Posts
This is from Change
Dallas Animal Services has been having ongoing problems with its air-conditioning. As you might imagine, a building full of animals in the Texas summer heat is pretty uncomfortable (and potentially dangerous). It gets even less pleasant when there's a dead cat stuck in the wall.
Last month, a cat escaped from his cage at the Dallas shelter. It happens. The cat apparently climbed into the ceiling. That happens, too. It can be hard to find a cat who doesn't want to be found. But then the cat wound up trapped in the wall, where shelter workers could hear him trying to get free. It took several days for him to die in there.
As if the thought of this poor cat slowly dying in the walls wasn't bad enough, here's the worst part: He could have been rescued. How do I know that? Because when the stench of the cat's carcass made things unpleasant, it was removed. Apparently it wasn't a high priority for shelter staff to get the cat out of the walls when he was struggling and crying, but as soon as he started to smell, they were getting him out of there, even if it was Mission Impossible.
Sources told CBS 11 that managers were well aware of the missing cat trying to free himself from the wall. The district attorney's office is investigating who knew about the cat, and when, to determine whether cruelty charges can be filed.
Jonnie England, a member of the Dallas Animal Shelter Commission, said "If these allegations are true, these are the people who are charged with protecting and caring for animals in the city of Dallas. This is a level of callousness and unconcern and incompetence that is just stunning."
England has also been outspoken about the chronic ventilation problems at the shelter, saying that between the broken air conditioner and vents clogged with dirt and debris, there's a risk of spreading disease in addition to heat-related problems. It's good to know that the animals in Dallas have a champion, because if the city's "shelter" is allowing animals to die within its walls (literally), the animals need someone looking out for them.
The Dallas Animal Shelter Commission needs to replace the managers and staff responsible for this negligence with compassionate leaders who know the meaning of the word "shelter," and can give the city's animals the safety and care that they deserve.
If you'd like to contact the Dallas Animal Shelter Commission, please do so here:
Dallas Animal Services and Adoption Center
Phone: 214-670-8246
1818 N. Westmoreland Road
Dallas, Texas 75212
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
USDA Admits Link Between Antibiotic Use by Big Ag and Human Health
Can't get much more blatant than that now can we?
From Huffington Post:
At a hearing of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday, July 14, 2010, a representative of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finally caught up with the rest of the world -- and his peers at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) -- and admitted that the use of antibiotics in farm animal feed is contributing to the growing problem of deadly antibiotic resistance in America.
Dr. John Clifford, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) read from his previously submitted testimony that the USDA believes it is likely that U.S. use of antibiotics in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of resistance in humans and the animals.
Why is this news? Because the USDA has been continually playing the Three Wise Monkeys game -- it sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil -- when it comes to deadly consequences to humans of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals. In fact, Dr. Clifford looked as if he'd been given a choice between testifying or having his eye poked out with a stick and he lost the toss.
Others, though, readily stepped up to the plate. Despite the feeble nature of the recent FDA Guidance to Industry on farm animal antibiotics, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principle Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, was clear in his testimony that the overall weight of evidence supports the conclusion that using antibiotics for production purposes in livestock farming (as growth promoters and to prevent rather than treat illness) is not in the interest of protecting and promoting public health.
Dr. Sharfstein also turned away a challenge from Representative John Shimkus (R-IL 19) about the soundness of the science upon which his findings rest. Mr. Shimkus, obviously unhappy with Dr. Sharfstein's testimony, badgered him to come up with up a U.S. peer-reviewed study (which Dr. Sharfstein did -- a 2003 Institute of Medicine study) and then questioned the veracity of the findings. Dr. Sharfstein assured Mr. Shimkus that the Institute has a peer-review process in place and reminded him that "the Institute is considered our nation's leading scientific expert ... "
Dr. Ali Khan, Assistant Surgeon General and the Deputy Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Center for Disease Control and Prevention, testified that there is unequivocal and compelling evidence that the use of antibiotics in farm animals leads to drug resistance that has an adverse impact on public health. He also faced questions from a visibly agitated Mr. Shimkus, who kept dismissing studies by the World Health Organization and others to request "real science," which, from his posturing, is evidently only that which supports Big Ag.
Mr. Shimkus played his role as Big Ag's Mouthpiece admirably. He questioned every statistic, slide, study, expert, institution, report or person cited that didn't agree with an antibiotic free-for-all in the farmyard. "So far there's nothing that links use in animals to a buildup of resistance in humans," he stated, recklessly ignoring all published science since 1968 and the testimony of the doctors his government has charged with protecting health, while making sure he gave Big Ag a clear, concise statement around which it can issue an indignant press release.
