Buried Alive

Note: Personally, I can not even watch this. It cam to me in a Facebook message and the preamble was horrible enough.

From: Paul AndBaby York-Vegan via Igualdad Animal / Animal Equality
The horror of being buried alive, S.Korea. They know what's going on. That's why they're screaming, in this video. This is like watching a video of the gas chambers in operation in WWII. Horrific, but necessary for the world to see. Please pass it on. We must end humanity's incredible crimes against all animals. Going vegan is a major step.

PTROA - Link To Petition: Stop The Skinning of Live Animals in China

PTROA - Stand By Animals In China

Tens of millions of animals are slaughtered and butchered in China each year. Animal fur is in high demand, and the Chinese deliver. What does not get exported outside of China usually ends up on a dinner plate. The sad fact is that the animals suffer horrendous torture. They are captured on the streets, and packed by the dozens into small cages, without ability to move. They are then tossed like inanimate objects from the trucks, onto the ground, hitting each other and the steel cages. These cages are later stacked, and the real nightmare begins. The animal is brutally pulled out of the cage, and tied to prevent resistance. It is lightly stunned by a blow on the head, but still alive. If the animal is not heavy, the worker holds it by its hind legs, waves it in the air and then bashes its head against the ground. Once the animal is subdued, a new and incomprehensible stage in this ongoing nightmare begins. The worker cuts a tiny incision in the animal's rear, and then methodically peels away the skin. This skinning process takes about a minute, during which the worker actively keeps the animal alive, as it is believed that it is easier to skin the animal while it is still warm and blood flows through its veins. The nightmare does not end here. The final stage in this unbelievable horror is when the animal is tossed aside, and slowly, amidst a heap of its dying friends, it perishes as it is no longer able to withstand the pain. In other cases, when the animal's fur is not needed (mostly with cats), the animals are put in a sack, and are then cooked alive in a barrel of boiling water.
This process is extremely hard to digest, but we believe it is not propelled by cruelty, but rather by ignorance and lack of awareness to animal needs. The workers do not think to kill the animal before they begin, and are not aware of the animal's suffering. Our commitment is to provide enlightenment. It is our moral obligation to these animals. If we shut our eyes this will not go away!

תורגם באדיבות: "חבר המתרגמים"

more..PTROA - Stand By Animals In China

The Most Painful Animal Labs in the Country

The Most Painful Animal Labs in the Country

posted by: Mac McDaniel

Stop Animal Exploitation Now (SAEN) has released data on the most painful animal experimentation labs in the United States.

SAEN updated its registry of the most painful vivisection labs last week, now including data up through 2009, which is the most recent year for which information is available.

The report criticizes both animal testing itself and the ways in which data about animal testing are collected.

SAEN bases its "most painful labs" report on data describing how often animals used in experimentation are subjected to what is called "unrelieved pain," that is, experimentation where animals are subjected to painful tests without relief, tranquilizers, anesthesia, analgesia or euthanasia.
Federal guidelines dictate that animals can only endure unrelieved pain when scientifically necessary for the purposes of research, and it should come as no great surprise that it is very frequently scientifically necessary to subject animals to unrelieved pain.

SAEN says that the accuracy of data for unrelieved pain can suffer from simple clerical errors, as well as different interpretations of what unrelieved pain can mean. For example, some labs list animals that have been deprived of food or water in the category of unrelieved pain, while others do not.

Utah and Georgia both have two facilities, each in the top ten of the list, with Utah's two biggest public universities -- Utah State University and University of Utah -- ranking 2nd and 6th respectively. The most painful lab in the country is the Aberdeen Proving Ground, a facility controlled by the US Army in Maryland.

A spokesman for the University of Utah makes the baffling claim that experimenting on animals without pain relief doesn't necessarily mean the animals are in pain.

The simple fact that a list like this one exists is proof of the horrifying nature of animal testing. The concept of unrelieved pain and intentionally depriving animals of food and water is something that can be recorded and registered on a chart like any other data. We have institutionalized animal suffering to such an extent that the idea of an animal being tortured or starved becomes a data point on a spreadsheet, instead of what it actually is: a tragedy.

Vivisection works because people are unaware of what happens in labs and even when they find out what happens, they are assured that the end justifies the means; that animal testing is important to solving human ills. The disturbing fact is that not only is the treatment of animals in labs horrifying beyond all human comprehension, but that the suffering is often entirely in vain. Studies show that a majority of doctors have misgivings about applying animal-tested medicines to humans.

Vivisection is not only horrifying and ethically abhorrent, but scientifically unreliable. Furthering alternative research methods will not only produce more reliable data, but will forego the need to torture animals entirely.

Related Stories: 

The Vivisection Scam (VIDEO)

University Vet Quits Over Animal Treatment

Scientist Protests Animal Testing

Why shelters say ‘no’ to rescue groups, and why it has to stop

Why shelters say ‘no’ to rescue groups, and why it has to stop | PetConnection.com

By Christie Keith




Are shelters that close their doors to rescue groups protecting animals, or their own power?

