Animal

pauvre hop! Ne te stresses surtout pas avec ça... De mon côté, je suis encore loin d'avoir terminé mes nouvelles... Je crois bien en avoir pour encore quelques jours... (désolée ma belle Cé...) Bisous à vous deux

je trouve que c'est une réaction qui ressemble beaucoup à celle des écureuils... Lorsque les écureuils ont peur ou qu'ils se sentent en danger, ils émettent d'abord un bruit qui ressemble un peu à un grondement, puis ils font des petits cris perçants, saccadés, comme s'ils avaient le hoquet, et en même temps leur corps fait des sursauts sur place... Ils font souvent ça quand il y a un chat ou un faucon dans les environs

Merci Marjo

Oui, c'est tout-à-fait ça! Mais peut-être qu'ils font aussi ce bruit quand ils ont peur ou qu'ils se sentent menacés, plutôt que s'ils «se fâchent» (?)

by Ian McAllister February 23, 2010 Bears are now being celebrated at the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver. There are pictures of grizzlies and black bears on posters and murals all over town, even a huge white Spirit bear was featured in the opening ceremony. Bears are imbedded in Canadian culture and society; they symbolize our natural world that we are so blessed with, yet come this spring British Columbia is set to make another dubious milestone in its checkered history of bear management. In April of 2010, the BC government plans on opening the sport hunt of bears in the Great Bear Rainforest. The genetically distinct Haida black bear will be targeted as well as the monarch of the rainforest - the grizzly. Even the coastal black bear that carries the recessive gene that produces the pure white bear or Spirit bear can legally be killed. The iconic bear is featured as the NRDC logo. Bears will just be waking up from their long winter hibernation, and moving to lower elevation sedge meadows in search of the protein rich plants. Tragically, "sport" hunters will be waiting, hiding in blinds with high-powered rifles waiting to take home a lifeless trophy. In 2007, 430 grizzlies were killed in B.C., 363 of them by sport hunters, making the year the highest rate of hunter-caused mortality of this iconic bear since records have been kept. This sad statistic puts the lie to the provincial government’s own description of grizzlies as perhaps the greatest symbol of the wilderness whose survival will be the greatest testimony to our environmental commitment. British Columbia supports one of the greatest diversity of bears in the world. However, our government continues to treat bears as an expendable resource. The science behind the population estimates on which annual harvest rates are based is flawed and arguments in support of bear hunting are based on false assumptions about the economic importance of the hunt. And clearly, a growing number of people believe it is time to end the trophy hunt before these animals are pushed to the brink of extinction or extirpated as they have been elsewhere in the continent. Why do we allow the bear hunt to continue? This is a question I have been asking the government of BC for a long time and have yet to be provided with an answer that addresses three basic issues: Economics, Conservation and Culture. Starting with culture: For me, hunting for subsistence makes sense. I would find it difficult to live where I do if I did not hunt and fish to provide for my family, but the trophy hunt is about something entirely different, it is about gratuitous greed and pleasure. It is simply to put a trophy on the wall. Today, it should be culturally unacceptable and a practice we look back on with shame. First Nations on this coast find killing animals for pleasure or sport culturally abhorrent, as we all should. Conservation: We don't know enough about the status of bears in the rainforest to justify a sport kill and given the uncertainty facing bears especially with declining salmon runs and climate change we should be doing everything possible to protect them. Economics are simple: A live bear is worth far more than a dead one. For example one bear viewing lodge in Glendale Inlet at Knight Inlet on the south end of the Great Bear Rainforest generates more revenue for the Province of B.C. than the entire trophy hunt of bears combined. Bears are sentient, intelligent animals and they deserve a quality of life. I don't presume to know exactly what that means to a bear, but it surely does not mean being killed indiscriminately just for someone to mount on a wall. I do not believe that we can evolve as a caring society when we allow animals to be killed for perverse pleasure, greed or ignorance. Trophy hunting is an anachronism and when it is banned it simply won't be missed. British Columbia should be positioning itself as a forward thinking society, one that is caring and respectful of animals that we share this beautiful Province with. In the end, if we cannot protect our most iconic land mammals from deliberate sport killing what does that tell us about ourselves? http://www.onearth.org/node/1932

