This massacre of the dolphins is by no means a new thing. It's been part of the culture for centuries but prior to the world of the Internet it wasn't well known. Animal activists have recently given a spotlight on the practice. The activists have used celebrities to help get the word out on the barbaric nature of this type of fishing. The activists have taken measures in their own hands at times destroying the property of the fishermen. It's been the cause of arrests and bad feelings between the two groups.

“One fisherman told me if the whalers could kill me, they would,” says the best-known protester, Ric O’Barry, who once trained dolphins for the 1960’s TV series ‘Flipper.’ “But I always try to stay on the right side of the law. If I get arrested, I’m out of this fight.”

Dolphin meat has often been used in school lunches. The meat is fairly cheap selling at about $16 US for a kilo. Schoolchildren know the difference between whale and dolphins, it's not hard dolphin meat smells of the toxins within.

One fisherman compared the "fishing process" to that of the United States slaughterhouses. He wasn't that far off and he was right in saying that it's out in the open. Visible. When people see something horrific it stays with them. Slaughterhouses are behind walls.

“If you walked into an American slaughterhouse for cows it wouldn’t look very pretty either,” says one, who identifies himself only as Kawasaki. “The killing is done in the open here so it looks worse than it is.” Most are descended from families that have been killing and eating the contents of the sea around Taiji for generations and reject arguments that dolphins are ‘special.’ Says Kawasaki: “They’re food, like dogs for the Chinese and Koreans.”

In August Assemblymen Junichiro Yamashita, 59, and Hisato Ryono, 51, from the nearby whaling city of Taiji announced the high mercury and methylmercury levels that had been found in samples of the meat of pilot whales that had been butchered. The pilot whale is actually the largest of the dolphin family. Every year 2,300 dolphins are slaughtered in Taiji. The local fishermen herd the dolphins into small coves where they spear the animals and hack them to death. In Japan it is estimated that 20,000 dolphins are slaughtered a year.

Yamashita explained, "We're not against traditional whaling, but we heard claims that pilot whales are poisoned with mercury, and we discovered that some of this meat from a (drive fishery) was fed to kids in school lunches."

"We tested some samples — purchased at the Gyokyo supermarket in Taiji and Super Center Okuwa in the nearby city of Shingu," Yamashita said, adding they were "shocked" by the results.

If the meat wasn't toxic though would the outrage still be there? Of course it would. But...and by no means am I saying that this practice is right, it is tradition. We in the West do not agree with the slaughter of animals and it happens even here in North America. The clubbing of baby seals is just one instance that comes to mind.

The fact of the matter though in this case is the meat that comes from these slaughters is no longer safe for human consumption. It may have been in the past before pollutants filled the waterways. Now it is not only unseemly to slaughter the animals but by doing so puts a nation's young at risk when their families prepare it for them to eat. For that reason alone it should be outlawed.

If the people in Japan were more educated by their government on the danger of eating mercury filled meat they would no doubt be up in arms about this practice. The animal activist are right to be outraged at the barbarity of the "fishing" but the key at least to me is the safety issues. Those issues being more in the news have a better chance at stopping the slaughter of the dolphins.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin

"In Defense of Animals" is an animal activist group and they are urging a Boycott of the Olympics in Beijing because of the continued cruelty to animals in that Asian country overseas.

According to "Defense", from November through March each year animals are crushed into barbed wire cages and forced to lay upon each other for days without food or water. Then, the animals are removed with tongs, stabbed in the groin, and bludgeoned or bled to death. They squeal out in pain as they're skinned alive and others are forced to watch and listen to their fate.

Shocking!

The animal activists allege that they have actual videotape footage - which reveals in disturbing detail - that some animals continue to live after their skin has been stripped and their bodies thrown into a heap with the dead and dying. In fact, the animal activists allege the animals continue to breath and live for as long as thirty minutes after the initial skinning.

Part of the problem of cruelty to dogs and cats stems from the fact there are no laws enacted in China to protect animals from this horrific treatment.

Also, because of loopholes in the labeling laws, the Chinese are able to sneak fur trim into coats and garments without any mention of origins of the fur on the label.

To frustrate matters, the fur industry often disguises its product through dyeing and other methods, so that the buyer is unaware that they are actually purchasing a retail item which uses dog and cat fur.

Did you know that budget fur on collars, toys, and other accessories usually originates from China where the atrocities against animals are occurring?

