Exotic animal owner busted for grow op

Chris Morabito may find out what it's like to be one of his animals if convicted of possession and drug production after his arrest on Sunday.

Police found over 385 marijuana plants, along with a number of exotic animals, at the site of his proposed animal refuge.

Full story:

Marijuana bust was walk on the wild side

Photo of Sharon Morabito and Oliver, Niagara This Week

Morabito, along with his wife Sharon and two daughters, sought the City of Thorold's approval in 2005 to open an "exotic animal sanctuary" under the name TEARS (The Exotic Animal Rescue Society) for "Canadian travelers, school groups, special interest groups, special need associations, senior tours as well as several charity fundraisers."

The Morabito's had been known to take their rescued animals, often dressed in costumes, to air shows, parades, birthday parties and local businesses to raise money for their zoo (registered as The Exotic Animal Refuge Sanctuary until they lost their charitable status in 2007).

The animals were also used for "TV commercials, movies and special promotions," according to documents distributed by the Morabitos at the council meeting. Prior to starting TEARS, the Morabitos owned an exotic animal pet shop called Kris' Reptiles, where they sold constrictors, prairie dogs and primates, among others.

In 2007, Thorold City council, after hearing deputations from Morabito's family and friends, and a number of animal protection groups (including myself), agreed with the recommendation of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Planning Department and rejected the Morabito's application.

It is not known what will happen to the animals.

Are animals entitled to the same respect and rights as humans?

Vancouver Sun - Friday, September 25, 2009

By Daphne Bramham

Photo by Vancouver Sun

I have never doubted Darwin’s theory. But when an adolescent, female orangutan swings down from a tree in the Malaysian rainforest, landing only a few metres away from me, I look into her dark face rimmed with fiery red-orange hair and am certain.

Arms’ length apart, the urge to touch her is almost overwhelming. But it’s forbidden at the Sepilok Rehabilitation Centre in the Malaysian state of Sabah.

She and several dozen others were there to be rehabilitated to the forest and to have her reliance on humans broken. Since I saw her last fall, Kara has been released into the wild.

Orangutan means “people of the forest” in Bahasa, the official language in Malaysia and Indonesia. Unique to Borneo, they are endangered because their habitat is being replaced by palm oil plantations.

Before I left Sepilok, I “adopted” two babies - Sen and Sogo Sogo. I get updates on them and can follow their progress at http://www.orangutan-appeal.org.uk/.

At times, I’m slightly repelled by the anthropomorphizing that seems necessary to stave off extinction - the naming, the “adopting” and photos of the babies in diapers (which to be fair is a perfectly understandable thing with the “orphans” in the centre’s “nursery” where humans are their “surrogate mothers.”)

But they are not human. They are animals, albeit one of four species of great apes which share 99 per cent of our genes.

Yet determining our relationship with them - as with all species whether polar bears, cocker spaniels or cockroaches - requires an honest assessment of what we perceive them to be.

Are they our property as Canadian laws seem to presuppose, allowing us to kill baby seals, destroy the environment to the point that polar bears are at risk, raise chickens in cages so small they can’t turn around and use animals as spectacle even if it means that every year some die at rodeos and in zoos?

Or, as sentient beings, are animals entitled to the same respect and rights as humans?

Mid-spectrum are animal welfare advocates such as the humane societies, which support the responsible care of animals whether they are pets or used for food or work.

But calls for an Animal Bill of Rights are growing. While Canada fiddled with the Criminal Code provisions on animal cruelty only enough to modestly raise the penalties, Britain and Spain signed on to declarations giving great apes the rights to life, liberty and protection from torture.

Animal rights is a relatively new idea in the West that has gained traction largely because of increased concerns about the environment. But it’s an ancient idea in Asia where pacificism for Jains and Buddhists has long translated into strict vegetarianism.

“Non-violence applies not just to human beings, but to all sentient beings — any living thing that has a mind,” the Dalai Lama wrote in My Tibet. “Where there is a mind, there are feelings such as pain, pleasure and joy. No sentient being wants pain: All want happiness instead.”

While the Great Ape Project focuses only on extending human rights to orangutans, gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees, other groups such as the American Legal Defense Fund propose basic rights for all animals that mirror those included in declarations of women’s, children’s and human rights that include freedom from exploitation, cruelty, neglect and abuse.

But that’s not all. The American Legal Defense Fund wants the right of wild animals to natural habitat and a self-sustaining population enshrined as well as the right of farm animals to an environment that “satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs” and, the right of all animals to “have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.”

There is much that I agree with in the various animal bills of rights. It seems inarguable that torturing or being willfully cruel should be illegal. But after that it’s tricky for anyone who eats meat, eggs and even dairy products.

It seems inarguable that we, humans, should not destroy the very planet that sustains us and so many other living things.

Yet, without a massive, disruptive and even painful reorganization of our economy and society, we’re barrelling down that road in our SUVs.

Palm oil is a good example. A sought-after industrial lubricant, it’s also in huge demand for soaps, face creams and cooking oil.

Increasing demand for it means that in Africa, palm plantations now provide desperately needed money to women’s co-operatives and direct financing for hospitals.

But in Malaysia and Indonesia, increasing demand is gobbling through the tropical rainforests without which orangutans, the Asian rhinoceros, so-called pygmy elephants and Sumatran tigers will become extinct.

Sogo Sogo’s little face smiles out at me from the photo on my desk.

Us or them?

With our bigger brains, we bear a greater responsibility to animals than declaring them equal and providing them with a bill of rights. As women and children around the world can attest, it’s often not worth the paper it’s written on.

We need to find ways to share the planet, doing the least harm possible for all of the children -human and animal. dbramham@vancouversun.com

To view the entire story with comments, click on: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Column+animals+entitled+same+respect+rights+humans/2033959/story.html

4th animal dies at Stampede

CBCnews.ca - Saturday, July 11, 2009

An outrider horse at the Calgary Stampede has died of an apparent heart attack, becoming the fourth animal to perish at the event this year.

Doug Fraser, a spokesperson for the Stampede, said the horse was cooling down after a race Friday night when it collapsed and died.

A veterinarian determined that the horse, from the Ray Mitsuing chuckwagon team, died of a heart attack.

It's the fourth animal to die this year at the Stampede, and the third chuckwagon horse.

On Thursday, a steer had to be put down after it suffered a spinal injury during the steer-wrestling competition.

Death sparks protest

Animal rights activists from Calgary held a protest Saturday, saying the death highlights how the Stampede is a "cruel spectacle of animal abuse."

The Calgary Animal Rights Meetup Group staged a demonstration outside the Stampede grounds at the Victoria Park C-Train station.

In a written statement, the group said the death toll at this year's Stampede is evidence that all rodeo events need to go.

The group said it would continue to stage protests in order to let the world know "what an embarrassment this spectacle is to our city."

