"All these things are not used at the exclusion of other things," asserted laboratory animal veterinarian John Young, who serves as director of comparative medicine at the California-based Cedars-Sinai Research Institute. "They’re all used together and it’s a progressive process. If you take the animals out of that stepwise progression, the whole thing falls apart." Young is also chairman of Americans for Medical Progress, a Virginia-based organization that advocates the use of animals in biomedical research.

Correct — otherwise, you're saying you don't need a steering wheel for your car because you've got the metallurgy right, and it has 4 wheels and a functioning engine and transmission.

Aside from toxicity testing, animals are also used in research studies to gain information for drug development. Again, critics like Greek and Pippin feel that animal-based research conducted for this purpose is ineffective, pointing to HIV research as an example. "Between in vitro research and human clinical research, that’s where the advances in HIV treatment have come from," Greek noted.

The problem with pointing to examples is that they are only that: examples. Step away from HIV and into the effects of unfocussed ESWL on surrounding tissues, the manner in which neuromuscular reflexes protect joints, or how heart muscle reacts to infarct and the early events of its molecular biological recovery in a living chest, and things aren't so clear . . .

Pippin agreed, asserting that not one useful HIV medication has been developed from animal studies in more than two decades of research.

Haigwood, who uses animal models in her research, said it is true that "we didn’t need animals to get all these drugs for HIV… because we knew what the mechanism was, we knew what the compound was… so there was very little risk in using antiviral drugs without animal model testing."

But, she said, "they did go through toxicity testing [on animals]."

If only it were true that finding more effective drugs for HIV/AWIDS would explain the etiopathogenesis of osteoarthritis, the formation of Central Pattern Generators, or how heart muscle recovers after infarct . . .

Although Haigwood conceded that the argument about the inessential role of animal models in the development of useful HIV drugs is a "strong one," she did point to one specific example where animal-based research played a role in the development of a drug that is now used in HIV treatment. The drug, PMPA, was tested on macaque monkeys in an experiment conducted in the mid-1990s by Dr. Che-Chung Tsai, and his research colleagues at the University of Washington.

One animal rights activist, who has used the scientific argument against animal experimentation, does agree that animal research has produced some benefits for humankind. "They have discovered things in animals that have been useful in human beings. It’s rare, but it does happen," commented Dr. Jerry Vlasak.

I'm glad Dr. Vlasak has seen the light, but animal based basic research is the foundation upon which a great many breakthroughs in treatment and diagnosis occur, irrespective of drug testing in preclinical trials. True, basic research seldom if ever produces something that is directly applicable in the clinics, but it certainly provides the building blocks upon which important clinical discoveries rest.

"To be quite honest with you, I don’t really care too much about the scientific argument because I don’t really care whether it’s scientifically valid or not," stated Vlasak, who is a press officer for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO). "I think it’s important to make the moral arguments because I think those are the important ones." The California-based organization serves as a liaison between the press and various groups in the underground animal liberation movement that engage in illegal direct actions on behalf of captive animals, according to the NAALPO website. [My emphasis . . . ed]

"I don’t think we ought to be treating non-human animals any different than we treat other disenfranchised -- or less powerful, I should say -- groups in humans," Vlasak asserted. "I think people with AIDS, many of them are homosexual -- should be even more aware of oppression."

[ . . . ]

To his credit, Dr. Vlasak has admitted what motivates his opposition to animal based research: his is a faith-based objection, not one based on scientific merit, and I applaud him for his honesty . . .

When all is said and done, I'm a strong believer in religious freedom.

Brian

NYSE Attempts to Appease AR Extremists

Admittedly, I've been delinquent in covering a story that deserves to be covered. In fact, it is of the utmost importance.

At the last moment, the New York Stock Exchange caved in to animal rights pressure and withheld it's listing of Huntingdon Life Science. Here's a biting editorial on the NYSE's cowardice — or more specifically — the cowardice of the NYSE's president, Catherine Kinney:

The question arises because of some disturbing recent developments at the New York Stock Exchange, where President Catherine Kinney has been field-testing a new approach to institutional leadership that is strange to say the least: Talk the talk, but don't walk the walk . . . and don't explain why.

We'll get more deeply into Kinney's perplexing behavior. But for the moment it is enough to know that her actions have abruptly catapulted the NYSE into one of the strangest — and scariest — situations in its 213-year history.