So let's recap -- the USDA, however grudgingly, is finally admitting the link between the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in farm animal feed and human drug resistance; the FDA is impressed enough with the "weight of the evidence" to begin calling for changes in how antibiotics are used in farm animal production; and the CDC feels the evidence is "unequivocal and compelling," yet there are still those calling for "real science?"
Well how about the March 22, 2010, report from the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network that a superbug call C. difficile is multi-drug resistant and on the rise? Is that real science or should we conduct more studies and perhaps hold a few more hearings?
We don't need more hearings, we need action. H.R. 1549, Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, continues to languish in committee while a few elected officials spend the taxpayer's time and money to pretend the science they are calling for doesn't already exist in mountains.
In the coming days, I expect that Big Ag will marshal their forces and come out with its own brand of science and experts to refute all testimony that threatens its profit margin. Of course, what I'm really waiting for is the day the Subcommittee calls on one of the dozens and dozens of AWA farmers to relate how changing from confined to pasture-based farming has eliminated the need for subtherapuetic and most therapeutic antibiotics because their animals and their farms are safe and healthy to begin with.
From Huffington Post:
At a hearing of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday, July 14, 2010, a representative of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finally caught up with the rest of the world -- and his peers at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) -- and admitted that the use of antibiotics in farm animal feed is contributing to the growing problem of deadly antibiotic resistance in America.
Dr. John Clifford, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) read from his previously submitted testimony that the USDA believes it is likely that U.S. use of antibiotics in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of resistance in humans and the animals.
Why is this news? Because the USDA has been continually playing the Three Wise Monkeys game -- it sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil -- when it comes to deadly consequences to humans of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals. In fact, Dr. Clifford looked as if he'd been given a choice between testifying or having his eye poked out with a stick and he lost the toss.
Others, though, readily stepped up to the plate. Despite the feeble nature of the recent FDA Guidance to Industry on farm animal antibiotics, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principle Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, was clear in his testimony that the overall weight of evidence supports the conclusion that using antibiotics for production purposes in livestock farming (as growth promoters and to prevent rather than treat illness) is not in the interest of protecting and promoting public health.
Dr. Sharfstein also turned away a challenge from Representative John Shimkus (R-IL 19) about the soundness of the science upon which his findings rest. Mr. Shimkus, obviously unhappy with Dr. Sharfstein's testimony, badgered him to come up with up a U.S. peer-reviewed study (which Dr. Sharfstein did -- a 2003 Institute of Medicine study) and then questioned the veracity of the findings. Dr. Sharfstein assured Mr. Shimkus that the Institute has a peer-review process in place and reminded him that "the Institute is considered our nation's leading scientific expert ... "
Dr. Ali Khan, Assistant Surgeon General and the Deputy Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Center for Disease Control and Prevention, testified that there is unequivocal and compelling evidence that the use of antibiotics in farm animals leads to drug resistance that has an adverse impact on public health. He also faced questions from a visibly agitated Mr. Shimkus, who kept dismissing studies by the World Health Organization and others to request "real science," which, from his posturing, is evidently only that which supports Big Ag.
Mr. Shimkus played his role as Big Ag's Mouthpiece admirably. He questioned every statistic, slide, study, expert, institution, report or person cited that didn't agree with an antibiotic free-for-all in the farmyard. "So far there's nothing that links use in animals to a buildup of resistance in humans," he stated, recklessly ignoring all published science since 1968 and the testimony of the doctors his government has charged with protecting health, while making sure he gave Big Ag a clear, concise statement around which it can issue an indignant press release.
So let's recap -- the USDA, however grudgingly, is finally admitting the link between the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in farm animal feed and human drug resistance; the FDA is impressed enough with the "weight of the evidence" to begin calling for changes in how antibiotics are used in farm animal production; and the CDC feels the evidence is "unequivocal and compelling," yet there are still those calling for "real science?"
Well how about the March 22, 2010, report from the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network that a superbug call C. difficile is multi-drug resistant and on the rise? Is that real science or should we conduct more studies and perhaps hold a few more hearings?
We don't need more hearings, we need action. H.R. 1549, Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, continues to languish in committee while a few elected officials spend the taxpayer's time and money to pretend the science they are calling for doesn't already exist in mountains.
