TWELVE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED IN UCLA PRIMATE VIVISECTOR'S EDYTHE LONDON'S NEIGHBORHOOD


Contact: John Uribe Esq. Uribelaw@aol.com  213 216.1300  
 
Los Angeles: Twelve peaceful animal rights activists were illegally  arrested Saturday near the home of Edythe London, notorious UCLA employee known for addicting non-human primates to methamphetamines and nicotine. While acting completely within the law, activists were summarily  rounded up and arrested by rogue UCLA police intent on stopping a constitutionally-protected picket. Identical demonstrations have occurred in the area for several years without arrests.
 
Edythe London is a long time primate "vivisector" (vivisection is the act of performing torturous and mutilating experiments on animals). London injects and addicts monkeys to methamphetamines (turning them into tweakers, so to speak), before strapping them into leather restraints, doing "PET scans" on them and then killing them. She also addicts primates to nicotine, using money provided by a grant from the Phillip Morris Company, as well as having used underage teens for the study as well.
 
For the past two years, UCLA police and the LAPD have watched and filmed activists marching past and around Edythe London's 'toney' neighborhood in Westwood, California and never cited or arrested any activist under the municipal code cited on Saturday for the arrests. After imprisonment for several hours, all the activists were released without bail. A hearing has been set for June 15 the Airport Municipal Court in Los Angeles.
 
A 'Legal Observer' with formal training from the National Lawyers Guild was at the scene of the arrests videotaping UCLA police harassment and states "UCLA police made the arrests while activists were marching on the sidewalk by another home two doors from London's." Police then proceeded to CONFISCATE the legal observer's video tape of the entire day's legal picketing, as well as hundreds of dollars worth of posters, a banner depicting horrible images of primates in the laboratory's of UCLA and other laboratories and a five foot "stuffed animal" created to look like a monkey being experimented on hanging from a cross.
 
The legal observer is certain UCLA police will alter or erase her videotape: "This has happened before with videotapes confiscated by police showing official misconduct and/or proving activists were within the law."

New Zealand SPCA Head Says "No Kill Within Reach."


It’s the “Can Do” Within Us that Will Save Lives

May 11, 2010 by Nathan J. Winograd 

At their annual animal shelter conference, I sat listening to the welcome address by the President of the nation’s largest humane organization. He said that ending the killing of savable animals was within reach across the country, called upon all shelters to commit themselves to doing so, and he gave them the prescription to do it: the programs and services of the No Kill Equation.
“Our first step,” he said, “must be a commitment and an acceptance of the philosophy that saving lives is totally achievable. With that in place, the second step is to implement an infrastructure with each and every individual SPCA to achieve just that… The infrastructure involves ten initiatives, and the ultimate success of the program depends on the implementation of each and every of missions contained therein… by resolve and the rigorous implementation of the full program.”
He called it “Saving Lives,” a campaign to achieve a No Kill nation. He didn’t use the term “No Kill,” that wasn’t their language, but what did it matter. The underlying philosophy was the same: “Every life is precious” he said and for the animals, it was the job of the humane movement “to promote and protect their right to life and happiness.”
I heard him dismiss the different excuses: “Ringworm is not a reason to kill animals,” respiratory infection “is not a reason to kill cats,” claims of lacking space “should never be an excuse.” He described these as “cases where extra effort is made to save their lives whereas in the past death would have been the easier choice.” He called upon shelters to “steadfastly ensure that the ingredients of the Saving Lives philosophy are embraced and executed in their entirety in the honest belief that ‘we can do it!’” He was unapologetic, emphatic, and without ambiguity: “We can adopt our way out of killing,” he stated. And “we will.”
He then presented different shelter managers who had embraced this effort so that they could speak about their experiences: Like the one who came into an open admission facility with a 65% rate of killing and reduced it to under 4% in one year. And another who took over a shelter once described as “hopelessly overcrowded” but now has a 97% save rate. And still another that has seen enforcement decline 70% after going from a punitive philosophy to one that makes it easy for people to do the right thing, through a series of community based incentives such as free and low-cost spay/neuter. It was like a dream.
Up is down, down is up

But it was not Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States at the podium. It was not Ed Sayres of the ASPCA. The shelters with better than 90% save rates were not in cities with names like Charlottesville, Reno, or Tompkins County. Instead, they were in cities called Wellington, Waiheke, and Waihi. I was over 6,000 miles from the U.S., in New Zealand. The speaker was Bob Kerridge representing the Royal New Zealand SPCA, the national organization that oversees all SPCAs in the country. And he was providing that which Pacelle and Sayres, staunch proponents of shelter killing in this country, have proven themselves incapable of: leadership.