Gov. Gen's show of solidarity for seal hunt offensive: animal rights group

The Canadian Press - Tuesday, May 26, 2009

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean's public gutting of a seal in an Inuit community was a repugnant attempt to legitimize the sealing trade, an opponent of Canada's commercial hunt said Tuesday.

"I found it very offensive," said Rebecca Aldworth, a Canadian spokeswoman for Humane Society International.

"Obviously there is a tremendous public understanding of subsistence hunting in Inuit communities and nobody's opposing that, but to try to benefit from an Inuit ceremony in terms of defending the broader commercial seal hunt is simply unacceptable."

While visiting Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, on Monday, Jean gutted and ate a piece of the bleeding, raw heart of a freshly slaughtered seal.

Jean then wiped her fingers and expressed dismay that anyone would characterize the Inuit seal hunt as inhumane.

Earlier this month, the European Parliament voted to ban seal products, a move that was seen by aboriginals and Atlantic Canadian fishermen as an attack on their trade.
Asked Tuesday whether her actions were a message to Europe, Jean replied, "Take from that what you will."

Newfoundland sealer Jack Troake chuckled after hearing of Jean's actions.

"That's great stuff," Troake said.

"I hope the lady realizes that she's got herself into a hell of a mess. ... You've got some of these environmentalists that are going to jump on her, but I think she's strong enough. She can take that, I think."

For years, animal rights groups have intensely lobbied European politicians to implement a ban. At times they enlisted the support of celebrities like rock legend Paul McCartney in their cause.

The European legislation still needs the backing of European Union governments, which could be a mere formality since national envoys have already endorsed it.

Expected to take effect in October, the ban would apply to all products derived from seals, including fur, meat, oil, blubber and even omega-3 pills made from seal oil. But it would offer narrow exemptions for Inuit communities, though it bars them from a large-scale trading of their pelts and other seal goods in Europe.

Products derived from non-commercial and small-scale hunts to manage seal populations would also not be allowed to enter the EU.

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Do small victories affect big picture in animal rights debate?

The Gazette - Sunday, May 10, 2009

By Richard Foot, Canwest News Service

It was a satisfying week for animal rights activists in Canada. The European Parliament endorsed a long-awaited ban on seal products, and one of Ottawa's most celebrated restaurateurs removed foie gras from his menu, after months of harassment by protesters.

"We're quite happy about the ban. I've been working for 40 years on the seal issue," says Paul Watson, the Canadian founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, one of the most vociferous opponents of the annual seal harvest.

Meanwhile, Jason Halvorson, a leader of the Ottawa Animal Defense League's campaign to rid the city's restaurants of the controversial culinary treat foie gras, said he was thrilled by the group's most recent victory.

Do such successes mean the animal rights movement is winning its long, controversial campaigns to gain the same legal protections for animals as those ascribed to humans?

Certainly the sealers of Newfoundland, or Ottawa businessman Stephen Beckta, might think so.

Beckta is the owner of two popular dining rooms, who succumbed to months of nasty, anonymous phone calls, insulting e-mails, and noisy demonstrations outside his restaurants by animal rights activists protesting the consumption of foie gras, a traditional French delicacy made from the enlarged livers of force-fed ducks or geese.

Beckta said he gave in to the group's demands not because of any moral choice over foie gras but because he couldn't take any more threats, intimidation or sleepless nights caused by the tactics.

And he's not alone. Last year in Nanaimo, B.C., specialty food store owner Eric McLean capitulated to animal rights activists protesting outside his business by removing cans of foie gras from his shelves.

Yet over the long history of animal rights activism in Canada, it's hard to find evidence that the larger aims of such protests are ever achieved. Notwithstanding their local tactical victories, are animal rights protesters really as effective as they appear?

Consider the Canadian seal hunt, one of the longest-running animal rights campaigns in the world. For nearly half a century, protesters from Watson to Brigitte Bardot, and more recently Paul McCartney, have been trying to shut down the hunt.

They came close in the 1970s when Europe banned the import of products from the youngest seals, known as whitecoats and bluebacks. The commercial hunt nearly collapsed, but 20 years later rebounded as worldwide demand emerged for the oil and the spotted fur of older seals. About 300,000 seals are now harvested in Canada every year.

David Barry, the seal network co-ordinator for the Fur Institute of Canada, says the latest EU ban, while problematic for the industry, doesn't mean it's over. For one thing Canada can still export seal products to China, Russia and other nations outside the EU; there are also exemptions in the ban that allow the culling of seals for conservation purposes.

"This won't bring sealing to an end," he says. "The activists could have had an influence on the manner in which sealing is conducted - and they still could - if they want to talk and work with the people in the industry. But if they continue to just take a fundamentalist position against people who live in the same ecosystem as the seals, then they'll never achieve an end to this activity, because these people rely on this for their living."

In other campaigns, foie gras may be off the shelf of Eric McLean's food store in B.C., and off the menu of Beckta's restaurants in Ottawa, but it remains in supermarkets and restaurants elsewhere in Canada and the around the world.

For decades animal rights activists have protested the use of animals in laboratory experiments. Most recently in California, a scientist at UCLA had his car firebombed for the same reason. Only a year after 9/11, the FBI even labelled animal-rights militants one of that country's most serious domestic terrorist threats. Yet in spite of such concerns, laboratory mice continue to be used by scientists at university campuses across North America.

In 1989, activists destroyed two meat markets in Vancouver to protest World Laboratory Animals Day. Two years later, animal rights protesters set fire to a fish-importing company in Edmonton - ironically killing many of the live lobsters and crabs inside - and causing $46,000 in damage. But Canadians didn't stop eating meat or fish as a result.

In one of their greatest achievements, animal rights groups succeeded in convincing the government of former prime minister Tony Blair to ban England's traditional fox hunts. But now, several years later, public opinion is changing on the subject, according to a recent BBC report, and the Conservative opposition is considering revoking the ban if it wins the next election.

Even the whaling campaigns waged by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and others have not produced a complete end to the whale harvest. Whalers from Japan and Norway each still harvest about 1,000 whales a year. That's a big change from the 20,000 whales killed annually during the 1970s, but also proof that eradicating even the most controversial animal industries is a tough, if not impossible, challenge.

"We are fighting an uphill battle," says Watson. "But we just have to keep pushing on."

Barry says one of the shortcomings of the animal rights movement is its propensity to extremism and fundamentalism. If anti-sealing groups were genuinely interested in the welfare of seals, they would have accepted invitations from the sealing industry and the federal government in 2005 to iron out a set of "best practices" for the harvest.

Instead they sought an outright end to seal markets in Europe and the ban there now includes the loophole allowing Canada to cull its seal population without any cruelty restrictions on how those animals are killed.