In the coming days, I expect that Big Ag will marshal their forces and come out with its own brand of science and experts to refute all testimony that threatens its profit margin. Of course, what I'm really waiting for is the day the Subcommittee calls on one of the dozens and dozens of AWA farmers to relate how changing from confined to pasture-based farming has eliminated the need for subtherapuetic and most therapeutic antibiotics because their animals and their farms are safe and healthy to begin with.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
No Charges for Man Who Abused Cows
MARYSVILLE, Ohio — The owner of a central Ohio farm won't face charges in connection with a video showing cattle being beaten and poked with pitchforks, a prosecutor announced Tuesday.
A Union County grand jury decided not to indict Gary Conklin of Plain City after investigators and veterinarians studied the video and concluded Conklin acted appropriately, County Prosecutor David Phillips said.
An animal welfare group secretly recorded the video in late April, saying it showed cattle being abused at Conklin Dairy Farms. The farm fired an employee who has since pleaded not guilty to 12 counts of animal cruelty.
Phillips said the video posted on YouTube used out-of-context scenes to create a false perception that Conklin was involved in the abuse, but investigators and grand jurors saw the original video.
"They saw the unedited video of Mr. Conklin's actions, not the highly inflammatory version released on YouTube by Mercy for Animals," Phillips said in a statement.
The group Tuesday said the decision not to charge Conklin has failed concerned citizens and animals that deserve protection, giving Conklin Farms "a free pass" for animal abuse. "Mercy For Animals was the only true watchdog and defender the animals at Conklin Dairy Farms had," said Daniel Hauff, the group's director of investigations. "The dairy industry and local law enforcement had all failed to detect the abuse or hold the abusers accountable."
Phillips said the grand jury also considered charges against another farm employee, the undercover worker who made the video, and Mercy for Animals officials, but decided there wasn't enough evidence. Phillips said the abuse allegations should have been reported immediately to authorities.
He also said authorities were monitoring threats being made against the Conklin family and farm and warned they could result in prosecution.
I don't know about you, but the first few seconds of this video looks like "cruel and unusual" punishment to me. Context or not. Acts of violence against another living creature is just that ... violence. Abuse is abuse, there is no "context."
If you take a club and beat a man who was entering your home, it does NOT take away from the fact that you were beating him. Your reasons may be justified but the act is still what it is. I can hardly think though that any cow, under ANY circumstance, would warrant having their heads trampled, stomped or kicked.
A Union County grand jury decided not to indict Gary Conklin of Plain City after investigators and veterinarians studied the video and concluded Conklin acted appropriately, County Prosecutor David Phillips said.
An animal welfare group secretly recorded the video in late April, saying it showed cattle being abused at Conklin Dairy Farms. The farm fired an employee who has since pleaded not guilty to 12 counts of animal cruelty.
Phillips said the video posted on YouTube used out-of-context scenes to create a false perception that Conklin was involved in the abuse, but investigators and grand jurors saw the original video.
"They saw the unedited video of Mr. Conklin's actions, not the highly inflammatory version released on YouTube by Mercy for Animals," Phillips said in a statement.
The group Tuesday said the decision not to charge Conklin has failed concerned citizens and animals that deserve protection, giving Conklin Farms "a free pass" for animal abuse. "Mercy For Animals was the only true watchdog and defender the animals at Conklin Dairy Farms had," said Daniel Hauff, the group's director of investigations. "The dairy industry and local law enforcement had all failed to detect the abuse or hold the abusers accountable."
Phillips said the grand jury also considered charges against another farm employee, the undercover worker who made the video, and Mercy for Animals officials, but decided there wasn't enough evidence. Phillips said the abuse allegations should have been reported immediately to authorities.
He also said authorities were monitoring threats being made against the Conklin family and farm and warned they could result in prosecution.
Gary Conklin said in a statement it was gratifying that no else was charged. But he said the family remains saddened by the abuse shown in the video and said it doesn't reflect the farm's commitment to animal care.
Here is the "highly imflammatory" and "out-of-context" video that everyone on YouTube saw:
I don't know about you, but the first few seconds of this video looks like "cruel and unusual" punishment to me. Context or not. Acts of violence against another living creature is just that ... violence. Abuse is abuse, there is no "context."
If you take a club and beat a man who was entering your home, it does NOT take away from the fact that you were beating him. Your reasons may be justified but the act is still what it is. I can hardly think though that any cow, under ANY circumstance, would warrant having their heads trampled, stomped or kicked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)