Je suis d'accord avec toi hop et je crois aussi que la plupart de nos maux physiques sont souvent causés par notre mal-être intérieur. Je n'ai jamais voulu prendre d'antidépresseurs, même si on a souvent voulu m'en prescrire. Ici au Québec, il y a pas mal de charlatans dans le domaine des médecines alternatives et ces soins coûtent très très chers. Mon père avait déjà eu recours à de l'accupuncture il y a quelques années et il s'était fait brûler la peau du ventre au deuxième degré avec des ventouses. Chaque visite lui coûtait 60$ pour une heure de «traitements»... On a su plus tard que les accupuncteurs de cette clinique n'étaient même pas enregristrés auprès du gouvernement. Il y a aussi bien des gens qui s'affichent comme étant des thérapeutes, comme des massothérapeutes par exemple, mais qui ne le sont pas. Et puis, il y a plusieurs années, un chiropraticien que je consultais pour des torticolis récurrents m'a causé une hernie cervicale, donc pour toutes ces raisons, j'ai pas mal de réticences. Il doit sûrement en exister des bons, mais je reste toujours méfiante Bonne fin d'après-midi ma chère hop

Aucun animal se trouvait à l'intérieur... Abattoir fire suspicious Posted By Don Crosby Don Crosby Sun Times correspondent A suspicious fire at an abattoir licensed to slaughter horses in Proton Station north of Dundalk is under investigation by the OPP and Ontario Fire Marshal. The Dundalk fire department responded to a call Friday morning at about 5:20 a.m. to a fire at Norval Meats on the Artemesia-Southgate Townline in Proton Station. Fire Chief John Thompson said an addition on the southeast corner of the plant was completely engulfed when firefighters arrived. "The flames were through the roof," he said. He said firefighters smashed a window in a door at the front of the main building to gain access, which triggered an alarm. Firefighters struggled to confine the stubborn blaze to the addition. Flames had crept up under the roof, which necessitated removing parts of the roof on the entire building to prevent the fire from spreading. "We spent quite a few hours yesterday peeling back the flat roof so we could control the travel of the fire," said Thompson on Saturday. The building had two layers of roofing, which compounded the problem. While the addition was severely damaged, the main building suffered some smoke and heat damage but remains structurally sound, said Thompson. "It's still in pretty good shape except for the roof." The part of the building that was most severely damaged is a steel beam structure about 400 square feet in size along with another 300 square feet of roof that had to be removed. Thompson estimates the total amount of damage at $250,000-$300,000. Advertisement "There is quite a bit of damage to the rear building. The main building is still intact but it's got some roof damage," said Thompson, who wouldn't speculate as to the cause of the fire. He described it as a big fire at the start. Grey Highlands was called to assist and responded with six to eight firefighters, a tanker and a pumper to help the Dundalk fire department. "We had one tanker on each side of the building so that we could make sure we could control what was going on," said Thompson. Thompson said he didn't see any live animals in the building. And nobody was working in the abattoir at the time of the fire. Thompson expects it to be awhile before a report will be available from the fire marshal's office on the cause of the fire. He said investigators took away some samples for forensic testing. There was a police presence on Friday and Saturday at the scene. On Sunday a private security firm hired by the insurer was on site to keep anyone from going beyond the yellow police tape. According to the Canadian Food Inspection website, which was updated on Feb.19, Norval Meats of Proton Station is a federally inspected slaughterhouse licensed to process cattle, calves and horses, although the sign on the building says it's licensed to slaugher beef, lamb and veal. Thompson said local farmers also take deer they kill during the fall hunt to the plant for processing. The horse slaughter businesses in Canada have grown by 75% since laws were passed in the United States in 2006 making it illegal to kill horses there for food, according to figures from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Southgate Mayor Don Lewis said the plant is also certified to meet the standards of processing for the sale of its products in the European Union where horse meat is sold. Anyone with information about the fire is asked to contact Grey County OPP or Crime Stoppers. http://owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2459454

s'ils n'ont rien à cacher, pourquoi donc s'y opposeraient-ils ?

Merci Nuage pour toutes ces explications ! C'est vraiment spécial comme petit animal et ça prend beaucoup de connaissances et de temps pour pouvoir bien s'en occuper. Je trouve ça triste qu'ils vendent ces animaux en animalerie- il doit y en avoir beaucoup qui ne sont pas bien traités

même si elles ne me font pas grand chose, je prends déjà des médicaments pour les douleurs à l'estomac depuis plusieurs mois. Mais ce ne sont pas des douleurs insupportables hop. C'est peut-être juste de l'anxiété. J'ai toujours été très stressée et très angoissée et ça s'arrange pas en vieillissant

merci beaucoup ma belle hop !