But Watson says principles are principles, and the ultimate goal of his campaigns is not negotiation, compromise, or even victory.

"We do what we can with the resources that are available to us," he says. "We don't focus on whether we're going to win or we're going to lose. We do what we think is right, because it's the right thing to do. If we don't succeed, well, then it's going to affect all of humanity.

"The goal is the protection of our oceans, and if the oceans die, we die. It's that simple."

'You might as well not even have the legislation'

The Canadian Press - Monday, April 13, 2009

BY COLIN PERKEL

Horrific incidents of animal cruelty that have essentially gone unpunished or resulted only in slaps on the wrist demonstrate the weakness of federal legislation enacted one year ago, animal-rights activists say.

In one notorious case, a New Brunswick man was acquitted in February of charges for killing five pomeranians he didn't want with a hammer.

Since the animals were considered his property, the court decided he had the right to dispose of them as he saw fit, although he was ordered to pay $50 for injuring a dog that survived the hammer blow.

"Most Canadians do not view animals the same way that people did in the Victorian era," said Melissa Tkachyk of the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

"They do not agree that killing an animal with a hammer is the same as vandalizing a person's car."

In another case, a St. Catharines man dropped a kitten from a fifth floor balcony, then ran her over with his car. Charges were dropped because the kitten was considered marital property in a domestic dispute and his wife couldn't testify against him.

Critics complain that Bill S-203, which received Royal Assent last April 17, has done little to protect animals and say such incidents underline a crying need to put teeth into the law.

The legislation enacted last year, essentially the same as property-offences law enacted in 1892, beefed up penalties for animal cruelty.

However, it contains no standards of care for how animals are fed or housed and securing a convictions is difficult because of the need to prove "wilful intent" to cause suffering to an animal.

Simply proving an animal suffered is almost impossible.

Liberal MP Mark Holland called the updated law "placebo" policy.

"Those that are committing animal-abuse offences are essentially able to do so with impunity," Holland said.

"I've just been really exhausted with talking to SPCA officers who go into homes and situations where they see animals that have been tortured and abused and can do nothing."

Holland has introduced a private member's bill that would create a separate offence for killing an animal without lawful excuse regardless of whether it could be proven the animal suffered.

Across Canada, fewer than one-quarter of one per cent of charges under the animal-cruelty provisions of the code result in convictions.

"You might as well not even have the legislation," said Sean Kelly, chairman of the investigations committee for the Nova Scotia SPCA, who called the law useless.

He said he had heard of only a single conviction under the Criminal Code, and that one involved an extreme case of a man who abused 129 animals.

"When it comes to companion animals, it's just not heard of," Kelly said.

In another case last June, an Ontario man abandoned a two-year-old dog on a bush road after blinding her with a gunshot to the head but was acquitted of intent to unlawfully injure a dog.

Last month, a Nova Scotia woman was fined $5 for drowning a pair of newborn kittens in a bucket of water.

"The Criminal Code should recognize that animals experience pain and suffering," Tkachyk said.

"Animals are sentient - it's time to reflect this basic fact in our legislation that is supposed to protect them."

Ontario politician Mike Colle, who pushed the province to beef up its animal-welfare act last month, called the federal legislation a "paper tiger" that didn't give humane officials or inspectors better tools.

The legislation does not even outlaw breeding, training or selling animals to fight each other, he said.
- - -
Animal cruelty law called useless. Some recent cases:

Nova Scotia woman drowns two newborn kittens -- fined $5.

Northwest Territories man leaves dogs outdoors to freeze and starve to death -- no charges laid.

St. Catharines man drops kitten from a 5th floor balcony, then runs it over with car -- charges dropped.

New Brunswick man kills five pomeranians with a hammer -- absolute discharge.

Ontario man shoots, blinds and abandons dog on bush road -- acquitted.

Quebec man found with more than 100 dogs crammed in tiny, filthy cages -- 180 hours community service and $3,200 fine.

European Union vote could lead to tight ban on Canadian seal products

The Canadian Press - Monday, March 2, 2009

The European Union took another step toward a ban on Canadian seal products Monday as a parliamentary committee rejected a proposal to label the products instead.

A vote by the EU parliament's internal market and consumer protection committee endorsed a bill that would impose a ban on the import of all seal products to the 27-member union. It voted 25-7 in favour of the ban.

The same bill granted an exemption to Canada's Inuit to continue to trade seal products "for cultural, educational or ceremonial purposes."

The decision drew immediate reaction from those for and against Canada's East Coast hunt, which is the largest in the world. Over the last three years the total allowable catch has been set at between 270,000 and 335,000 seals annually.

"I'm very disappointed that elected officials in Europe are going against World Trade Organization rulings and legal opinions," said Rob Cahill of the Canadian Fur Institute. "It's not over, but I think this is a real setback."

Cahill said it was clear that years of lobbying by anti-sealing and animal rights groups in North America and Europe had gained traction with a number of politicians.

"Those campaigns are very strong in Europe ... and I think it's just the culmination of many years of that movement coming into place," he said.

Meanwhile, those opposed to the hunt were heralding the news as a strong indication the battle is being won.

"It's a fantastic step forward in the campaign to stop commercial seal slaughters around the world," said Rebecca Aldworth, director of Humane Society International Canada.

She said the committee vote "will carry a lot of weight" when the EU assembly votes on a bill, which could come as early as April.

In order to become law, the bill must be approved by the entire EU assembly and EU governments.

The committee decision follows an intense lobbying effort in recent weeks by Canadian politicians looking to convince the European body that the commercial harp seal hunt is humane.

The committee endorsed plan brands seal hunting as "inherently inhumane" and calls for the EU to heed public calls for a ban.

"It's clear they haven't taken into account information from Canada to the contrary of some of the things that they (opponents) continue to say as being facts about the hunting of seals," said Cahill.

Federal officials have estimated an EU ban would chop half the annual value of the hunt, which currently stands at $13 million.

Nordic EU countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland have opposed such a ban, and legal experts say it could violate world trade rules. Seals are also hunted in Namibia, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

British lawmaker Diana Wallis, who is drafting the EU assembly bill, had recommended the tough labelling rules - instead of a ban - as the way to ensure sealing countries adhere to EU animal welfare rules. But lawmakers in her committee rejected her compromise and opted for the ban instead.

She warned such a ban could lead to legal problems under world trade rules.

"My fear is that a ban will just leave the European public still seeing the same pictures on their TV screens of the Canadian seal cull next year as they see this year," Wallis said after the vote.

The EU has banned the import of white pelts from baby seals since 1983.

Several European Union nations, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, also have their own bans on all seal products. The United States has banned Canadian seal products since 1972.

Cahill said he hoped many of the countries who hunt seals would come forward during the next step in the EU's process to help keep the bill from passing.