New Blog by Peter Wolf Rebutting Longcore and the Audubon Groups RE TNR

Follow the link below to a new blog dedicated to critically examining TNR issues, and especially the junk science of Longcore. According to Wolf:



This blog is intended to be a repository of research notes, news stories, correspondences, and associated commentary focused on a range of issues related to “the plight” of feral cats in general, and trap-neuter-return (TNR) in particular. The blog format offers two significant benefits for this project: (1) by limiting the scope of each post, I’m able to zoom in on the details—critical for understanding deeply the complexities of the topic, and (2) the hypertext and tags permit linking and cross-referencing impossible in the print domain.
As the blog evolves, its focus will likely shift somewhat—or perhaps dramatically, into territory entirely unforeseen at this early date. Surely, such an endeavor would benefit from more extensive planning, yet there’s an urgency behind it that compels me to get started with what I’ve got, and figure out the rest as I go.
The impetus for Vox Felina was a series of events (the details of which will be the subject of numerous posts) that revealed (1) the lack of rigorous research related to the efficacy and impact of TNR, (2) the flawed science promoted by many TNR opponents, (3) the unbalanced—often dishonest—nature of the feral cat/TNR debate, and (4) the disastrous consequences of these circumstances.



http://www.voxfelina.com/

Requests for Public Records

Brad Jensen made a number of requests for public records, for which Mr. Pool requested two week extensions. Among the interesting requests is information on the various GM candidates and the selection procedure. The extensions will be up in a few days and I'll let you know the results.


If anyone ever has any information for me at any time, email me at: edwardmuzika@sbcglobal.net.


Dave Axelrod, Obama's chief advisor, told the press today that Obama has no plans to reverse his opening of 167,000,000 acres to offshore drilling.


I took a look at Elena Kagan's bio, and though neither Clinton nor Obama are/was making any liberal appointments to the supreme court, I think she'll do a good, liberal job.  Her master's thesis was on socialism in NYC and the conclusion was there needed to be more liberal activism in the US. She may be Obama's liberal Trojan Horse.


I think what Obama meant by "Hope you can believe in," is "The kind of change that everyone expects from a dealmaking politician without a real set of principles."
However, if the Democrats and Obama pass an an immigration reform bill that requires a national numbered identity card, I am going to move to Costa Rica with Rush Limbaugh.

BP Says Flow Can Increase to 60,000 Barrels a Day-N.Y. Times

In a closed-door briefing for members of Congress, a senior BP executive conceded Tuesday that the ruptured oil well could conceivably spill as much as 60,000 barrels a day of oil, more than 10 times the estimate of the current flow.


Though BP has capped one leak, that has not decreased the total outflow. The other two leaks on that same pipe are now pressurized to leak faster.


In other news from Politico:



BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.
On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.
During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
I might note that while Schwartzenneger has vowed to stop any offshore drilling in California, Obama has NOT rescinded his policy change of opening 167,000,000 acres to new offshore drilling.
Anyone doubt now my contention that Obama is really a Trojan Horse Republican?

Why Does a Dept Going So Bankrupt, Spend So Much Time Enforcing the Kennel Law?

This is post # 2 by Kianna.


I intend to investigate the log books of the various shelters involved in all these Notice to Comply cases where there are alleged neighbor complaints followed by LAAS visits and Notices. Something is rotten in Denmark. My contact email is edwardmuzika@sbcgloibal.net. This is especially brought to my attention after my visit by AS a month ago after someone allegedly complained about me raising feral cats in my backyard.


KIANNA:


You know those new commercials making feel people guilty for feeling guilty about the "pity" they feel for dogs at the shelter and guilt you into adopting a shelter dog (Pedigree something?).