It is calculated that over 5400 dogs and cats are skinned alive in China each day.

Because U.S. Laws only require labeling of fur garments over $150.00 in value, illegal dog and cat fur is exported into the U.S., without the consumer being the wiser about what they are purchasing.

Now, there is now a call to action to end this cruelty to animals.

First, and foremost, consumers are urged to Boycott the Olympics in Beijing, until the heinous acts stop.

Secondly, Americans are asked to Boycott all pet products made in China.

In addition, fashionistas are asked to resist the inclination to buy fur or items crafted with fur trim.

To get involved personally, contact antifur@idausa.org  for copies of brochures and cards to distribute in the community to get the word out and further the cause.

Finally, concerned anima lovers are invited to get "vocal" by protesting to Chinese officials, directly.

Complaints may be forwarded to:

His Excellency Zhou Wenzhong
Ambassador of the People's Republic of China
2300 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20008
Fax: 202.328.2582
Cell: 202.328.2574

As Rue McClanahan noted,

"Cruelty is one fashion statement we can all do without"

Link to view examples of cruelty: http://animalsaviors.org/chinesefurfarms1.html

Canada's current---and virtually meaningless---animal cruelty laws have been on the books since 1892!

Animals are not recognized as sentient beings, and those without "owners," such as strays and wild animals, are not protected at all!

In other words, any psycho can pick up a stray cat or dog and torture it, without any repercussions, whatsoever.

Bill S-203 is suggesting that stronger penalties be applied to those convicted of animal cruelty, under the existing useless law!

But, since animal abusers are rarely convicted, stronger penalties are irrelevant!

An excellent article, by A.S.A. Harrison, which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail, sums it up nicely:

"If Bill S-203 is passed in April or May, when it comes to a third and final reading in the House of Commons, our animal friends will suffer. The bill, which purports to update Canada's Animal Cruelty Act, is a sham. Some of its critics say that its only function is to earn brownie points for politicians who want to be seen as humane. The bill's critics include practically every animal protection group in Canada, from the SPCAs and humane societies to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and grassroots organizations."

On the other hand, Liberal MP, Mark Holland, has tabled Bill C-373, which would prohibit the killing of any animal "without a lawful excuse," regardless of whether the animal is "owned" by someone or not. Anyone who kills an animal "brutally or viciously," would be prosecuted, and---most importantly---animals wouldn't be regarded as PROPERTY!

I'm not sure how this law would apply to lab animals. I would assume if animals are no longer considered property, human beings would not have the right to conduct experiments on them. But, perhaps animal cruelty in the name of "science" would be excused.

Call me naïve, but I can't understand why our governments are so against giving animals the rights they so obviously deserve. On the other hand, considering how many humans have been denied their rights over the years, I shouldn't be surprised.

If you'd like to lend a voice and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, you may wish to attend one of the rallies being held on Sunday, March 30, 2008 to oppose the bullshit bill S-203 and demand effective animal cruelty legislation.

Click here for more information.

Please also read: "Stop Animal Cruelty in Canada."

Stemwedel's arguments are impeccable; even when I am not in complete agreement with her stand,

The contentious issue is the reason for the secrecy. UCLA insists that the aim is to protect researchers who use animals from attacks of the sort directed at London (among others). When openness facilitates the placement of firebombs by groups who reject any sort of research with animals, it seems prudent to keep certain details secret.

It is difficult not to concede the soundness of her arguments:

Note that this is not the same as keeping all the details of the research secret from everyone. The IACUC had to approve the protocols, and the protocols had to be explicit in their details. Also, IACUCs include a representative of the community (in this case, a member unaffiliated with UCLA) and a non-scientist. This means that the public is represented in the IACUC's decisions.

However, there are some who seem sure the secrecy has less to do with the safety of the investigators from harassment and physical violence and more to do with protecting the evil machinations of Philip Morris:

"It's stunning in this day and age that a university would do secret research for the tobacco industry on the brains of children," said Matt Meyers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington, D.C. "It raises fundamental questions about the integrity, honesty and openness of research anywhere at the University of California."

The big question, of course, is how scientists could do this research openly without becoming targets of ALF and groups of its ilk. Are the members of the public who are clamoring for full disclosure here willing to take the necessary steps to protect the researchers from harm?

If they think the corporate funder is a problem, are they willing to help locate "cleaner" sources of funding for the research?

A must-read post; take a look!