In fact, EU members including Denmark, Sweden and Finland have opposed a ban.
But Aldworth contends Monday's vote was a "positive indication" that the end to Canada's commercial seal hunt is in the offing.

"I think this is a very historic moment in the campaign to stop commercial sealing in Canada," she said.

- With files from The Associated Press

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

New faces surface at Marineland

Wildlife group opposes addition of eight Russian belugas to roster of animals

The St. Catharines Standard - Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Posted By MARC KILCHLING, SUN MEDIA

Arctic Cove at Marineland had a few new residents move in over the weekend.

Eight Russian belugas - all females - landed in Hamilton Saturday morning after a 13-hour flight aboard a specially modified Aeroflot IL-76 jumbo jet.

From the airport, they made the trip down the QEW to Marineland inside water-filled tanks hauled by tractor-trailers.

"There are two in each tank; they keep each other company," said John Holer, owner and founder of Marineland.

The new additions bring the total number of the belugas at the aquarium to 30.

"We have a large demand of people who want to feed and pet the belugas," Holer said.

Belugas are the friendliest of whales, he said, particularly when dealing with humans.

So far, only one of the eight has shed its youthful grey colour and turned the milky, white colour for which belugas are known.

Belugas are native to Arctic areas. This latest batch of two-and three-year-olds originally came from the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Russia. They have been housed in a beluga aquarium in the Black Sea since being taken into captivity a couple of years ago.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature last year downgraded the threat of extinction for belugas and estimates the global population at 150,000.

Rob Laidlaw, executive director of Zoocheck, a national wildlife protection charity, says he is "astounded" by the arrival of the belugas.

"Most aquariums have two, three or maximum five belugas. To have 30, that's unheard of," the biologist said. "They're basically floating marshmallows when in captivity."

Holer said it's more realistic for a child to be able to see and learn about the wildlife by viewing it up close and in person.

"This is the best education you could have."

Laidlaw said people don't want to learn about animals, "rather they want to be entertained."

Although the majority of the belugas at Marineland were born in the wild,

Marineland has been managed to breed a number of the whales, with Eve and Gemini born this past summer.

Over the next few months, the eight new whales will be closely monitored by Marineland's team of veterinarians. For now, they will remain in an isolated area of the Arctic Cove playground while they get accustomed to their new habitat.

None of the belugas have names yet, a task Holer leaves to the individual trainers.

But by the time he opens for business next May, Holer expects the belugas will be ready to entertain the multitude of visitors that flock to the park throughout the summer.

Police looking for cow killer in cold case

The St. Catharines Standard - Tuesday, December 9, 2008

BY PETER DOWNS

It’s been two years since the last crime, but Niagara police are hoping the public will help them track down a serial cow killer from their cold files.

Four cows - including one that was pregnant with twin calves - were killed by someone who used a crossbow to fire arrows into them.

“It’s a real weird one,” Niagara Regional Police Det. Sgt. Brian Smith said.

The killings took place over a period of five days from Dec. 10 to 15, 2006, at a farm on Effingham Street near the border of Welland and Pelham.

The animals would have suffered painful deaths in the gruesome attacks, Smith said.

“Some of them didn’t die right away. They died as a result of their injuries, but it took a little while,” he said.

A similar cow killing also involving a crossbow two or three years before the latest incident remains unsolved, Smith said.

The first crossbow attack happened on a farm in nearby Wainfleet, where a single cow was killed.

It’s possible the killings are linked, Smith said.

“Personally, I would say yes, because there hasn’t been anything else even similar.

The chances of those two being completely independent of each other would be hard to believe,” he said.

The property where the four cows were killed two years ago is owned by an 80-year-old man who runs a hobby farm, Smith said.

“We don’t believe this guy was targeted in a revenge thing.... He just happens to have this isolated farm in the middle of nowhere,” he said.

Based on where the arrows hit the cows, police don’t believe a skilled hunter was responsible for the kills.

“They were pretty well random,” Smith said.

Investigators have very little information to go on, but are hoping a large knife found near the dead cows may lead them to the killer.

They believe the knife was brought to the scene by the crossbow attacker.

The knife - made by the J.A. Henckel company - has a 20-centimetre blade and distinctive markings on its black handle.

Engraved in the handle are the initials “PR,” followed by the numeral 2, indicating it may have come from a restaurant or butcher shop, Smith said.

“I think that’s going to crack the case if somebody can tell us where that knife came from,” he said.

The disturbing case has troubled Smith since it landed on his desk two years ago.

“We thought we’d throw something out there and give it one last-ditch effort to solve it,” he said.

Anyone with information is asked to call Smith at 905-688-4111, ext. 3345, or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477. Anonymous tipsters can also reach Crime Stoppers online at http://www.crimestoppersofniagara.com/ or by texting a message to CRIMES (274637) with the text reading:tip309 and the message.
_______________________________________________

"If one person is unkind to an animal, it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people." - Ruth Harrison

Circus animals banned from town

yorkregion.com news - Saturday, October 11, 2008

Lions, tigers and elephants aren’t welcome in Newmarket.

Remember the runaway elephants when the circus came to town several years ago?

A proposed bylaw would ban such animals within the town.

Councillors will decide next week on banning exotic animals in the town and its facilities.

“I don’t believe my children or any other children gain anything but a skewed view when animals are poked and prodded to do things that are unnatural,” Councillor Joe Sponga said.

“To me, it’s just not entertaining.”

After reviewing a host of resources, including the Endangered Species Act and the Ontario SPCA, staff advised defining a wild animal would be too vague, leaving the bylaw open for challenge.

Instead, a list of prohibited animals was created and attached to the bylaw. The list includes endangered or protected and venomous or poisonous animals.

Animals are listed under three categories: mammals, reptiles and birds.

Animals that made the list are banned even on a short-term basis, unless an exception is granted.

Events in town will require a booking request to be reviewed by town staff before permission is granted. A policy for appealing the decision is also included.

But this doesn’t mean the town can’t have events.

“There can still be a circus, but with no animals,” Mr. Sponga said.

The idea is to ban the use of exotic animals for entertainment purposes, not to eliminate everything involving animals.

For example, Newmarket could still hold an agricultural fair because there is a clause stating animals will be allowed for educational purposes.

Exceptions are also made for veterinary hospitals, police matters, educational facilities, film or TV productions, wildlife rehabilitation centres and research facilities.

The prohibited list includes:

• Cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, deer and elk
  
• Pandas, wolves, tigers, lions, skunks, mongoose
  
• Bats, sloths, armadillos, hares, kangaroos, possums
  
• Chimps, gorillas, monkies
  
• Elephants, rhinoceros, hippopotamus
  
• Alligators, lizards larger than 2 metres, snakes larger than 3 metres
  
• Ducks, geese, swans, ostriches, eagles, owls
  

For a full list, visit www.newmarket.ca

What do you think of the town’s move to eliminate the use of wild animals for entertainment purposes? E-mail your responses to tlatchford@yrmg.com

Residents bare claws over bylaw

Niagara This Week - Wednesday, October 8, 2008

BY MARCEL VANDER WIER

Lincoln council votes to defer decision on changing rules on feline care

About 100 cat lovers bared their claws to fight the implementation of an animal care and control bylaw at Lincoln council Monday night.

