LettersSave the Whales!

Editor's note: The producers of Free Willy! addressed this letter to the White House. We thought it worth further notice.

This administration's handling of the whaling issue in particular, and animal rights and conservation issues in general, is utterly scandalous. Russia is currently exporting hundreds of tons of fresh whale meat to Japan illegally. Norway has been caught exporting tons of frozen whale meat to Japan through Korea illegally. And now, by refusing to sanction Norway for its illegal commercial whaling, and by adopting the RMP, the U.S. is officially climbing into bed with the whaling nations.

You may or may not be aware that at the end of our movie Free Willy! we put up a 1-800-4-WHALES telephone line and received over a million responses from people extremely interested in getting information on how they could personally help whales in the wild. We are currently producing a sequel, and fully intend to do something along the same lines, with the potential of reaching millions more. Using the names we already have, plus the new list, we will send out information about what is happening to our planet's marine mammals, why it is happening, and what can be done about it. We expect another huge response.

The fate of marine mammals may not be top priority on the agenda of the administration right now, but the issue has an excellent chance of building and becoming a nightmare closer to re-election. As lifelong Democrats, we hate to say it, but marine mammals, like many endangered species, fared much better under the Republicans.

--Richard Donner and Lauren Shuler-Donner

c/o Warner Brothers

Burbank, California

IFAW irate

Your June cover article is a fantasia of fact and fiction, quotations from memoranda out of context, and grossly erroneous speculation. The important fact is that the International Fund for Animal Welfare worked with Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund for two years to get the Southern Whale Sanctuary (following 10 years of collaboration to achieve and keep the still existing moratorium on commercial whaling) as the best way of strengthening the moratorium by plugging a major loophole: Japan now has no justification for continuing to keep its Antarctic fleet in being by "scientific whaling."

The allegations, which you evidently embrace, that the three organizations were making deals to get the sanctuary in return for concessions elsewhere are totally false and disgusting. There were no deals or even consideration of deals, nor indeed has anyone suggested any practical scenario involving deals which is remotely plausible. We shall now be in a better position to work to prevent Norway from continuing outlaw whaling, and the International Whaling Commission's acceptance of the Revised Management Plan by consensus will make that easier.

--Sydney Holt, Scientific Advisor

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Citta della Pieve, Italy

Time will tell whether Holt helped save the whales or helped engineer their extinction. Only when and if Japanese whaling in southern waters halts and it is firm that commerical whaling quotas will not be set despite the RMP will anyone be able to declare definitively that the creation of the Southern Whale Sanctuary at cost of the RMP was in fact a victory. If Holt is right, we shall be happy to so acknowledge. (See our continued in-depth coverage of the whaling issue in this edition.)

IFAW irate, part two

I write in response to the article in your June issue "Brian Davies foundation invested in vivisection."

Everyone at IFAW was genuinely concerned to discover that investment mistakes had been made. The brokers were firmly instructed to implement rigorous ethical standards which required that no funds be invested in companies which test on animals or which are involved in the meat, leather, or fur business. Despite these instructions, errors were made, and the brokers no longer manage the IFAW accounts. IFAW would never knowingly use funds which could ultimately result in animals being harmed or exploited. The article implies that unethical investments are still in place. This is categorically not the case.

Our salaries are set in accordance with average pay scales for similar positions in the external marketplace. Since 1986 the Hay Management Group has set senior pay scales, including my own and that of Brian Davies.

IFAW finances are far from mysterious. Our accounts are prepared by leading international accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, and are available free of charge.

--Richard Moore, Executive Director

International Fund for Animal Welfare

East Sussex, England

Well before our expose went to press, we asked IFAW to comment on our discovery that up to 39% of the subsidiary Brian Davies Foundation portfolio may have been invested in firms that vivisect or are under boycott by other major animal and habitat protection groups. We got no reply. Upon receiving the above on June 2, we promptly faxed to Coopers and Lybrand requesting legally required public access documentation of current investments and salaries. We mentioned that Moore himself referred us. Three weeks later, we have again had no reply.

Feral cats

The feral cat problem is, as the late E.F. Schumacher wrote in A Guide for the Perplexed, a divergent problem. It cannot be solved but must be transcended.

--Mary Pillar

Enterprise, Oregon

Cats and dogs

Although I do believe there is too much emphasis on cat and dog issues, as the president of Cornell Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals I say without hesitation that ANIMAL PEOPLE is the absolute best news source in the animal rights movement.