Specifically, rumors were flying up and down the trading floor last week that Kinney herself had succumbed to a campaign of threats and intimidation from an international animal-rights fringe group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Rumors had it that without seeking the approval of the board of directors, Kinney had ordered the Big Board to dump its planned listing of a New Jersey company that performs drug testing on animals. [My emphasis . . . ed]

If the rumors are true, the NYSE is under the control of Animal Rights fanatics. We've seen something similar to this: the UK's National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) once offered strong support for combating "investment terrorism" but then abruptly abandoned their position. (The NAPF controls roughly 20% of the shares of the UK stock market.)

If you think Animal Rights activists are a trivial worry, think again.

The exchange clearly knew what it was letting itself in for when it agreed, early this summer, to consider Life Sciences Research Inc. for a listing. SHAC has for years been conducting a well-publicized international terrorist campaign to drive Life Sciences out of business.

SHAC had already been linked in press reports to an assault on Life Sciences' CEO in Britain four years ago, when three hooded men leaped from the bushes in front of his house as he was returning home one evening and beat him nearly to death with pickax handles. SHAC insists it was not involved.

Seven people who federal prosecutors say are either members of, or affiliated with, the New Jersey chapter of SHAC are now awaiting trial in Newark on vandalism and conspiracy charges involving Life Sciences. Charges include slashing the tires and overturning and destroying cars belonging to Life Sciences employees, spray-painting animal-rights graffiti on executives' homes, rock-throwing through their windows, vandalizing their country clubs, and setting off smoke bombs in their offices.

SHAC also maintains a Web site that lists the names, addresses and phone numbers of all Life Sciences' clients and suppliers worldwide, along with links to the Web sites of SHAC chapters throughout Europe and Asia.

The site's home page includes a running tally of the latest attacks by activists on the company and its business partners, and offers "how to" advice for, among other things, making harassing phone calls from untraceable phone numbers. In recent weeks, the SHAC Web site has been listing the direct-dial office phone numbers and e-mail addresses of dozens of the NYSE's top officials.

For the NYSE to have agreed to list Life Sciences shares for trading on the Big Board may have been gutsy, but it was certainly unnecessary. And it was plainly idiotic, having issued a press release announcing that trading would begin on Sept. 7, to invite the company's top officials for a celebratory breakfast, only to inform them, mere minutes before the opening bell, that there'd been a change of plans and the listing would be "postponed" indefinitely.

It wasn't just idiotic, it was unconscionable. And it makes my point — in spades — that terrorism is effective.

According to Life Sciences' Chief Financial Officer Richard Michelson, who attended the traditional breakfast, the bombshell news of the exchange's about-face was delivered to the group by Kinney herself, who cleared her throat, looked at the Life Sciences brass seated around here and declared, "Well, there's no way to sugarcoat this, but the listing will not be taking place today. It is being postponed."

Once her stunned listeners were able to gather their thoughts, they began asking her to explain why. Had the Big Board found some skeleton in the company's closet? Some financial irregularity? Anything?

No, explained Kinney. It was nothing like that.

Well, what then?

"[Kinney] just wouldn't say," Michelson said. "She kept questioning us about SHAC and the animal-rights people," he said. "But she simply wouldn't say why the NYSE had changed its mind."

Kinney can be intimidated . . . if I were the AR crowd, I'd be focussing my attention on her, and her family . . . I'd push her until she cracked or stepped down, and I'd get everything I could from her.

A person who can be so easily intimidated is easy pickings.

A few minutes later, Kinney summoned NYSE PR boss Margaret Tutwiler, a former chief press spokesperson for the U.S. State Department in Washington, and ex-Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy in the Middle East, presumably someone who could be counted on to keep a secret.

But not even Tutwiler knew what was up. When she came in and sat down, she seemed totally clueless as to why she was even there, and had to be briefed by Kinney as to why she had been summoned at all: To prepare a press release announcing that the Life Sciences listing was being postponed — a subject she seemed to know nothing about.

TWO days later, I contacted a member of the board of directors who agreed to speak if not identified by name. The member said no one on the board was informed, adding, "Security is the biggest hot-button issue imaginable at the exchange, and I cannot believe something of this magnitude would have happened without the board being briefed."

Believe it . . . Kinney is running scared.

At week's end a wall of silence had descended around the exchange, with officials refusing to answer questions of any sort regarding the Life Sciences matter, from The Post or indeed any other media outlet.

The stonewalling even extended to the NYSE's seeming defiance of a U.S. Senate Committee, which early last week opened its own probe of the Big Board's behavior. Sources in Washington said the committee had been unable to get the exchange to even return phone calls. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Ms Kinney is a coward . . . and that doesn't bode well for the NYSE. One of the first things any boss must reckon on is this: if your decisions are going to be influenced by fear, step down. You owe it to your constituency not to sell them out because you can't handle your fear.