No parenthetical statement or small print anywhere in the commercial telling you that if you already have three animals living or roaming anywhere in your residence, you are going to get a knock on your door with people with a gun ordering you to get rid of them---"cut down" on the shelter dog/s you adopted; "cut down" on the fosters the shelter kept harrassing you into "fostering" (for life). This way, your name is on the computer and you are an easy target. You are an easy intimidation and harrassment case. They just love it. Animals die and they don't have to be the ones to kill them.

All they have to do is come knocking on your door saying that they have received a complaint stating that you are a hoarder and that your neighbors are complaining. They give you a notice to "cut down" on the numbers of animals--no matter if your place is spotless and everyone is fat and healthy and has been recently vaccinated against everything under the sun--you show them those medical records, it's all on your head.

Easy job! You lose, your animals lose. The fosters from LAAS and the adopted animals from commercials lose, your TNR's lose!

They push the public so they have someone to go after, and they're job is done for the day!

You do what they beg you to do, you volunteer, you do the city's work---join in on the community work to help animals like they beg the public to do, and then they get together and talk about it to "teach you a lesson"---"educate" you. They educate you into never lifting a finger for a shelter animal or a stray in your community ever again. You've been on record for "hoarding complaints."

None of your neighbors called. It is all a fabrication so that they are allowed to invade your premises and your life. All this for five animals on your property, all living under exceptional conditions, mind you. But they lie and turn it all around. They've got you.

I look at the commercials on television about adopting a shelter dog now---with all their sad faces, and think---if you should ever be so fortunate as to find a human who will take you out of your prison of sadness, you may just wind up back where you started, or worse. Why? No small print telling people to avoid adopting if they are already spaying and neutering homeless animals (and they happen to be cats your neighbors are feeding), and you already have LAAS fosters at home who were pushed on to you and happened to be the left-overs who never got adopted!

Bingo. You are treated like a crimminal. The shelters push the public into taking their animals, and doing their part in the community, you do what they ask, (do the city's job for them), and then they send officers after you for disobeying the law.

Our taxpayer money begs these people to suck the public into disobeying the law so they can get paid for upholding the law later.

Our own taxpayer money is being used to victimize our animals, the city's animals, and homeless animals and their people. You do the city's job and your taxpayer money gets turned against yourself.

48 BILLION Farm Animals Killed Each Year Worldwide

Fox News Has Best Coverage of Oil Spill

I generally never watch Fox News. I only started a few days ago after I decided Obama was really a moderate Republican and not a Democrat at all. I have been amazed to find that Fox's news coverage of the oil spill has been far more detailed and candid than CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, or the network news channels. Fox is quite pessimistic regarding the outcome of the oil spill, while all the other channels repeat over and over that the Feds say everything possible is being done, but have no experts appraising the possible future damage.


Many of the business channels are now blaming the Feds for not better regulating offshore drilling, even though it is the Republicans who have opposed regulation, leaving the industry to police itself.

A RESCUER LOOKS AT THE INSANITY

I received a comment I had to post. This is how many in the LA animal community see animal services: utterly insane, inconsistent, and authoritarian.



Kianna~ said...



First they build huge state-of-the art shelters and then they close them down.

They tell you to spay and neuter and release, then they go after you for trapping without a permit.

They encourage you to adopt, but don't tell you that there is only a 3-animal legal limit.

If you see a problem, they tell you to do something about it yourself and redirect you to organizations to help you resolve the problem. Then they kick you in the face, threaten you, and order you to stop when you do what the organization advises.

They push TNR, then go after you for "maintaining more than the legal limit" and order you to get "rid of them."

It's about time they closed the shelters. These people either don't know their ass from a hole in the wall, or they just like intimidating people by throwing around their authority.

Maybe they're just a bunch of incompetent hypocrites who are too lazy to go after the real crimminals so they punch in the clock and put in their quota for the day by going after the easy targets.

It's about time the shelters closed down and those people found somewhere else to go, away from animals. Maybe push a lawnmower somewhere, do some custodial work, front office reception, or work at a bakery.

That leaves the ACTF to resolve animal issues. They go two-by-two, their threats are more severe and carry a gun.