The ruling as it related to felines was eventually deferred to a future meeting.

The bylaw was poised to implement rulings to restrain cats from running at large, similar to the rules applied to dogs.

Tempers flared with residents shouting out "shame on you" at councillors from the chamber seats when Mayor Bill Hodgson said that his council had "probably made a mistake bringing it forward."

Reasons included a "meaty agenda, including the YMCA," that had been on the table Sept. 22. "I can only apologize."

Councillors listens to their constituents, he told the gathered crowd. He said that the bylaw would be referred to staff so all comments received can be reviewed.

"We're going to get this right," he assured residents.

Resident Derrick Morrissey, representing his 19-year-old cat, told council he was "shocked" that portions of the bylaw were going to be deferred.

"I'm here to stop this going forward from here on," he said.

He said committee members were failing their citizens, adding that the whole system was "rot," and full of "ambiguity and corruption." Committee members "broke the trust of the public," he said.

Coun. Peter Randall took exception to his comments, calling what was occurring before everyone's very eyes "democracy in its finest."

"People are passionate about this subject," he said. "That doesn't mean we succumbed to pressure."

Resident and self-described animal-lover Annette Schulz presented her thoughts on potential revisions to the bylaw.

"I see chances for improvement," she told councillors.

Her suggestions included alterations such as: no unaltered cats may roam at large, restricting the Humane Society to collect only fixed cats, and tickets for failure to scoop feces.

Having cats outside serve a valuable function, she added, included the repelling of rodents.

Her comments were met with extended applause from the constituents on hand.

The outpouring of submissions to the Town of Lincoln was unprecedented. Coun. Wayne MacMillan said in the past week he has been called all of "cat hater," "cat murderer" and "a supporter of cat genocide."

He called those comments absolutely false, and said he resented the terms directed at him.

"This may surprise everyone," said Coun. Rob Foster. "But we do listen to the public. Let's be frank. We decided to take this back and have a real good look at it."

"It was mandated by the province to update the bylaw," he reminded constituents.

"We don't just go out and randomly make up bylaws."

Gana the gorilla: grieving mother?

Scotsman.com News - August 24, 2008

BY RICHARD BATH

It was a poignant scene which reduced many onlookers to tears. Gana, an 11-year-old gorilla at Germany's Munster zoo, cradled her dead three-month-old son, unable to accept that he had died in her arms. Yet no matter how tenderly she nudged, caressed and cuddled the lifeless form, there was no movement from Claudio.

She carried his corpse everywhere, guarding the little figure so zealously that wardens at the zoo were unable to retrieve the dead baby gorilla for four days. But it wasn't her anger that left a lasting impression; it was the rawness of a mother's pain.

So clearly inconsolable, bewildered and shattered, her face displayed a range of emotions that we once thought of as uniquely human. This week she was a grieving mother first, an ape second.

Gana demonstrated, movingly, just how alike gorillas are to us. They live in sophisticated social groupings with complex, hierarchical structures and are known to mourn the loss of their young. The American anthropologist Dian Fossey, who devoted her life to the study of lowland gorillas, even witnessed them burying their young by shovelling leaves over their corpses.

The DNA of gorillas and humans is 99.9% identical, yet it is one thing to accept in theory the extent to which we are related to the great apes, quite another to witness it. "Many of the visitors were terribly shocked," said the director of Munster zoo, Joerg Adler. "This, perhaps, is one of the greatest gifts that a zoo can bestow: to show that 'animals' are very much like ourselves, and feel elation and pain. Gana lost a child, but I think in that loss, she taught people here so much."

Is this really true? Do we actually believe that gorillas are so similar to us that there's an equivalence in our feelings? Or are we just fooling ourselves? Did Gana simply show us that apes are sentient beings worthy of being treated as such, rather than as dumb animals?

Like virtually all our cultural mores, our attitude towards animals has been defined by faith. Religions differ profoundly in their approach to their relationship with animals: the Hindus believe all animals have the capacity to be reincarnated as a human; while India's Jains go further, believing that all living beings possess a soul so all life is considered worthy of respect, even the life of a fly, which is considered sacred.

Traditionally, Christianity is diametrically opposed to that view: humans are the only beings to enjoy free will, the only beings to possess a soul (even though the Latin for "soul" is "anima", the derivation of animal). "Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic tradition said very clearly that animals have not got souls and this has been used in the past to justify the exploitation of animals on the basis that they are just things," says John Austin Baker, the former Bishop of Salisbury and a prominent animal rights activist. It remains the prevailing view in the West. In one survey, just 19% of British vets agreed that animals have souls.

Yet there has recently been a profound sea change in Christian attitudes to animals. In 2000, Pope John Paul II created uproar in the Catholic church by decreeing that "also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity for our smaller brethren." Society's attitude towards animals is also changing, and there is little doubt why. Darwinism was the first scientific challenge to the concept of the dumb animal, but ever since The Origin Of Species holed the creationist myth beneath the waterline, the weight of scientific evidence suggesting animals have a previously unsuspected range of emotions has stacked up.

Instinctively, we know that Greyfriars Bobby possessed sentiments such as loyalty, devotion and the pain of loss, but more quantifiable animal emotions are also being revealed. Just last week came evidence that chimpanzees who have spent time in vivisection laboratories suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder exactly as humans would.

In 2004, researchers at the Babraham Institute at Cambridge University proved that when sheep were isolated from their flock they experienced stress, while showing them pictures of sheep reduced their stress levels. Dr Lynne Sneddon at the University of Liverpool has published research which comes close to proving that fish feel pain, while Prof Kevin Laland of St Andrews University showed that fish have long-term memories and sophisticated social skills."

We are living through an ethical revolution when it comes to animals," says theologian Andrew Linzey, an expert in the ethics of animal welfare at Oxford University. "We are shifting from seeing them as objects, commodities, resources, to seeing them as beings in their own right."

While there are obvious differences, the debate on the degree to which animals are sentient beings is in some ways reminiscent of the process that brought the end of slavery and the emancipation of women. Slavery began to unravel in 1772 when black slave James Somerset successfully argued in a British court that he was a sentient being who should be accorded rights rather than viewed as property. Campaigners seeking female emancipation followed the same tactics, establishing a wife's right to be a being in her own right, equal with her husband when it came to important functions like voting and divorce.