The battle over New York State’s proposed law to prohibit shelters from killing animals if qualified rescue groups are willing to take them has heated up again with the bill’s reintroduction.

Now, the reason the big shelters give for opposing this law is that they believe “hoarders” and unqualified rescue groups will come get animals, and they want to hold onto the right to approve or disapprove whether a rescue group can take their “death row” pets.

However, since if the bill passes there will be significant restrictions on who can and can’t take animals, and what animals can be rescued, I don’t think that’s the real issue. I believe what’s really eating at shelters opposing this bill is that it will be the law, not the shelters themselves, that controls access to those animals. I think they resist the loss of power, and in some cases, the possible exposure to criticism and whistleblowing on conditions in their facilities they fear access could bring.

One of the reasons I believe the whole “hoarder/bad rescuer” objection is just an excuse is that we’ve had a right of shelter access — known as The Hayden Law — here in California for more than a decade now. While there have been a few (a very few) times when there were bad outcomes from rescuers taking pets who would otherwise have been killed, the opposite problem is extremely common.

Hardly a week goes by that I don’t hear from a rescuer being denied access illegally — and despite my telling them their rights and in some cases offering to help them get pro bono legal representation, they’re afraid to do anything about it because they believe the shelters will retaliate by cutting off their access to the animals entirely.

That is why it is completely unacceptable to let the very shelters these laws are meant to regulate be the gatekeepers of access for rescue groups.

The shelter industry is essentially arguing it should be allowed to regulate itself, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is being “divisive” or attacking them. But no industry should self-regulate; not agriculture, not drug companies, not restaurants, not donation-soliciting charities, not hair salons, not Wall Street. The more we have relied on self-regulation in these industries, the more catastrophic have been the outcomes. Witness what’s just happened to our economy.

The shelter industry, frankly, is sounding more like agribusiness to me on this issue than like an animal welfare organization.

Furthermore, their concerns are misplaced. The proposed New York law has far more restrictions placed on rescue groups than the California law. It has exemptions for dogs who have been found to be dangerous, and those with serious illnesses and injuries. And of course, if a shelter doesn’t want a “death row” pet to go with the rescuer for some reason, all they have to do is not kill that pet — this law is only for animals who would otherwise be killed.

But that’s not enough. By opposing this law, they’re saying they don’t want shelter access to be a right, but at their discretion. They want to say who can save an animal, and who can’t. And they’ll frighten you with the specter of hoarding, propelled by the profit-hungry television machine that’s currently gorging on hoarder-mania, and the far-fringe of the animal rights movement that thinks animals are better off dead than in the care of human beings. Great company to hang out with, guys. Seriously.

This law is not just good for New York, it’s good for every state. And this obsession with holding onto power is particularly chilling considering that so many “shelters” all over the country are nothing more than hellholes and death factories, and yet they still insist they have the right to decide who is a “good” rescuer and who is a “bad” rescuer.

That’s true in Toledo, Ohio, where animal control warden Tom Skeldon was forced to resign over his unwillingness to let even puppies go to another humane society or rescue group, and insisted on killing them instead.

It’s true in Dallas, N.C., where rescuers begged and pleaded fruitlessly to be allowed to take sick dogs for veterinary care and potential adoption, instead of seeing them killed in the animal control facility’s antiquated gas chamber.

It’s true in Rochester, N.Y., where the New York State assembly member sponsoring the bill, Micah Kellner, told me that qualified rescue groups are prevented from taking pit bulls out of the city shelter because the agency doesn’t allow pit bulls, not even puppies, to leave its facility alive.

It’s true in a thousand places, where volunteers keep silent about abuses out of fear of being prevented from transferring animals to rescue groups or even providing basic care to animals.

Animal advocates need to understand that codifying a right that saves animal lives — and, by the way, saves shelters money — in a responsible manner is not a threat to them.

I understand that there are symbolic issues here; the law, dubbed “Oreo’s Law,” was named after a pit bull killed by New York City’s ASCPA despite the fact that a rescue group was willing to take her. As a human being with feelings, I can understand that the ASPCA feels attacked by this law; it is, indeed, meant to prevent them from doing anything like that again.

But they fought the law to a standstill last year. They’ve made their point. They should admit that laws like this are good for animals and good for shelters — something they clearly already know, given that when current head of the ASPCA Ed Sayres was head of a shelter here in California, he supported the Hayden Law, despite the fact that it has far fewer safeguards than the New York law includes.

I call on all New York State shelters to embrace this law. If the name really bothers you that much, promise to support the law if the name’s changed.

But if you’ve got nothing more than a desire to hold onto power and a bruised ego over a name? Get over it. It’s time.