23 Feb 2010 11:44:49 -0500 Une secouriste a appelé une personne qui veut sauver les chats de sa mère recueillis de la rue un à un. Les SPCA Montréal et Ste-agathe sont pleins. surtout j'ai compris que les mâles sont stérilisés mais pas certaines femelles qui peuvent se reproduire si elles vont dehors. elle attend des nouvelles de Réseau secours animal. Évidemment si elle peut définitivement placer au moins quelques chats, ce serait bien. les chats sont à Lachute et elle peut en apporter un à St-Jérome lorsqu'elle va voir sa mère à l'hopital. Son téléphone est 450-472-8440. http://montreal.kijiji.ca/c-animaux-a-donner-20-CATS-TO-DIE-PLEASE-HELP-W0QQAdIdZ187705847 ----------------------------------------------------- 20 CATS TO DIE ....PLEASE HELP Date Listed 22-Feb-10 Address Quebec, Canada My mom has recently had a stroke. She has 20 cats, all ages, colors, etc, including 4 kittens about 5 months old. These kittens are not yet neutered, however the older cats are. All these animals require a good home. She herself has saved all these cats that were originally abandoned, and has taken care of them for years. PLEASE ADOPT one if you can. I have many animals myself, and cannot take in any more. My only other option is to put these cats down, and this breaks my heart. I do not have much time to do this, her apartment must be emptied within the next week or so. As opposed to buying animals, please help one that really needs you. Animals are a long term investment, so please don't respond if you cannot commit to the care required. Thank-you You can come and choose the one you want, or I can deliver one to you if necessary. http://montreal.kijiji.ca/c-pets-to-give-or-donate-20-CATS-TO-DIE-PLEASE-HELP-W0QQAdIdZ187705847

February 6, 2010 L'effondrement des stocks de morue provient de la surpêche et de la mauvaise gestion de la part du ministère responsable de cette ressource (MPO-Canada). Le rôle du phoque (ou sa niche écologique) est surtout de contrôler la surpopulation et de prélever les morues qui sont malades ou mal adaptées à leur environnement (relation prédateur/proie). Ceci a pour bénéfice d'empêcher les épidémies chez les populations de morue. Les différentes espèces de phoques que l'on retrouve dans l'Atlantique nord-ouest cohabitent avec la morue depuis des milliers d'années. Les récits historiques de l'Acadie ont toujours fait mention de la grande abondance des stocks de morue dans l'Atlantique nord-ouest et ceci depuis plusieurs siècles, et les phoques y étaient présents. Aucun, de ces documents historiques ne mentionne que les phoques ont fait disparaître les stocks de morue. Je dois admettre que cette situation est très regrettable et embarrassante, autant sur le plan économique que sur le plan écologique pour les Canadiens. On dit, ce qui rend l'être humain intelligent est sa capacité d'apprendre de ses erreurs. Pourtant dans l'histoire canadienne, on a déjà vécu une situation similaire avec le bison d'Amérique. Nos ancêtres, qui agissaient à titre de représentants du gouvernement, autorisèrent la chasse au bison d'Amérique. Cette population chuta, à un point tel, qu'ils ont traversé la ligne du non-retour. Maintenant, après quelques siècles, même avec tous les efforts de conservation, il ne reste que quelques îlots de bison parsemés ici et la dans les grandes plaines de l'Amérique du Nord. Si la population de phoque est si élevée à l'heure actuelle, c'est probablement à cause de l'absence justement de ces stocks de morue. Ceux-ci occupaient une niche écologique et prélevaient une certaine biomasse dans les fonds marins. Cette biomasse (celle des morues) étant devenue disponible, ceci a favorisé la croissance de la population de phoques. Ceci semble indiquer en contrepartie que l'environnement marin est en train de s'équilibrer et de s'ajuster. La population de morue va éventuellement augmenter et celles-ci vont reprendre leurs niches écologiques avec le temps. Mon opinion sur cette situation est que je crois que les phoques devraient être considérés comme les gardiens des stocks de morue, car il est fort probable qu'ils empêchent les autres espèces envahissantes et non commerciales de s'accaparer de la niche écologique abandonnée par les morues. Plusieurs facteurs écologiques peuvent expliquer la lenteur dans la croissance des stocks de morue, pas seulement la prédation exercée par les phoques. Par exemple: A) La température de l'eau qui augmente à cause des changements climatiques B) La décharge polluée du fleuve St-Laurent dans le golfe C) L’état des fonds marins et de la biodiversité, etc... Pointer du doigt le phoque comme étant responsable de la chute des stocks est une affirmation grave qui manque de preuves à l'appui. De plus, dans toutes ces affirmations il manque des études scientifiques qui prouvent que cette espèce est coupable. Je crois simplement qu'on répète les erreurs du passé en pointant du doigt cette espèce. En conclusion, les responsables de ce désastre devraient avoir le courage d'admettre leurs torts ainsi que leurs incapacités à reconnaître les signes avant-coureurs de la chute des stocks de morue. Les pêcheurs reconnaissaient et avaient remarqué que la morue était de plus en plus petite dans les dernières années avant la chute des stocks. Ces affirmations m'ont été témoignées à maintes reprises par des pêcheurs de morutiers (hommes de ponts et capitaines inclus). Pêches et Océans, pour leur part, n'ont pas eu le courage de contingenter les stocks de façon à avoir une ressource durable. Ceux-ci craignaient de déstabiliser l'économie locale, car beaucoup de saisonniers dépendaient de cette pêche. En principe, ils ont poussé la pêche à la morue trop loin et dépassé le point de non-retour. Car eux aussi étaient conscients des effets de cette surpêche et sur la diminution de la taille de la morue avant le fameux crash des stocks. Steeve Miousse 2009 Technicien en environnement Nouveau-Brunswick (trouvé sur Facebook contre la chasse au phoque au Canada)