One sure sign that society's attitudes towards animals are changing is the creeping use of a politically correct vocabulary of parity to describe the relationship between man (or "human animals") and animals ("non-human animals"). In American officialdom and at England's DEFRA, the word "pet" has been replaced by "companion animal", suggesting some sort of meeting of equals.

This creeping de facto change of the status of animals is being consolidated by a series of law changes which may have profound long-term consequences. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 doesn't just require pet owners to give their animals a suitable environment, a healthy diet and protection from injury and disease, but also to cater for their pet's emotional needs, including "the desire to exhibit normal behaviour patterns" and be "housed with, or apart from, other animals". Failure to comply can carry a £20,000 fine and/or a custodial sentence.

If attitudes towards animals in particular and great apes in general are changing, as shown by the ban on fox-hunting and medical experiments on gorillas, chimpanzees and orang-utans, we are still lagging behind some nations. The EU accepted as long ago as 1997 that sentient animals are those which can not only suffer physical pain but mental trauma, an important legal precedent. In New Zealand in 1999, a coalition of scientists and lawyers only narrowly failed in its attempt to get parliament to go one step further by extending rights to large primates. In Spain, it will be two months tomorrow since the country's Parliament passed a law giving great apes a whole range of legal rights.

The trend is exacerbating our tendency towards anthropomorphism – the allocation of human traits to animals.

Occasionally this has tragic results. Timothy Treadwell wanted to prove that bears inherently share our values of loyalty and friendship, so went to live among them in Alaska. It was a triumph of hope over expectation that lasted 13 years until Treadwell and his girlfriend were eaten alive, a story that inspired Werner Herzog's award-winning film, Grizzly Man.

This anthropomorphism extends to regarding an animal's death as we would the death of a human being. Researching her book, Goodbye Dear Friend: Coping with the Death of a Pet, author Virginia Ironside discovered endless epitaphs, like this one, published in an 'In Memoriam' column in Dog's Today: "Shayne 1972 – June 90. I can't believe it's two years since you left me, but in my heart you live on for ever. We have 18 wonderful years together. You helped me grow up and taught me so much with your love. We will be together soon, wee man. Wait for me, son, love Mum XXX (Michelle)"

But there are moral problems with the prevailing trend. If we no longer see animals as our property to do with as we wish, then it becomes very difficult to sustain the case for killing and eating them. That is certainly the case for many of the 12.5 million British vegetarians who refuse to eat meat. Inspired by Australian activist Peter Singer and his seminal 1975 tract Animal Liberation, animal welfare organisations have long argued that our level of civilisation is determined by the degree to which we treat animals as equals.

For the silent majority to whom the ideas of animal rights activists such as Singer are anathema, the ending to Nim's story was telling. So, too, is a detail of Gana's story which emerged in Munster this week. Far from being the ideal of the doting mother, last year she rejected her six-week-old daughter Mary Zwo, who is now a star attraction at Stuttgart zoo.

Would most human mothers in similar circumstances do likewise? For the moment, it seems, some animals are still created more equal than others.

Animals removed from closed zoo

The London Free Press - Saturday August 23, 2008

By KRISTA SEGGEWISS

Wildlife authorities and police raided an infamous London roadside zoo yesterday, carting away unknown numbers of animals.

Members of the London Humane Society, Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources and police swooped down on the Lickety-Split Ranch and Zoo to search for and rescue native species such as deer or foxes under Ontario's Fish and Conservation Act.

Officials had no power to seize exotic animals under the provincial law, however, and at least one zebra and a donkey were left behind.

The ministry wouldn't disclose what types of animals or the number carted away in a trailer to a safer place.

"We had reason to believe there were some animals that fall under the description of wildlife that were in captivity illegally," said Russell Brandon of the ministry's Aylmer office. "It is our belief there is no licence."

Lickety-Split owner Shirley McElroy had a zoo licence from 1996 to 2006, but failed to renew it in 2007, prompting yesterday's ministry action.

Officials had to tranquilize one deer to remove it from the property.

The zoo has a spotty history.

Earlier this year, McElroy was fined $4,000 for having two lynx captive with no licence.

Lickety-Split grabbed international headlines in 2006 when pictures surfaced of Tyson, a kangaroo cramped in a small cage. Tyson has since disappeared from the property, without explanation.

Lickety-Split has been closed for more than a year.

The zoo owner was nowhere in sight yesterday and could not be reached for comment.

The grass was overgrown on the property, and rusted machinery, strewn wires, truck parts, empty trailers and tires littered the site.

"It's the worst case of animal husbandry I've ever seen," said activist Vicki Van Linden of Friends of Captive Animals. "We need to pass Bill 50 to give greater protection for all animals in Ontario."

The bill, proposed Ontario animal welfare legislation, introduced in April, would allow officers to search a property without a warrant if they have reason to believe an animal is in distress.

Yesterday's raid on Lickety-Split was done with a warrant.

Londoner Florine Morrison remembered taking her daughter to the zoo more than 15 years ago and seeing a black jaguar in a tiny pen with no shade, cowering in the corner to stay cool.

"They squirted him with a hose to make him get up for the visitors. I thought that was so cruel," said Morrison, a member of the London Animal Alliance.

"It's important for the city to make the McElroys follow the same rules as the rest of London."

Because the zoo no longer has a licence, it should be subject to a city bylaw that prevents people from keeping wild animals, Morrison said.

Farmer wants Grimsby to allow coyote hunting

The St. Catharines Standard - Thursday August 7, 2008

POSTED BY MONIQUE BEECH

West Lincoln farmer Ken Durham keeps his dairy cows in a barn, safe from hungry coyotes.

Still, he’s heard the accounts of coyotes attacking 181-kilogram calves on Mud Street just south of Grimsby.

The 68-year-old has found sheep skulls on his 30 Road property - even though there’s no sheep around.

He hears howling at night.

“We know they’re there,” Durham said.

“We know they’re out taking chickens from piles of chicken manure and chasing wildlife out there whether it’s a skunk or raccoon. There’s just too many.”

Durham wants the Town of Grimsby to do something about it.

Durham recently asked Grimsby town council to consider lifting a ban on discharging firearms from the south boundary (Mud Street) to the top of the escarpment.

He’s able to shoot coyotes in West Lincoln, but once they cross the road into Grimsby, they’re home free, the 68-year-old dairy and cash crop farmer said.

This year, Durham and a group of farmers and hunters shot 63 coyotes in Lincoln and West Lincoln between January and March.

“We know when we hunt they go across the border between Grimsby and West Lincoln. They can turn around the field and look back.... They get to know where they’re safe.”

Currently, the town’s firearm bylaw, which dates back to 1976, prohibits guns from being fired within its boundaries, with a few exemptions.

One is for a property owner or someone he has appointed in writing to act as his agent to “shoot pestiferous birds or animals,” but not within 150 yards of a building.