This is certainly not the sort of behavior one would have expected from an institution that had been at the forefront of post-9/11 calls for Americans to show defiance of terrorists by going about their business unintimidated and unafraid.

Yet with the exchange suddenly in the crosshairs of a terrorist group, "going about one's business" seems to be the last thing on the minds of the Big Board's top brass. And as history teaches clearly enough, trying to appease lunatics simply brings on the need for more — and greater — appeasement to come. [My emphasis . . . ed]

Amen. And if you yourself can't stand your ground against the pressure to appease, then resign. You owe that to your constituency.

Why the modern world has spawned a guerrilla movement of people who think that puppies are entitled to the same rights as people is beyond our purposes here — though the truth of the matter may be no more complicated than unraveling the politics of a generation of people raised on singing mice, sexless dogs, and all the other anthropomorphized creatures that sprang from the mind of Walt Disney.

How many children watched Bambi's father be gunned down by that despicable lower life form known as a Man, and grew up to believe that rats, cats and monkeys all ought to come within the embrace of the equal protection clause of the Constitution is anyone's guess. But beyond the world of animal rights loom even wackier belief systems — like the fair treatment for trees movement and the brown shirts of eco-terrorism.

These are the people Kinney and her bunch will hear from next: Delist Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific or we'll blow up your house!

If I were advising a group of fanatics, that's exactly what I'd be thinking! I'd tell them to pick their targets, and encourage my charges to pressure the appeasing Ms Kinney into compliance.

How foolhardy and shortsighted to have let this all happen. And ultimately how sad, for by seeming to appease SHAC — and not even attempting to spin the facts more favorably afterward — Kinney and Co. have hung a great big "Kick Me" sign around their necks and invited every wacko group on earth to come to the corner of Broad and Wall for a free kick.

Boy — wish I'd written that!

So — what is to keep other groups with radical agendas and/or a taste for violence, like MeCHA or al Qaeda, from intimidating Ms Kinney into compliance?

Brian

The NRA Declares War on PeTA

It looks like the NRA has just declared war on PeTA:

Mr. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Executive Vice-President, has accepted an invitation to debate PeTA's Andrew Butler on TV, the evening of October 18th.

In a lengthy letter sent to North Carolina NRA members, which I've transcribed below, Mr. LaPierre makes clear his reasons for doing so. Clearly intended to rally the troops, Mr. LaPierre makes it clear that he views PETA as a major "terrorist support group," one that threatens our way of life.

I find several things interesting about the letter: first, he's done his homework — and his take on PeTA is very much my own, and judging by the revelations they've made about PeTA, that of the people at the Center for Consumer Freedom as well.

In short, Mr. LaPierre is going on the attack, and from the sounds of things, he's going well armed.

Second, while Mr. LaPierre certainly emphasizes issues that are directly of interest to his constituency, viz., PeTA's threat to hunting and fishing, his letter goes far beyond championing those activities: he views as threats Animal Rights attacks on medical research; he is alarmed about PeTA's successful efforts to recruit kids to the AR cause by infiltrating schools and through their (PeTA's) websites and printed materials; he is concerned about PeTA's assaults on the food industry; he notes PeTA's hypocrisy at killing of animals in their shelter; he points to the arrests of two PeTA employees for illegally killing and dumping animals in dumpsters; and he stresses, particularly, PeTA's financial support of ALF and ELF.

Third, Mr. LaPierre notes that most people don't have a clue about what PeTA's agenda is. And he's right — how many people know of PeTA's financial connections to ALF and ELF?

Fourth, Mr. LaPierre wants the debate widely publicized, and he wants the results of the debate (audio and video recordings will be available) and transcripts (I believe) to be as widely distributed as possible.

Finally, Mr. LaPierre calls for contributions to help support the dissemination of the debate results. I'm sure the NRA really wants all the dough it can get, but what interests me is that the actual request is tucked in, almost as an after-thought, at the end of the letter.

The following is a transcription of the letter — take the time to read it and see if you don't agree that Mr. LaPierre seems to have a pretty good grasp on things:

FBI Statements of Congressional hearings in May of 2005 make it clear that a major terrorist support netword ks now actively operating in your home state of North Carolina.

And some of your neighbors are probably contributors or even members.

This group provides major financial aid to arsonists and fire bombers. They massacre thousands of dogs and cats each year. They conduct psychological warfare against your values by providing hate literature to schoolchildren. They have recruited 235,000 classroom teachers across America to their cause. And they have left no doubt in my mind that they will do whatever it takes to ban your hunting forever.

I have been warned not to stand in the direct path of these fanatics -- because I could become a target of their hate.