Les abatteurs de phoques qu'elle défend tant n'utilisent pas la violence? Frapper des centaines de milliers d'animaux sans défense au hakapik c'est pas violent ça? Les images ensanglantées de leurs petits corps massacrés ne sont-elles pas plus violentes qu'une simple photo d'une miss quelconque barbouillée à l'encre rouge? Franchement! Trouvez d'autres excuses pour ne pas vous excuser mam Payette

Publié le 22 février 2010 à 09h35 | Mis à jour à 15h15 Végétariens «mangeurs de carottes»: Hervieux-Payette refuse de s'excuser (Québec) La sénatrice Céline Hervieux-Payette refuse de s'excuser auprès des végétariens, qu'elle a surnommés «mangeurs de carottes» lors d'une récente entrevue à Radio-Canada alors que son conseiller politique Maximillien Dupontailler allait plus loin en les qualifiant d'écoterroristes sur son blogue. Ces commentaires faisaient suite à l'entartage de la ministre canadienne des Pêches et Océans, Gail Shea, par une activiste du groupe américain de défense des animaux People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) lors de son passage au Centre canadien des eaux intérieures, à Burlington. «Je n'ai aucune excuse à présenter aux végétariens. J'ai discuté ce matin avec un représentant du Parti vert qui avait protesté contre mes commentaires mais jamais il ne s'est excusé pour l'entartage de la ministre. Il n'avait aucun remords et ce geste est bien pire que mes commentaires», a affirmé la sénatrice de Bedford. «Pour eux, c'est normal d'utiliser la violence. Car il s'agit bien de voies de fait lorsqu'on frappe quelqu'un, même si c'est avec une tarte. Et ce sont les mêmes qui ont diffusé une photo trafiquée de Miss Terre-Neuve et Labrador, Sara Green, une jeune fille qui n'a même pas 20 ans, maculée de sang car elle portait une fourrure de phoque. Dites-moi, qui insulte qui?» a-t-elle poursuivi. Blague Quant au qualificatif de «mangeurs de carottes», Mme Hervieux-Payette rétorque qu'il s'agissait simplement d'une blague. «Franchement, s'ils ne sont pas capables de prendre une plaisanterie... Ma fille a été végétarienne pendant une certaine période de temps et j'utilisais cette figure de style pour faire des blagues!» Céline Hervieux-Payette a toutefois précisé qu'elle ne pointait pas du doigt tous les végétariens, mais bien ceux qui utilisaient la violence. «Les gens ont le droit de manger ce qu'ils veulent, mais ces mouvements internationaux de défense des animaux utilisent souvent les émotions et rarement la raison pour réagir», souligne celle qui a participé récemment à une chasse aux phoques au Nunavut. Paradoxe européen «C'est une activité traditionnelle et légale qui se pratique au fusil. Ce n'est pas différent de l'abattage des animaux de la ferme et j'ai beaucoup de respect pour ceux qui font ce métier difficile. D'ailleurs, je trouve paradoxal que les Européens boycottent maintenant la fourrure de phoque alors qu'au départ, ils s'étaient établis en Amérique pour faire le commerce des fourrures», conclut-elle. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/societe/201002/22/01-954041-vegetariens-mangeurs-de-carottes-hervieux-payette-refuse-de-sexcuser.php