--Michael Greger

Endicott, New York

Shelters ought to stink In these times when the primary activity of most high-profile animal protection groups seems to be soliciting donations by taking credit for the work of others, it's wonderful to read about the success of the North Shore Animal League, with its no-kill philosophy and direct alleviation of animal suffering. They are an inspiration to us all.

However, I think even NSAL contributes to the problem by trying to completely eliminate animal odors from an animal shelter so as to avoid dissuading prospective adopters who fear that their homes will stink if they include a dog or cat in their tidy lives. As founder of the Horse Rescue Network, when I was asked to represent the Washington horse industry at the county fair I was annoyed by the fair manage- ment's insistence that I run in and scoop up the apples every time a pony relieved herself. In real life this is not how we manage our stables. While no caring person can argue that feces should be allowed to accumulate for days on end in an animal's quarters, it is the epitome of anthropomorphism for us to go to the opposite extreme. People must learn to compromise their standards of cleanliness in order to appreciate their beloved pets and have time for things besides being squeaky clean.

Also, by the adoption standards of NSAL, my husband and I would not qualify--our two dogs live outdoors year round, with three doghouses, our home's crawl space, and the garage for shelter, plus free run of our farm. Our cats live mostly in the house, but get daily outdoor time. Yes, we understand the risks, and occasionally--rarely--one of our cats or dogs is injured or gets sick. I say that's life. Animals, not unlike ourselves, can survive quite comfortably and happily in a less than perfect world. Denying them access to an outdoor environment that is as safe as we can make it is cruel and unhealthy.

Quality pet ownership already demands much sacrifice. With animal protectionists limiting permissible uses of animals and requiring increasingly demanding standards of care, society making it harder to keep animals at all, and the veterinary community heaping costly new routine maintenance procedures upon us, I'm afraid increasing numbers of people will decide that the rewards of animal companionship are severely outweighed by the drawbacks.

--Pam Frizelle

Sultan, Washington

Having acquired many pets when they were dumped at her farm, Frizelle is acutely conscious of the reality of abandonment. It is to be noted that realistic standards of care for rural Washington and urban Long Island are quite different matters.

"Year of the Cat" Since I'm the one who dreamed up the "Year of the Cat," subject of several recent letters to ANIMAL PEOPLE, it's time for me to come clean. The four of us who put this campaign together had two goals: to waste our time and to fill our overflowing coffers with money. Fun and profit. That about sums it up. We failed on both counts. As a bureaucrat for one of the responsible organizations, I was hoping to go to a lot of meetings about the Year of the Cat. (You know how much we like to travel and stay at expensive hotels!) Guess how many meetings we had? None! Not a darn single junket. So we were all forced to work for animals instead of bopping around the country. And guess how much money we spent on those fancy promotional materials? $2,109.59 apiece. And so, since we all have such big budgets, and we didn't have meetings or buy glitzy things, we were forced to spend our money helping cats. And shoot, with all the publicity, and people and agencies acquiring campaign materials virtually at cost, you'd think someone would have made a donation to us. Alas, not one single gift. Ingrates.

Let this confession take the place of all the letters of apology I should send to over 1,000 humane societies, veterinarians, and animal control agencies who mistakenly used the ruse of the "Year of the Cat" to initiate new programs in a year-long campaign to change the way people respect and care for cats.

Recently I've had informal discussions with people across the country who hope to keep the goals of the "Year of the Cat" campaign alive. We'll keep you posted. No meetings are planned.

--Carter Luke, Vice President

Massachusetts SPCA

Boston, Massachusetts

Whale blackout The full import of your article "Save the whales!" is shocking. Since the Australian government is the "running dog" of U.S. big business, and Australian Peter Bridgewater is now chair of the International Whaling Commission, I think we must now closely monitor the Australian end.

Your news of the arms deal is sensational stuff. I just wonder what's in it for this rotten administration. We have an almost complete media blackout in this country. No one knows anything about the deal over the RMP. Greenpeace, IFAW and World Wildlife Fund are all busy celebrating and continuing to raise money to "save the whales."

As a former senior investigative reporter I have many contacts in the media. I can't get a single word out. All other major issues are treated the same way, i.e. the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, the forestry issue, pesticides, etc. The majority of Australians have no idea at all of the meaning of the Uruguay Road and its ramifications.

Once again, congratulations on one hell of an article.