And I have been warned by a representative of a major U.S. corporation that those who oppose this terrorist network are routinely stalked, harassed, and intimidated.

But I believe in my heart that someone needs to draw a line in the sand. Someone needs to break the silence. And because you've invested your trust in me to lead the NRA and lead our cause, I believe this is a fight I can't walk away from.

That's why I have accepted a television offer to debate one of the leaders of this organization -- Andrew Butler -- in a nationally-televised broadcast on October 18, 2005.

I need you to watch this debate. I need you to tell your friends about it. Because the group I'm talking about -- whose spokesman I will debate -- has an admitted track record of supporting a movement now considered by the FBI to be the #1 domestic terrorism threat to you, your family and your safety.

I'm not talking about Al Qaeda. I'm not talking about Hamas or Hezbollah.

The group I'm talking about is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) -- which, along with two groups they support, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are the most fanatical and most extremist anti-hunting organizations in the world.

Right now, most Americans -- including gun owners, hunters and even NRA members -- have no idea what PETA really stands for or what they really do.

Some of your own neighbors could be among those who are sending nearly $30 million a year in tax-deductable contributions to PETA -- duped by slick ads claiming that their money will help find homes for stray dogs and cats.

But most are unaware that their money also helps to provide legal defense funds for extremists who use harassment, intimidation, and even terrorist tactics to achieve their aims.

But the more I've learned about PETA since accepting this invitation to debate, the more strongly I believe that the American People need to know the real truth about the growing "animal rights" movement.

And the more I believe that NRA members and hunters must step out and become the front-line defenders against PETA -- the biggest, richest and most powerful organization backing and supporting the "animal rights" terrorist movement across American and around the world.

You and I need to lay bare PETA's outrageous record of hypocrisy, zealotry and disregard of human life for all thee world to see. If children must die so that mosquitoes or lab rats can live, that's justifiable in their eyes.

Your neighbors and their nearly one million supporters of PETA need to know that when they send their contributions, they're supporting "animal rights" terrorists. Indoctrinating kids to hate. Shutting down medical research. And slaughtering animals that PETA pretends to protect.

They've provided cash assistance and legal defense funds to memebers of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) -- organizations that are part of an eco-terrorist network that the FBI says is America's "most serious domestic terrorism threat."

And just as Saddam Hussein once provided $25,000 cash to the families of suicide bombers, PETA provided a similar amount to the family of Rodney Coronado -- who was convicted of a multi-million dollar firebombing at Michigan State University.

And they're packaging their madness and pitching it to our kids, too.

One of PETA's newest campaigns, "Your Mommy Kills Animals," is targeting children in 20 states across the natino with a "comic book" feathrin a blood-spattered woman killing and mutilating a live rabbit -- a psychological warfare campaign aimed at converting the next generation of Americans to the "animal rights" cause.

Their website teachers kids how to be "animal Rights rebels," how to ridicule kids won drink milk, and how to boycott classes.

And even PETA's so-called "animal shelters" have now become killing fields for dogs and cats.

Between 2000 and 2004, PETA slaughtered over 10,000 dogs and cats at one Norfolk, Virginia "shelter" alone. For the past three yeas, this "shelter" has slaughtered more than 85% of the animals it has taken in.

In fact, two PETA employees in North Carolina were recently indicted for dumping 18 dead dogs and cats into a dumpster -- and authorities found 13 more dead dogs and cats in their van.

Yet, the "animal rights" and "eco-terrorism" movements have no more regard for human lives than they have for dogs and cats.

In report after report, scientists and doctors who were working on breakthrough medical research -- cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and other human sufferings -- have left their research after receiving letters containing death threats and poison-laced razor blades, and threats to their children.

I think the above paragraph might be something of an exaggeration — at least, I'm unfamiliar with the evidence that might support the notion that "report after report" show scientists leaving their research due to threats.

But there is no question that death threats and threats to families form an important arrow in the animal rights quiver.

And there's no doubt in my mind that it's only just a matter of time before they start escalating their tactics against hunters in the field.

Would it look like an accident? Would it look like a fall from a tree stand? Mark my words. There's a lot of thing that can happen in the woods, where nobody knows the truth but the trees.

And "animal rights" fanatics have already make it crystal clear where they stand when it comes to hunters.

PETA compares hunters to the KKK and Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious serial killer who ate his victims -- and claims that hunters are no different than "Nazi doctors and slave traders."

You need to know the facts as well as what I believe about PETA and their fellow "animal rights" extremists. Your fellow gun owners and hunters across America need to know the facts. And your neighbors and friends need to understand what really happens to theeir money when they send a contribution to PETA.