allo ma chère hop, Je suis rentrée tard. Comme tout est loin d'ici, chaque fois qu'il y a les courses à faire, et qu'en plus j'ai un rendez-vous chez le doc, j'en ai toujours pour presqu'une journée complète. Depuis quelques mois, en fait depuis près d'un an maintenant, j'ai des douleurs au niveau du foie et de l'estomac et comme ça semble aller en s'empirant, j'ai décidé de revoir mon doc. Je dois maintenant prendre un rendez-vous dans une clinique pour passer un examen car il dit que selon mes symptômes, il se pourrait que j'ai une pierre qui se soit formée entre l'intestin et le foie ... (Je n'ai jamais entendu parler de ça). Comme j'ai déjà été opérée, (on m'a enlevé la vésicule biliaire), je ne pensais pas que je pourrais à nouveau souffrir d'un problème à ce niveau... mais, enfin, tant que je n'aurai pas passer cet examen, je n'en saurai pas plus. (Je suis sur une liste d'attente et il se pourrait que je doive attendre 2 mois avant de le passer...) Faut pas être pressé! Concernant l'article de Stephanie Ernst, elle a tellement raison. Je n'aurais pas pu mieux exprimer ce que j'ai ressenti en lisant cette nouvelle. Merci hop et bonne nuit,

Une autre bonne nouvelle aujourd'hui !

http://lejournaldemontreal.canoe.ca/archives/journaldemontreal/actualites/national/politiquefederale/2010/02/20100222-042844.html

22 Février 2010 - 5h36Les végétariens furieux contre la sénatrice Hervieux-Payette +PetiteNormale+Grande(Corus Nouvelles) - Plusieurs associations végétariennes et écologiques du Québec pensent à intenter une poursuite contre la sénatrice libérale Céline Hervieux-Payette, elle qui les a traités d'« extrémistes » et de « mangeux de carottes ». David Ruffieux, candidat du Parti vert du Canada, s'est insurgé des propos tenus par la sénatrice. Il se dit maintenant prêt, conjointement avec d'autres organismes de protection des droits des animaux, à poursuivre en justice afin d'éviter que d'autres politiciens ne fassent de la diffamation à leur endroit. Le 25 janvier dernier, après qu'une activiste de People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) eut lancé une tarte au tofu en plein visage de la ministre des Pêches et Océans, Gail Shea, Céline Hervieux-Payette avait mentionné que les lobbies végétariens étaient « devenus des extrémistes qui ne respectent pas nos institutions démocratiques ». Elle en avait ajouté un peu plus tard, affirmant dans une entrevue au quotidien Le Devoir, qu'elle respectait ceux qui ne mangent que des carottes mais qu'elle préférait un peu de diversité dans son assiette. Avec PC CORUSNOUVELLES - CKAC Sports http://www.985fm.ca/2010/NOUVELLES/LOCAL/MONTREAL/02/22/les.vgtariens.furieux.contre.4319011/index.html