--Sue Arnold, Coordinator

Australians for Animals

Byron Bay, NSW, Australia

Pit bull has the run of the shelter Shannon Lentz' May guest column "A sad place for a pit bull" suggests that all pit bulls are dangerous animals. As a shelter director with over 15 years of fulltime experience, I have come in contact with tens of thousands of dogs. I have evaluated many pit bulls, and yes, some needed to be destroyed. Most, however, were stable dogs who showed no aggression. Our shelter has placed 80% of the pit bulls and related breeds we have received over the past two years. Only one has been returned. The rest remain in their adoptive homes.

The Humane Society of Atlantic County has only one dog who is permitted the full run of the complex. Her name is Jessica. She greets every customer and their animls during the shelter's hours of operation. She goes to every fundraiser, and is surrounded by strange people almost all of the time. Her temperament has proven to be nothing but admirable with both humans and animals. Jessica is, however, a pit bull.

Had Lentz (a prolific rescuer) applied to adopt a pit bull from this shelter, she would not have been sent home with one due to the different animals who were to come and go in her household. I do commend her for the efforts she took to save this little dog. However, she should not condemn an entire breed because of this situation. I would be happy to talk to anyone in regards to these special needs dogs.

--Steven J. Dash, Shelter Director

Humane Society of Atlantic County

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Pit bulls make up under 1% of the North American dog population, but according to our log of severe dog attacks, pit bulls since 1982 have caused 50% of the human fatalities and 61% of the maimings.

Zoos How uplifting to read the essay on "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness for Wildlife in Confinement," by John Lukas, director of the White Oak Conservation Center. We can only hope the zoo community will note his opinions regarding the pursuit of happiness for confined animals, the development of optimum standards for confinement, and the inclusion of input from humane advocates.

Unfortunately our own 14-year experience in dealing with the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aqariums and the officials of local zoos has taught us that Lukas' opinions are in the minority.

The article did not address the problem of surplus animals. It would be interesting to learn how the White Oak deals with this.

--Ingrid Pollak, President

The Vancouver Humane Society

Vancouver, British Columbia

White Oak avoids surplus, controlling the reproduction of animals in Species Survival Plans by keeping the sexes separate. Other animals are neutered. Animals are sold or otherwise transferred only within Species Survival Plans.

Are dog-pulling contests cruel? A few weeks ago a friend and I saw a man walking in a park with two dogs who wore harnesses connected to wooden boxes of large cinder blocks. The man said he was training the dogs for weight-pulling contests, in which dogs often pull over 1,000 pounds. How harmful is this to the dogs? Is anything being done to end it? I hope it does no damage to the dogs, but I do not believe it.

--Darren Deachan

St. Louis, Missouri

According to Malamute expert Margaret Anne Cleek, "The International Weight Pull Association is the major organization regulating weight pull. The Alaskan Malamute Club of America also holds events for Malamutes only. Under IWPA guidelines, dogs are never forced to pull. They can be called from 16 feet ahead by handlers, nothing else. The harnesses are designed to distribute weight so that dogs cannot be injured. Rules limit the temperatures at which pulls can be held (no warmer than 70° for Malamutes, who can pull over 2,000 pounds depending on conditions). Pools, water, and shade are provided for dogs in competition. Dogs are divided by weight. When competition gets down to a few dogs, long breaks are given between pulls for rest. If a dog lunges in harness or tangles the tracings, the handler can set the dog up to pull again. But if the dog does so three times, he or she is disqualified. In training, it is not uncommon for a dog drag weights in harness, both to work with resistance and to strengthen muscle tone. Dogs need to learn proper form, e.g. to drop their heads and lean into the harness rather than lunge. As with humans, skilled and conditioned athletes can do incredible feats safely, while weekend warriors might harm themselves.

"Please keep in mind," Cleek added, "that when people compete with their dogs, a necessary part is spending time with the dogs. Dogs are happiest when they have something to do. They react to the harness with the same enthusiasm as pet dogs react to the leash for a walk. Pulling a load and getting a pat from their person makes them feel good. They appear to really enjoy it--and the more challenge the better."

We've heard allegations, but have no record of any proven abuse in sanctioned dog-pulling.

Selling the dead Re "Turning to Shelters" (May 1994), one important point was missing on the downside of allowing laboratory animal suppliers to buy euthanized shelter animals for dissection. Yes, the animals are dead, but should shelters and humane societies be contributing to the business of dissection, a business that is clearly out of control? The Montreal SPCA now has an anti-dissection policy, so when lab animal companies come calling, the answer is a simple "no."

--Anne Streeter

Montreal, Quebec