Ever fell like Linda Blair in the Excorcist? They encourage you to TNR and adopt, then they send the ACTF after you to get rid of the animals they have "encouraged" you to spay and neuter, foster, and adopt yourself, after you've had them for five years.

What they want to do is close the shelters so that people end up letting their dogs loose on the street to fend for themselves from now on. If you have four dogs and a cat, "you need to get rid of two!"

If you have five cats, "get rid of two of them." They can care less if any of them were LAAS fosters and you've had them and loved them for five years. They can care even less if any of them are TNR's. You need to get rid of them.

WHY IS THAT?!!

Besides euthanizing all of those animals at the shelter, they want you to have your own animals killed. This isn't the City of Angels anymore. It's City of the Gestapo.


Kianna~

FOX NEWS: ENTIRE GULF COAST IS TOAST!

Incredible. Anchor on Fox News has been talking to experts all day.


First, the daily spill is far higher than BP or the Coastguard reported: 25,000 barrels a day. This could be twice as large or larger than the Exxon Valdez spill, and will affect the entire Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida.


Obama still to go ahead with drilling after increased safety precautions on future drilling. Can you believe this guy?

Bush Administration Led Fight Against Whaling 4 Years Ago. Now Obama Backs Commercial Whaling?

U.S. Joins Anti-Whaling Effort
Nations Respond To Panel's Vote
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 26, 2006


The United States and some of its closest allies are launching a concerted campaign to block a possible return to large-scale whaling and to reverse the gains made by pro-whaling forces in the international commission that regulates hunting of the massive creatures.


The political shift in the International Whaling Commission, which was on full display last week when the body narrowly backed a nonbinding resolution in favor of commercial whaling, has alarmed environmentalists and senior officials in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Britain. In interviews last week, several said they feel a duty to mount an organized effort to ensure that the 20-year-old whaling moratorium remains intact.


Anti-whaling countries won a few key votes during the commission's five-day annual meeting on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts that ended Tuesday. They defeated a proposal that would have required secret ballots on whaling issues.


But Bush administration officials said they were alarmed by the 33 to 32 vote in favor of the nonbinding declaration, which says the commission is "about managing whaling to ensure whale stocks are not over-harvested, rather than protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance." It would take a three-quarters vote to repeal the current ban on whaling.

OIL SPILL LIKELY TO BE TWICE AS LARGE AS EXXON VALDEZ, TO MAKE LANDFALL IN THREE HOURS

About 4 weeks ago Obama reversed a long standing administration policy prohibiting new offshore drilling in a remarkable cave in to Republicans and to the oil companies who gave him and other Democrats millions in campaign donations through employees' individual donations.


Now, it is discovered that the current oil spill off the Louisiana Coast may be as much as 20 times greater than reported by the companies involved, 20,000 barrels a day according to satellite photographs, versus the 1.000 BP stated, versus 5,000 by the Coastguard.


The oil plume is currently twice the size of the state of Delaware and is expanding rapidly, and could impact the Mississippi wild lands coast within 36 hours. Homeland Security just raised the spill to status of a national concern.


(I have just seen the news. Heavy onshore winds have moved the plume much faster than expected, and part of the oil slick is expected to come ashore within 3 hours. Efforts to cap the well with a 100 ton dome have failed. It may take three months to dig a separate well to siphon the pool feeding the leaking well. However, it is projected now that that this spill will surpass the Alaska spill in 50 days. Therefore, by the time the relief well gets operational, the spill will be twice as large as that of the Exxon Valdez, which was 250,000 barrels, which is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters ever to occur in history according to Wikipedia. It looks like the administration is about to reverse itself on offshore drilling.)


Add to that his new stand on renewing commercial whaling, and I ask the question, "Is Obama a Republican Big Business Trojan Horse?"

HUGE DAILY NEWS STORY ON ANIMAL SERVICES BUDGET CUTS


LA officials: Planned cuts at animal shelters will lead to more deaths

Updated: 04/28/2010 08:03:53 PM PDT

A pooch awaits what fate has in store at the City of Los Angeles East Valley Animal Shelter located at 14409 Vanowen St., Van Nuys, Calif. | See photo gallery. (Hans Gutknecht/Staff Photographer)
Los Angeles may have to euthanize an additional 11,000 animals in city shelters next year if Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council go through with cuts that critics say will gut the city's animal services.
The city killed more than 19,000 unwanted dogs and cats and 4,000 other animals last year. But some city officials and rescue advocates say a proposed $1.8 million reduction to Los Angeles' Animal Services department will not only mean more euthanasia, but more animals roaming around uncontrolled on the streets.