Le voici ma belle hop! Je n'aurai malheureusement pas le temps de le lire avant la fin de la journée (rendez-vous chez le doc ce matin, puis des courses...) A+ tard Animals Without Pain, Humans Without Conscience? 2010 February 19 Stephanie Ernst .It’s an idea that we saw and heard floated last year: animals “engineered” not to feel pain. And yesterday, Adam Shriver of Washington University, of my own city of St. Louis, explored in the New York Times his solution to the physical suffering we impose on farmed animals; he plainly states that we are “stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume,” and thus, his solution is apparently some kind of necessary, moral, noble one (and for this article, my hat tips once again to my expert link-providing friend on Twitter). I’m left wondering whether they teach critical thinking in that doctoral “philosophy-neuroscience-psychology” program in which Mr. Shriver is enrolled, while hoping that people in the general public see the wrongness of this and stop to consider whether, if this is where we’ve finally arrived, they’re really willing to go this far to continue doing something that already contradicts the values that most hold deep down. First, let’s just look at what Shriver and those in his camp are advocating — that we damage animals’ brains, so that we can damage the rest of their bodies with less guilt, so that we can continue treating them like inanimate objects rather than, oh, I don’t know, rethink what despicable things we’re doing in the first place. The idea that the solution to treating them as objects is to treat them even more like objects (and experiment on who-knows-how-many animals to achieve this non-solution) boggles the mind. When Shriver published these thoughts in Neuroethics last year, Marji responded at the Animal Place blog, and Philosophia and Animal Liberation crafted a thoughtful response as well, so I recommend visits there. [Edit: Unbeknownst to either one of us, Mary and I were writing on this topic at the same time this morning; check out her post at Animal Person as well.] Both are smart, thoughtful posts with excellent points about what eliminating animals’ ability to sense their own pain would do and not do, including in the “not” column eliminate their ability to suffer in general. We human animals know well that some of the worst suffering we experience can sometimes be not related to physical injury and pain at all — and we human animals know well that a great deal of the suffering we impose on our fellow animals is also outside the realm of physical pain. Oh yes, the physical pain we cause them is massive, but the mental and emotional anguish we cause? Equally unimaginable. And were we to suddenly not have to worry (as if our society worries so much now) about their feeling the physical pain we’re causing them, I suspect the ways in which we cause them concurrent mental and emotional distress would only increase. But put aside the discussion of what this horrid practice would and would not entail, and the very premise of Shriver’s argument is incredible. Self-serving and dishonest, it relies on an outright lie: that “we cannot avoid factory farms altogether.” I want to ask Mr. Shriver, “Are you serious?” But clearly he is. He’s been pushing this for a while. Yet surely someone who’s smart enough to work his way into a doctoral program knows that not only can we “avoid factory farms”; we can avoid animal farming altogether. We are not required as a society or as individuals to keep eating animals. And one of the remarkable aspects of Mr. Shriver’s so-called solution, among all the many proposals and justifications offered by people who want to continue eating animals, is that most other people at least pretend to care enough to call for a reduction in the consumption of animals. But Shriver is so ultimately uncritical of what humans are doing and so unwilling to suggest that we just take responsibility and live ethically that he’d rather insist, boldly and with utter dishonesty, that not only the eating of animals but even the intensive farming of animals is impossible to stop, and we should just embrace it and go to extraordinary scientific lengths to make sure we can keep doing it. Apparently, the vastly simpler, kinder, more logical, and more economical solution — that if we want to be kinder to animals and not impose suffering on them, we stop eating them – is just too simple. It’s not the kind of simple solution that propels you into journals and the New York Times or that creates opportunities for loads of research money to come your way, I guess. “The least we can do,” Shriver says, “is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on [farms]. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.” Talk about a false dichotomy. Our options are not limited to “change nothing; continue on the current path” and “cause brain damage to every one of the tens of billions of farmed animals in the nation.” The least we can do, Mr. Shriver, is first acknowledge that there is no “must” here and then behave as if we have a conscience and not cause them the “unpleasantness of pain” in the first place. The least we can do, if we believe in nonviolence and not killing and causing suffering for nothing more than our own pleasure, is not eat animals or what comes from them, not turn them into units of production, in the first place. Shriver assures readers that “the people who consumed meat [and dairy and eggs, I presume?] from such genetically engineered livestock would also be safe.” Maybe their physical bodies would be safe. But moral integrity would have no chance of coming out of such a “solution” intact. I refuse to believe that this is what we’ve come to, that we are so selfish a society that when faced with the horrors, crises, and injustices of our own making, we would devote ourselves to finding out how we can continue rather than how we can stop — that we would do this, that we would go this far, before simply living our values, before making a far more logical change. Animal agriculture is unsustainable (a problem not addressed at all by Shriver’s plan) and cruel and unjust. But we don’t need nauseating, elaborate schemes such as Shriver’s so that we can continue it. We just need to stop it. — Photo by Elias Bröms retrieved from Wikimedia Commons http://challengeoppression.com/2010/02/19/animals-without-pain-humans-without-conscience/

