ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide. Founded in 1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE has no alignment or affiliation with any other entity.

 

This site built and maintained by: GREANVILLE ASSOCIATES and CRESCENT COMMUNICATIONS • Rev. 12.1.05 Copyright ANIMAL PEOPLE, INC. 1992--2005

 

 

 

 

 
   
 
powered by FreeFind

ESSENTIAL DESTINATIONS

MONTH: MAY 2006

LETTERS

A clergyman revisits Animals, Ethics, & Christianity

In response to the review by Chris Mercer and Bev Pervan of Matthew Priebe’s book Animals, Ethics, & Christianity, published in the January/February 2006 edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE, I share Priebe’s conviction that God certainly is not only keenly interested in all his creatures, but also lovingly cares for them, and expects us to do the same.


However, a few critical remarks should be made re the way Priebe reads scripture.


For example, on page 9 reference is made to the severe restriction on the eating of blood made in Genesis 9:4, continued in Leviticus, and affirmed as applicable also to Christians in Acts 15:28, 29. Priebe goes on to say, “Paul reaffirms this policy in Acts 21:25.” It was not Paul, but the elders in Jerusalem, probably including James, who reaffirmed the policy.


As for Paul, I seriously doubt whether he personally felt as strongly about instructing non-Jews converted to Jesus to abstain “... from meats offered to idols, from blood, and things strangled...” We know from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that he subscribed to a more liberal approach to the question of eating meat offered to idols, in contradiction to the consensus reached in Acts 15. His letters, as recorded in the New Testament, do not demonstrate any custom on his part to continually command or advise the young church in Asia Minor and Europe to refrain from eating the blood of animals.


According to Priebe, God in scripture only allows eating bloodless meat, and that post-flood humans are supposed to eat such meat only when the absence of better food necessitates. One wonders how he understands the following Biblical command: “...and you shall bestow the money for whatever your soul desires, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever your soul asks of you; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” This we read in Deuteronomy 14, where just after listing all the animals and birds Israel was prohibited from eating, Moses commanded the people to use their tithes at the end of each third year to go and have a real whopper of a party, and to just rejoice consuming it in the presence of the Lord. They were to enjoy the meat.


More instances of a rather superficial reading of Scripture in Animals, Ethics, & Christianity could be pointed out. Still, Priebe is correct in his basic contention that God expects us to treat animals with kindness and deep respect.
I would like to draw attention to one beautiful passage in the Bible to which Priebe does not refer. In the very last verse of the book Jonah, who wanted Nineveh destroyed, God asks his frustrated prophet, “And am I not to have mercy on Nineveh, that great town, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons without the power of judging between right and left, as well as much cattle?’


I am indebted to Priebe for his strong wake-up call and his important message to Christians to be better representatives of the God of mercy, He who could not bring Himself to just annihilate Nineveh, because of his love for its citizens, and for their animals.


––Johan van der Merwe
Duminee
Dutch Reform Church
George, Western Cape. South Africa

Feral cat-friendly includes TNR

Thanks for being feral cat friendly. More articles about why some groups are still against trap/neuter/return and believe all stray cats should be killed would be great. There is no good reason why we should still have a cat overpopulation problem. I believe the big groups should provide more publicity about how many cats are killed. If all groups could find common ground and support high-volume cat sterilization, we could actually stop the killing.


––Ted & Linda Dennis
Cats/Cat Spay/Neuter Help
1513 N. Cambrian Ave.
Bremerton, WA 98312


Editor’s note:
The most urgent need for cat sterilization is in developing nations where the use of TNR has reduced the numbers of street dogs. As the refuse and rodents remain, cats breed up to the carrying capacity of the habitat, at a replacement ratio of about three cats in place of each dog. Steriliz-ing cats at the same time as dogs, before feral cats become as abundant as they did in the U.S. and Europe after street dogs were mostly eliminated, saves having to sterilize three times as many cats later. Public complaints about feral cats typically do not begin until they are much more abundant than dogs, but this is all the more reason to limit their fecundity now, before cat extermination campaigns gain momentum.

Oral rabies vaccine tested successfully in domestic dogs

I thought you might be interested in this paper, in which domestic dogs were effectively vaccinated with oral rabies vaccines. This could be a helpful approach to mass vaccination of dogs.
––Julie Levy, DVM, PhD, ACVIM
College of Veterinary Medicine
2015 SW 16th Avenue 100126
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608
Phone: 352-392-4700 x5717
Fax: 352-392-6125
<levyj@mail.vetmed.ufl.edu>


Citation data:


“Oral vaccination of dogs with recombinant rabies virus vaccines,” Virus Research, July 2005; 111:101-5; <www.elsevier.com/ locate/virusres>.
Rupprecht, C.E., Hanlon , C.A., Blanton, J., Manangan, J., Morrill, P., Murphy, S., Niezgoda , M., Orciari, L.A., Schumacher, C.L., Dietzschold, B.


Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, Viral & Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Rabies Unit, Mailstop G-33, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA; <cyr5@cdc.gov>.

 

Excerpts of abstract:
The objective of this experiment was to examine the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of recombinant RV vaccines administered to captive dogs by the oral route, compared to a commercial vaccinia-rabies glycoprotein (V-RG) recombinant virus vaccine. Animals consisted of naive purpose-bred beagles of both sexes, and were six months of age or older.


Dogs were randomly as-signed to one of six groups, and received either diluent or vaccine, with at least six animals per group... After vaccination, dogs were observ-ed daily and bled weekly, for five weeks, prior to RV challenge. No signs of illness related to vaccination were detected during the observation period...Thereafter, all dogs were inoculated in the masseter muscle with a street virus of canine origin. All control animals developed rabies, but no vaccinates succumbed, with the exception of a single dog in the V-RG group. Review of these preliminary data demonstrates the non-inferiority of recombinant RV products, as concerns both safety and efficacy, and supports the suggestion that these vaccines may hold promise for future development as oral immunogens for important carnivore species, such as dogs.

 

Editor’s note:
This study shows great potential for using oral rabies vaccines in dogs, including street dogs. This could significantly reduce fear and abuse of dogs worldwide. Regretably, the research involved deliberately infecting some non-immunized young beagles with rabies, to prove that the challenge to the vaccinated beagles was made with a living, lethal strain. Finding ways to control experiments without causing healthy animals to suffer is among the areas with the most potential for achieving reduction, refinement, and replacement of animals used in scientific study.