"How can can you be talking public safety as a priority and gutting animal services?" Councilman Richard Alarc n said Wednesday.

"This will have a severe effect and it's obvious we're moving in the wrong direction to the no-kill policy."

The proposed cuts will also likely mean the closure of the Northeast Animal Care Shelter in Mission Hills, as well as personnel losses equal to the entire staff of another animal care center, according to city documents.
Those cuts will require a 58 percent increase in the number of dogs and cats euthanized over the next fiscal year, according to Kathy Davis, interim general manager of the Animal Services department.

"The department believes this will obligate the mayor and council to choose closure of an operating animal care center and to sanction a likely resulting increase in pet euthanasia," Davis told the council's Budget and Finance Committee in a recent 14-page memorandum.

"If our Northeast facility as well as one other large animal care center close, we expect that number to rise to about 30,000 pets (annually) that we have to euthanize," Davis elaborated in an interview.

"The only thing that could keep this from happening, unfortunately, is money. We've tried to live through this - through the early retirements, through the work furloughs - but we're at a point where we've cut to the bone and now anything more than this means an amputation."

The City Council's Budget and Finance committee is holding hearings this week on the budget of most city agencies, including Animal Services.
When he released his budget last week, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa warned that fixing the city's massive deficit will require sacrifice from every agency and employee.

"The mayor was the first to say that this was a very difficult budget, it is not perfect, and he looks forward to working with council to make it better," mayoral spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton said.
Daniel Gus, a Sherman Oaks rescue advocate, decried the proposed closure of the Northeast shelter.
"What a crime this will be," Gus said.

He also said certain cuts, such as the license canvassing program, would be counter-productive because they are revenue-generating.

Clearly though, both rescue advocates and officials agree, the most moving aspect of the cuts is the impact they will have on animals' lives.

The city is required to hold the animals for five days before euthanasia, but officials said the city has extended that to eight days for cats and nine days for dogs.

Last fiscal year, the city euthanized 11,938 cats, 7,623 dogs, 292 rabbits and 3,802 other animals.
Davis said that three years ago, city animal shelters were euthanizing fewer than 16,000 animals. More than 30,000 are returned to their owners or adopted out.

Those figures are down from a decade ago when, according to department records, the city euthanized 53,000 animals and placed only 13,000 for adoption.

The budgetary impact to her department, Davis said, is the proposed 26 working days reduction of city workforce that will mean an effective cut of eight animal control officers, 14 animal care technicians, three registered veterinary technicians, four clerical staff and two supervisors.

Davis said those reductions were the equivalent of the staff of one of the six fully operational animal care centers.
The Northeast Animal Shelter to be shut under the proposed budget cuts has never been open to the public but is used to hold about 200 animals at a time, officials said. It has the capacity for 900 animals and has been used as an evacuation center during fires and floods.

"We use the facility to keep animals that are under quarantine (and) evidence animals for crimes that you have to keep separate or those with special medical needs," said Linda Barth, assistant general manager of animal services.

Officials said all shelters are often already overcrowded by the increase in animals taken in every day, either as strays picked up on the streets or pets turned in by owners who can no longer afford to take care of them.
At the East Valley shelter in Van Nuys, center manager Helen Brakemeier said that on any given day the number of animals remains at about 200 dogs and 100 cats because adoptions fail to outnumber the animals taken in.

"We just try to keep up and encourage adoptions, but the numbers don't really drop," said Brakemeier.
On Wednesday, for instance, an owner had dropped off three pug-mix puppies at the shelter, but it likely was going to take three separate adoptions to move them from the center.

"I would like to have all three but I'm only looking to adopt one," said Julie Ward of Shadow Hills, whose pug died recently.

Another visitor Wednesday was Renee Merrill of Ventura, an adoption placement specialist, who said she has been working diligently to find homes for pets in shelters, fearing what will happen if she does not.
"For every pet I find a home for, I'm actually saving two," said Merrill. "A home for the pet that's being adopted and it opens a spot for an animal in a shelter that otherwise might not be there."