Insultes Les végétariens digèrent mal les propos de Céline Hervieux-Payette Agence QMI Kathryne Lamontagne 21/02/2010 23h46 Céline Hervieux-Payette. Journal de Québec - Archives QUÉBEC - Des organisations végétariennes et écologiques du Québec pourraient bien intenter une poursuite contre la sénatrice libérale Céline Hervieux-Payette pour avoir traité les végétariens d’«extrémistes» et de «mangeurs de carottes». Votre opinion La sénatrice devrait-elle s’excuser publiquement des propos qu’elle a tenus envers les végétariens? «C’est assez extrême de parler des végétariens en ces termes. Elle stigmatise et isole un mode de vie qu’elle n’aime pas. Elle donne une image négative de nous dans l’opinion publique. C’est une déclaration qui dépasse largement le cadre de ses attributions», s’insurge David Ruffieux, candidat au Parti vert pour les Verts-Pointe-De-L’Île. Lui, de concert avec l’Association végétarienne de Montréal et d’autres organismes de protection des droits des animaux, exige non seulement des excuses de la part de la sénatrice, mais envisage aussi d’intenter une action en justice. «On ne veut pas que ça aille plus loin. On veut prendre des mesures pour éviter que des politiciens fassent de la diffamation à leur compte», ajoute-t-il. Selon M. Ruffieux, la sénatrice, qui a fortement défendu la chasse au phoque au cours des dernières années, a représenté les végétariens comme étant des personnes «violentes». «On n’est pas des terroristes. Des hommes, des femmes et des enfants adoptent le régime végétarien pour toutes sortes de raisons, que ce soit pour leur santé, leurs convictions religieuses ou leurs valeurs écologiques», affirme-t-il. Retour sur les faits ... http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2010/02/20100221-234616.html (Le Journal de Québec)

'Enviropigs' clear hurdle on way to dinner table By Sarah Schmidt, Canwest News Service February 19, 2010 Genetically engineered pigs are one step closer to being meat on Canadian kitchen tables with the federal government poised to declare that they do not harm the environment. Canwest News Service has learned Environment Canada has determined that Yorkshire pigs developed at the University of Guelph are not toxic to the environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The official declaration will be made tomorrow. This is the first regulatory hurdle to get the pigs to market, which will be a first in Canada if Health Canada approves the university's application, submitted last year, seeking a government declaration that its transgenic pig is fit for human consumption. The so-called "Enviropigs," the world's first transgenic animal created to solve an environmental problem, were created in 1999 with a snippet of mouse DNA introduced into their chromosomes. The pigs produce low-phosphorus feces. The scientists were able to reduce phosphorus pollution by creating a composite gene that enables digestion of a normally unavailable form of phosphorus. This allows the pigs to produce manure that is 30 to 65 per cent lower in phosphorus than found in the manure of regular pigs -- blamed for polluting surface and groundwater when raised in intensive livestock operations. "The university has successfully satisfied the requirements to allow the line of transgenic pigs to be produced and farmed using appropriate containment procedures. So that's the step we're at right now," said Steven Liss of at the University of Guelph. Liss declined to speculate how long it will take Health Canada and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to consider the university's submissions seeking approval for human food consumption and subsequent commercialization. Patricia Howard, a biotechnology and public policy expert at Simon Fraser University, doesn't think Health Canada is up to the job -- nor does she think the Canadian public is ready to embrace transgenic pork on their dinner plates anytime soon. "If you were to start talking about genetically modified pigs entering the food supply, I think eyebrows would go up. A lot of people would have a lot of questions," she said. Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Enviropigs+clear+hurdle+dinner+table /2585751/story.html

Recent advances in neuroscience suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less. Not Grass-Fed, but at Least Pain-Free By ADAM SHRIVER Published: February 18, 2010 St. Louis IN the 35 years since Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation" was published, jump-starting the animal rights movement in the United States, the number of animals used in cosmetics testing and scientific research has dropped significantly, and the number of dogs and cats killed in shelters has fallen by more than half. Nevertheless, because the amount of red meat that Americans eat per capita has held steady at more than 100 pounds a year as the population has increased, more animals than ever suffer from injuries and stress on factory farms. Veal calves and gestating sows are so confined as to suffer painful bone and joint problems. The unnatural high-grain diets provided in feedlots cause severe gastric distress in many animals. And faulty or improperly used stun guns cause the painful deaths of thousands of cows and pigs a year. We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals' discomfort - through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less. This prospect stems from a new understanding of how mammals sense pain. The brain, it turns out, has two separate pathways for perceiving pain: a sensory pathway that registers its location, quality (sharp, dull or burning, for example) and intensity, and a so-called affective pathway that senses the pain's unpleasantness. This second pathway appears to be associated with activation of the brain's anterior cingulate cortex, because people who have suffered damage to this part of the brain still feel pain but no longer find it unpleasant. (The same is true of people who are given morphine, because there are more receptors for opiates in the affective pain pathway than in the sensory pain pathway.) Neuroscientists have found that by damaging a laboratory rat's anterior cingulate cortex, or by injecting the rat with morphine, they can likewise block its affective perception of pain. The rat reacts to a heated cage floor by withdrawing its paws, but it doesn't bother avoiding the places in its cage where it has learned the floor is likely to be heated up. Recently, scientists have learned to genetically engineer animals so that they lack certain proteins that are important to the operation of the anterior cingulate cortex. Prof. Min Zhuo and his colleagues at the University of Toronto, for example, have bred mice lacking enzymes that operate in affective pain pathways. When these mice encounter a painful stimulus, they withdraw their paws normally, but they do not become hypersensitive to a subsequent painful stimulus, as ordinary mice do. Prof. Zhou-Feng Chen and his colleagues here at Washington University have engineered mice so that they lack the gene for a peptide associated with the anterior cingulate gyrus. Like the animals given brain lesions, these mice are normally sensitive to heat and mechanical pain, but they do not avoid situations where they experience such pain. Given the similarity among all mammals' neural systems, it is likely that scientists could genetically engineer pigs and cows in the same way. Because the sensory dimension of the animals' pain would be preserved, they would still be able to recognize and avoid, when possible, situations where they might be bruised or otherwise injured. The people who consumed meat from such genetically engineered livestock would also be safe. Knockout animals have specific proteins removed, rather than new ones inserted, so there's no reason to think that their meat would pose more health risks for humans than ordinary meat does. If we cannot avoid factory farms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all. Adam Shriver is a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University.