It's abut time that somebody had the courage to stand up to these fanatics. They are a threat to our values. They are a threat to our children. They are a threat to our way of life. And you and I need to stand up together and draw the line against PETA's war on our values and our future.

That's exactly why -- despite the warning I've received -- I decided to break silence and debate PETA spokesman Andrew Butler on October 18th.

And I hope I can count on your strong personal support for my decision.

First, I hope you'll be sure to watch this debate, premiering October 18th at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time on InDemand Pay-Per-View. Invite your friends to join you. And invite them whether or not they hunt, or own guns - - because your neighbors will be shocked when they find out the real truth about PETA.

Second, I hope you'll use the postcards I've enclosed to tell more of your friends, relatives, and fellow Americans about this debate. Give them to people at work. Put them on the bulletin board at your hunting club. Or mail them to people you kow in other towns or states -- so that your fellow Americans can learn the truth about PETA on October 18th.

Third, in making this decision to take on PETA -- and explose them for what they are -- I hope I can count on your financial support to reach America with our NRA message.

I want to make sure that by the end of this year we can put a copy of this debate into the hands of as many Americans as we can.

According to PETA's most recent annual report, 11 million American schoolchildren have already been subjected to PETA's "animal rights" propaganda. 235,000 teachers have been co-opted into PETA's national misinformation campaign. And thirtyu million Americans have visited their website.

That's why I want every member of Congress, every legislative staff member on Capitol Hill, and every courtroom judge to have a copy of this debate.

I want to make sure we can send a copy to every hunt club in the nation. To every fair-minded T.V. and newspaper reporter across the country. To every American who takes a hunter safety course. To educators in cities where PETA is most actively propagandizing our children. And to every member of the 4H and other youth groups that work with animals -- young people who will soon be called on in the battle against these extremists.

I want to make sure that in the coming months, we have the resources we need to combat PETA's ongoing efforts -- because there's no doubt in my mind that we'll have to fight in the federal bureaucracy, in the stat legislatures and in the courts if we want to keep our public hunting lands open, preserve hunting opportunities in our National Forests and National Wildlife Refuges, and block efforts to shorten hunting seasons nationwide.

I want to make sure we have the resources to work with local law enforcement agencies to demand prosecution of extremists and fanatics if they harass and terrorize hunters in the field.

And most of all, I want to make sure that every American who cares about the truth has the opportunity to find out what PETA really stands for and what they really do.

Most Americans, if they know anything at all about PETA, think that they're over-eager animal lovers, or college kids with too much time on their hands or, at worst, annoying vandals who splash paint on fur coats.

They don't understand that, when they send a few dollars to PETA they're also sending money to a terrorist support group that wants to shut down hunting, take fishing poles out of children's hands, ban milk from their breakfast, and stop medical advancements. A group that condones the use of threats and destruction to achieve their ideological goals.

Someone needs to break the silence. And I'm asking you to help me lead the way,

And if I can count on you to send a contribution to the NRA for our efforts to fight back and expose the truth about PETA and the "animal rights" thugs, I'll send you a DVD, VHS, or audio CD copy of my debate with Andrew Butler just as soon as it's available after it airs on October 18th.

So please, support our NRA efforts. Please help me counter the $30 million that PETA is spending each year to brainwash our children, shut down medical research, slaughter dogs and cats, ban our hunting and end our way of life -- by sending a special contribution of $20, $30, $50, or whatever amount you can.

Please stand with me in this fight by watching my debate, using the enclosed postcards to spread the word, and sending your most generous contribution today.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President

P.S. Please watch my debate with PETA representative Andrew Butler on InDemand Pay-Per-View on Octobe 18th. Please use the enclosed cards to spread the word about this debate. And please send a generous gift to help fund our all-out NRA fight.

P.P.S. The FBI has called the "eco-terrorism" movement the #1 domestic terrorism threat in America today. You and I need to break the silence, stand up to this threat, and fight for our rights. I hope you'll let me hear from you in the next few days. Thank you again.

Well — there you have it. The NRA appears to be serious, and has wisely focussed on PETA, who are easy targets, and, in fact, are becoming useful idiots themselves for people who oppose Animal Rights.

By focussing on PETA, the NRA can focus on the many black marks on PeTA's records, and tie them to the underlying concepts of Animal Rights, the premises of the ideology, if you will, to reveal AR/AL for what they are.

This is going to get very, very interesting, folks — PeTA no longer has a free ride. Stay tuned . . .

I'm exceptionally grateful to a North Carolina reader who I wish not to name for having provided me with jpegs of Mr. LaPierre's letter.

Brian