A Sea of Deceit and Capitulation

Poet Laureate of California, Professor, University of Southern California

What's Your Reaction:

I'm taking a moment to bring you a statement of urgent import from an environmental activist, protector of international ocean wildlife - who is making a profound plea to the Obama administration to reverse its cynical and cruel support of the lifting of the ban on commercial whaling -- a "bow" to Japan. 

Former Senator Barack Obama stated that "As president, I will ensure that the U.S. provides leadership in enforcing international wildlife protection agreements, including strengthening the international moratorium on international whaling. Allowing Japan to continue commercial whaling is unacceptable." Yet at the March intersessional IWC meeting, the Obama administration was the chief proponent in encouraging the plan to resume commercial whaling and is encouraging other nations to follow.

Come on. Political compromise (the kind derived from international debt pressure and lobbyists) has become the "theme" of this administration - selling out on the unethical and indefensible butchering and barbaric torture of whaling, the murder of sentient beings-- is a kind of metaphor for what is happening to liberal ideals.
Here is a statement from Edward Dorson, Director of Conservation Strategies for the Shark Research Institute. Thank you for reading this and following up with a click on the link to the Shark Research Institute's Campaign to Prevent the Resumption of Commercial Whaling.
-- Carol Muske-Dukes
A Sea of Deceit and Capitulation
by Edward Dorson
April 25, 2010

The long letter can be found at:

President Obama's Earth Day Assault on Whales-Huffington Post


Philip Radford

Philip Radford

Posted: April 23, 2010 02:15 PM


W

"Look, I love whales," said the President with a smile as he shook my hand.
Yesterday, on Earth Day, I thought I would be calling on the President to push legislation that would actually solve the climate crisis. No such luck. Instead, I found myself on the national mall leading a march on the White House to stop the President from his back room attempts to undo the 35 year moratorium on whaling.
Later that afternoon, I was invited to the White House to meet with the President. I asked my team what I should ask the President. The funniest suggestion was to give him a fist bump and say "drill, baby drill." As much as I wanted that on film, I decided to ask him about the reversal of his written campaign promise to Greenpeace to end commercial whaling.
He walked person to person, saying hello, as advocate after advocate threw him softball questions. I shook the President's hand, and said:
"Mr. President, I am Phil Radford from Greenpeace. We are concerned that your administration is overturning the ban on whaling."
"I know" he replied. "I've seen your ads in the papers."
"Great," I replied. "What is your plan to change your administration's position?
"Look," said the president, sounding like his Saturday Night Live doppelganger, "I love whales. I will do what I can to protect them."
"Will you reverse your administration's position?" I asked.
The President responded "Oh come on, don't lobby me here right now..."
I'd made our point. There was no point in lobbying the President more. After all, Earth Day should remind us that lobbying played a minor role in securing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and ban on commercial whaling. People taking action made the difference. The 200 million people in the streets on the first Earth Day are who brought about the change. We'll be in the streets again until President Obama lives up to his written promise to end commercial whaling.
 

Obama Backs Return to Whaling--LA Times Article


Something seems increasingly rotten to me about the Obama administration. Its efforts at reform are half-assed measures to say the least, and certainly not the change we had hoped for. For example, health care. One of the principal beneficiaries is the health care and drug industries. Those sectors stocks are way up. Wall St. knows the bill will increase their profitability and hold off real reform for another 20 years. Ditto the new proposed regulations on Wall Street.


Obama's proposed changes start at the middle and then the conservatives pick it apart in Congress, so the reform is right of center in its final form. Health care reform is weaker than that proposed by president Nixon 37 years ago, and Bob Dole 10 years ago.

It is obvious that big banks, big business, and the mega rich are just as much in charge of the Obama administration are they were the Bush administration.

But now to resume whaling because Japan has been cheating on the moratorium for 25 years? Unthinkable. From the LA Times today:


It's no way to save the whales

The Obama administration and the International Whaling Commission want to allow legal hunting again. It's misguided policy.





No one was surprised when conservation organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the anti-environmental policies of President George W. Bush. But it's a shock to many when we part company with the Obama administration.