Hunters targeting crows ANIMAL CONTROL: Rob Seal and Kyle Dittmer are even planning a guided shoot business in Chatham-area fields By BOB BOUGHNER, QMI Agency Last Updated: February 17 2010 Kyle Dittmer, left, Rob Seal and black lab Avery shot and retrieved more than 100 crows in a two-day period this week near Chatham. (BOB BOUGHNER, Chatham Daily News) CHATHAM -- Two waterfowl hunting buddies have turned their gun sights on Chatham-Kent's huge crow population. Rob Seal and Kyle Dittmer even plan to launch a new small business next winter, offering guided crow shoots in area farm fields. Meanwhile, the pair are spending much of their spare time culling crows on a farm on the western outskirts of Chatham, where huge flocks of crows have been a persistent problem for years. Shooting 100 or more crows in a single day isn't uncommon, according to Seal. He uses the dead crows as bait for coyotes, which he claims are becoming "rampant" in Chatham-Kent. Seal, who shot his first coyote of the winter last week, said his small game licence permits the shooting of crows from January to March. Seal said there's no limit on the number of crows one can shoot. He said he knows of at least a dozen "dedicated'' crow hunters across Chatham-Kent, who spend much of their time in pursuit of the "black bandits.'' "Crow hunting is big business in the U.S.,'' he said. "Some U.S. guides charge as much as $200 for a one-day crow hunt.'' Seal said more information on crow shooting in the U.S. can be found at www.crowbusters.com. Chatham Daily News http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/02/11/12846951.html

Coyote bounty kills hit 18,000 in Sask. Friday, February 19, 2010 CBC News Less than four months after Saskatchewan's coyote bounty program was announced, 18,000 coyotes have been killed. The government gave an update on the Saskatchewan Coyote Control Program on Friday. Agriculture Minister Bob Bjornerud, who introduced the $20-an-animal bounty last November, said he's pleased with the number of people who have participated, but he'd like to see a lot more coyotes killed in the weeks ahead. A government news release said nearly 18,000 coyotes were killed for fur in the previous fiscal year without the government paying people. In an average year, the kill number is around 21,000, according to the Environment Ministry. Bjornerud said he hopes 35,000 can be killed by the end of March. "For this to really do the job that we had hoped it would do, we've got to be at least [at] 30,000, somewhere in that area," he said. The government will spend $600,000 if 30,000 coyotes are killed. People must bring in all four paws to get their money. The province introduced the program amid widespread concerns that coyotes were destroying sheep, cattle and other livestock. There have also been concerns about dangers to humans in rural areas. Bjornerud noted that coyotes have become bolder, coming into farmyards during daylight hours while families are working outside. Some wildlife and environmental groups have expressed skepticism that the bounty would be effective at eliminating the coyotes that prey on farm animals, claiming that only the weaker, slower coyotes would be killed. The Green Party said the money the province is spending could be better spent helping farmers pay for fences and livestock guardian dogs. It notes that a bounty program was tried, and cancelled, in Nova Scotia because coyotes simply had bigger litters when their numbers dropped. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/02/19/sk-coyote-program-100 2.html