“That would prevent anybody from the urban area from shooting a firearm, but it would basically allow it up on the escarpment,” said Grimsby town clerk Kathy Vout, who has received one complaint about a coyote this year.

Vout said a public meeting will likely be called to address any possible changes to the bylaw.

The bylaw may have to be clarified, Grimsby Mayor Bob Bentley said.

Bentley said wild dogs, coyotes, foxes and cross-breeds can all be found on the escarpment.

“If we were to go ahead and create a bylaw that it’s fair game to shoot certain things, without really understanding the DNA of the creatures that are stirring up there, I don’t know that we could do that effectively,” Bentley said.

Town staff are looking at the bylaw and consulting with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, he said.

Bill Murch, a spokesman for the MNR, said it’s up to the town to determine what to do with its bylaw.

Various municipalities in Ontario have different rules when it comes to firing a gun, Murch said.

This isn’t the first time coyotes, or what could be wild dogs or a cross of the two species - has been an issue in Grimsby.

In 2004, council hired a wildlife control company to recommend how to discourage coyotes from wandering into town after 12 to 16 of the animals were spotted roaming town streets.

Bill Dowd of Humane Wildlife Control in Hamilton, who made the recommendations, said there’s several non-lethal ways of handling a coyote problem, such as getting rid of road kill and extra care in cleaning up park areas.

Dowd said people in rural areas, outside urban boundaries, are within their rights to protect their properties.

“I think every situation is unique why they want to shoot their animal. Is it coming around their property? Is it killing livestock?”

Coyotes became a problem in Grimsby, in part, after a surge of development that left behind piles of dirt and cut trees that attracted field mice and brought coyotes into town, Dowd said.

Last year, Niagara farmers made 88 claims to the province for compensation as a result of 123 animals killed or injured by predators like coyotes, according to provincial statistics.

The province handed out about $18,000 in compensation last year, up from $16,000 in 2006 for 63 claims and 103 animals injured or killed.

- with files from Matthew Van Dongen

No more TEARS for Niagara Region

Niagara This Week - July 25, 2008

BY PAUL FORSYTH

Niagara's regional government has closed the file on a proposed animal sanctuary in Thorold, saying it no longer needs to be involved because proponents of the sanctuary known as The Endangered Animals Rescue Society (TEARS) no longer plan to create a public, commercial sanctuary.

At a meeting July 16, regional politicians agreed that the proposal no longer requires an amendment to regional policies and that proponent Chris Morabito should seek permission from the City of Thorold for a private, small-scale sanctuary.

The region appeared poised to turn down the application last fall, with regional staff saying the sanctuary -- which could house animals such as primates, cougars, lions and reptiles - didn't meet regional and provincial planning objectives, and because the City of Thorold had turned down related applications.

Regional staff also said last fall that work had been done on the TEARS property along Highway 406 such as installing animal cages, building an earth berm, removing trees from a woodlot and installing portable buildings without getting necessary approvals or permits.

Plans have now changed so the sanctuary would only be a private one, said regional staff.

Wild Animals in Captivity

Talkback - School Library Journal - July 25, 2008

Zoos seem to be a part of most kids’ lives. But Rob Laidlaw’s book Wild Animals in Captivity (Fitzhenry & Whiteside) uncovers the bleak conditions at so many zoos around the world and forces readers to ask whether they should be there at all.

For the complete interview, please go to:

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6544850&articleid=CA6581087

3 Ways to be the Revolution

Vegan Freak - Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World

Posted July 20, 2008

We’re a movement dominated by professional activists - paid by large organizations - to do the bidding of those organizations. This is fine if you think that dressing up in chicken costumes makes sense, or if you believe the latest animal gassing scheme is a good thing, or if you happen to agree that Wayne Pacelle actually deserves a compensation package worth more than $230,000 annually.

But if, like me, you have doubts about highly paid activists, about so-called “victories” that still leave animals as commodities and property, and forms of activism that use one form of exploitation (sexism) to combat another (speciesism), there’s only one solution: be your own activist.

For the full story, please go to:

http://blog.veganfreak.com/blog_entries/view/3_ways_to_be_the_revolution/#When:02:46:51Z

Activism should not be left as the mere province of paid, professional activists. If we are to have the effect that we’re hoping for, we need to make the movement for veganism a genuine, grassroots social movement, driven by everyday people like you and me, working in our communities and in our lives to help create a base of vegan education and outreach.

Only by working in our lives and in the spaces that we know best can we hope to affect real change and build a genuine movement built of people who genuinely wish to change the essential relationship of domination that humans have over animals. Without a genuine pool of social activists, without people who are willing to put their own talents and skills to use, we are going to be stuck with the so-called “victories” of PETA and HSUS, victories that celebrate killing more gently. Shouldn’t we be celebrating not killing at all? Shouldn’t we be celebrating veganism? In her book The Dispossessed, Ursula LeGuin has a quote that sums up my feelings perfectly about activism. She writes:

"You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere."

The revolution is in your spirit - I know it is. If you’re vegan, something got you to go vegan, to decide that you would not have a part in the human domination of animals. You knew it was wrong, and you decided to have no part of it. Find that original fire and use it! You must be the revolution if it is to mean anything or change anything in the long run. You have to do it; no one will do it for you. Considering that, here are three things that you can do to be the revolution:

1. Use your talents and skills to educate people about veganism We’ve talked about this at length various times on our podcast, but we’ll repeat it again: every single one of you has some kind of talent that you can use to support this cause. You are a unique and special snowflake! We’re so used to beating ourselves down and to accepting that we don’t have much to offer that we often forget how we can be of use. You may think you have no skills to offer, but that’s impossible. We need everyone. We need people who can write and speak and cook and organize. We need people who can hand out literature. We need people who can sew and sing and entertain. In short, we need everyone. Get creative: use your skills to raise awareness or in support of others who are raising awareness or educating others. Which brings me to point two:

2. Work in small, consensus-based affinity groups Find a group of people who share your vision, get together, and make some change. Leverage each other’s strengths to promote veganism and to be vegan educators. For example, one of you may be an excellent public speaker, one of you may be a quiet person but a fantastic cook, and one of you may have excellent organizational skills. Why not get together, get a room at your local library, give a talk on veganism or vegan cooking, and bring some food along to convince people that eating vegan isn’t as horrendously subpar as everyone imagines? There are a million different possibilities here and a million different talents. The point is to use your creativity and your understanding of the world to make the most impact.