It happens. And it's happening right now on the question of what to do about commercial whaling and, more specifically, whether to maintain the 25-year-old moratorium against the killing of whales for profit. Last week, the International Whaling Commission announced a proposed 10-year deal, spearheaded by the Obama administration, that would suspend the moratorium and allow whaling countries to kill whales legally for commercial purposes for the first time in a generation.

There's no disagreement between the council and the administration about the fact that the moratorium is one of the singular environmental achievements of the 20th century. Before it was adopted, on average an estimated 38,000 whales were being killed each year. Since the moratorium, that number has dropped to about 1,240, and whale populations have begun, little by little, to rebound.

There's no disagreement that whales are among the most extraordinary creatures ever to inhabit the Earth. And there's no disagreement that we need to protect them, or that many of the large whale species covered by the proposed agreement -- humpback, fin, sperm, sei and Bryde's whales -- are depleted or near extinction.

The problem is how best to protect them.

The Obama administration argues that the whaling moratorium should be suspended because it has loopholes that are being illegally exploited by Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic whalers. They believe that after 25 years of conflict within the International Whaling Commission, commercial whaling should be legalized in the hope that, by bringing the killing out into the open through agreed-upon quotas, a consensus eventually will emerge in support of a phase-out of whaling altogether.

Its intentions are good. But the strategy is dead wrong.

First, the proposed deal nowhere requires a phase-out of whaling. Not in 10 years. Not ever.

Second, legalizing whaling in order to eliminate it makes as little sense as allowing criminal activity in order to eliminate crime. By adopting the moratorium on commercial whaling, the world agreed that whaling, except for purposes of scientific research and subsistence, should not be allowed. Period. By suspending that global norm, the U.S. and the whaling commission will be ceding the legal and even the moral high ground to the very countries that, for decades, have been doing their best to circumvent it. Rather than a step forward in the fight against commercial whaling, this is a monumental step backward.

Third, the hope that reaching an agreement with the whalers will, in some undefined way, appeal to their better nature, eventually strengthen their interest in conservation and lead them at some future point to abandon whaling is, at best, wishful thinking. It is belied by the history of the whaling commission, where the whaling countries, even in the wake of the international agreement not to kill whales for commercial purposes a generation ago, have sought relentlessly to evade or end it. Japan exploits the exception for scientific research; Iceland and Norway assert their right to take exception to -- and therefore ignore -- the moratorium.

The Obama administration's fundamental premise -- that the proposed agreement will save thousands of whales over the next decade -- doesn't withstand scrutiny. The agreement suggests quota numbers, but no actual numbers have been agreed to among the nations of the whaling commission -- or even among the smaller group of nations that have, for the last three years, been negotiating the proposed agreement behind closed doors. The actual number of whales allowed to be killed if the agreement is adopted is, at this point, anybody's guess.

But even were that not the case, the situation that led the Obama administration to pursue this agreement in the first place would be unaffected by it. The exception for scientific whaling exploited by Japan will not be rescinded, nor will the exceptions claimed by Norway and Iceland be nullified. The agreement is fundamentally premised on an expectation that the countries signing the agreement will abide by it, notwithstanding their continuing right under the broader whaling convention to kill whales for research or pursuant to their existing exception. Thus, the fundamental problem of loopholes remains.

Finally, even if some might consider limited "sustainable whaling," it should adhere to science-based management principles. However, the quotas under negotiation now are not a product of the whaling commission's scientific committee. The negotiating process has been political, based on what the whaling countries are willing to accept rather than being governed by a scientific process to develop catch quotas consistent with the recovery of whale stocks.

Reasonable minds often can and do differ, even among friends. But the whaling commission's proposal for the next decade is a terrible idea. It would do more to protect the whaling industry than to protect whales, and it would be a tragic step backward to an era when the most magnificent animals on Earth could legally be slaughtered for profit.

President Obama, we strongly urge you to reject the deal on commercial whaling. Your administration is making great strides in developing a sound national policy for the protection of our oceans. Don't let the return of legalized whaling become your legacy.

Joel R. Reynolds is a senior attorney and director of, among other programs, marine mammal protection at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Los Angeles.