3. Start asking questions Why would an organization ostensibly opposed to animal suffering give an award to a slaughterhouse designer? Why would the so-called “father” of the animal rights movement say it was okay to eat animal products? Seems to induce a bit of what the psychologists call “cognitive dissonance,” doesn’t it? It is time that we all start asking questions and stop assuming that because PETA or HSUS or Peter Singer (or anyone, including me) says that something is good, it is. Think. Examine the issues. Ask hard questions. Consider the situation and the context, and think about the issues. I know that thinking is often scorned within this movement as a “luxury,” but you have to stop and think before you can act wisely. Don’t skimp on thinking: it is the most important thing you can do. Effecting change is never easy and is often inglorious, but it doesn’t have to be onerous; you can work little by little to educate others, and you can work with others to deepen your impact. We need to build a vital movement of people doing genuine, abolitionist vegan education. We don’t need another set of stupid stunts, sexist ads full of naked people, or overcompensated suits declaring yet another false victory.

Vegan 'chicken' on menu as KFC Canada pledges better animal welfare to end protest

Canadian Press - June 2, 2008

TORONTO - Following a five-year roasting by animal-rights activists, KFC Canada is promising improved welfare for the chickens it buys for its fast-food outlets in exchange for an end to a boycott campaign that will continue in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The Canadian Press has learned that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has agreed to call off its Canadian "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" campaign, which featured high-profile actress Pamela Anderson among others, following a signed agreement with the company.

Among other things, the deal obliges KFC Canada to begin buying from suppliers who use gas to kill their chickens painlessly, considered to be the least cruel method of slaughter.

The company is also promising to insist on other "animal-welfare friendly" measures relating to how the birds are kept, including a maximum on crowding and phasing out non-essential growth-hormones and other drugs.

Customers of the popular restaurant chain will also be able to order a vegan "chicken" item, according to the deal that followed almost seven months of at-times "sticky" closed-door negotiations.

"It's going to drastically reduce the suffering of chickens in slaughterhouses and also . . . improve the living conditions for animals while they're on the farm," Matt Prescott, PETA's assistant director of corporate affairs, said from Norfolk, Va.

KFC Canada President Steve Langford said he was delighted with the agreement.

"It will be nice to put this behind us," Langford said. "Our preference is to have nothing negative attached to our brand."

Langford said the Canadian operations, which are independent of those in the U.S., had chosen to take the situation into its own hands and talk to PETA about animal welfare.

"Once I got involved and we actually met face to face, we found out that we had no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated," Langford said. "We landed in a very good place."

PETA's campaign, which garnered international attention, has included more than 12,000 protests at KFC restaurants and outside the homes of company senior executives.

Demonstrators, who have included former "Playboy" pinup Lauren Anderson, have burned effigies of company icon, Col. Sanders. Other notables such as Paul McCartney, the Dalai Lama, and Chrissie Hynde have participated in the campaign.

KFC Canada was also thrown on the defensive three years ago when PETA released horrific video showing poultry workers torturing chickens in the United States.

The company is owned by Priszm Income Fund, based in Vaughan, Ont., which operates 465 outlets across the country. The fund has been struggling to stem a flow of red ink and shore up falling share values.

Most of the 300 independent franchisees have agreed to abide by the agreement with PETA.

"It appears as though our campaign affected the bottom line to the point where the company finally had enough," Prescott said.

"That said, I also believe that KFC in Canada is genuinely concerned about animal welfare."

While the anti-KFC campaign will now end in this country, PETA said it would continue in the U.S., the U.K. and other countries. However, it is hoping to persuade Yum Brands, which owns KFC outlets in the United States, to follow the Canadian lead.

"With KFC Canada now doing exactly what we want KFC in the U.S. to do, our members and activists will be even more energetic and invigorated about going after KFC in other countries," Prescott said.

"All we want is for KFC worldwide to do what KFC Canada has done."

Upcoming Events

Niagara Action for Animals’ Vegan Potluck

Friday, June 6, 2008, 7:00 pm at the Unitarian Congregation of Niagara, 223 Church Street, St. Catharines (beside Delta Bingo).

Vegan potlucks are a great way of socializing, trying new and delicious foods and participating in a free exchange of ideas while saving the lives of countless animals. The events are free and everyone is welcome.

*This will be the last potluck before our summer hiatus. The potlucks will resume in September.

What to Bring: If you bring a dish of food, make enough to serve 8-10 people. If you’re not sure what to bring, a fruit tray or veggie platter is an easy alternative to cooking or baking. Non-alcoholic beverages are also needed. If you bring a beverage, a large carton or jug of juice or flavoured soymilk will do just fine*. Also, bring a small piece of paper or index card with a list of ingredients and potential allergens (nuts, wheat, etc.) to place beside your dish. A stove and microwave are available if your food needs to be warmed. Non-disposable plates, bowls, glasses, cutlery, and cloth napkins will be provided.

*Out of respect for the church’s ban on bottled water, please refrain from bringing any to the potlucks.

A Word about Vegan Meals: In consideration of all animals, meals should be free of meat (including fish and chicken), and products that come from animals, such as eggs, honey and dairy. Also avoid using soy cheeses with ‘casein’ (a milk protein) listed as an ingredient. Providing a vegan meal will allow everyone to enjoy your food. To help you with meal ideas, there are plenty of great vegan recipe books available or you can go online to any number of vegan websites (keywords: vegan recipes).

Clean Up: Your participation in cleaning up after each event (doing dishes, sweeping, rearranging chairs, etc) would be greatly appreciated. It can take a few people several hours to clean up, or it can take all of us only 30 minutes!

See you there!

For more information, or if you need a ride, please contact Dan at: dkw1@sympatico.ca

"Animals are my friends…and I don’t eat my friends." - George Bernard Shaw

Horse racing is cruel; don't support it

Editorial & Opinion - The Niagara Falls Review - Thursday, May 8, 2008

To read The Review's coverage of the opening of the Fort Erie Race Track, one would assume that winning money, hanging out with friends and drinking beer is what the track is all about. Sounds like a lot of fun - I might consider going myself, if it weren't for all the animal exploitation.

The truth is, horses at racetracks are worked hard - sometimes beaten - to win the race.

If I were to do to a dog what jockeys do to horses, I'd be charged with animal cruelty. But for some reason, this kind of abuse is allowed, even encouraged, by our society.

Some say the horses don't feel the whips. Then why use them? The answer is obvious: To make them go faster. The animals run faster to avoid the pain of the whip. It's not rocket science.

Racing horses can be deadly, too. The fact that you have large, muscular animals running very fast and on very thin legs means there will be injuries. Too often, these injuries are fatal. If an injured animal cannot be rehabilitated, or if the veterinary costs are too high, it is put down.

Supporters have argued that every precaution is taken to ensure the animals' safety but in the end, deaths are inevitable.

These animals don't volunteer. Their bodies are pushed beyond their limits and if injured, their lives are taken from them.

So maybe it's time to stop racing horses. Surely, we can find some other form of entertainment that doesn't exploit or endanger these beautiful and noble animals.

Daniel K. Wilson,
Niagara Center for Animal Rights Awareness,
St. Davids