Quote a Insurance.com

Posts Tagged ‘animals’

Police said Wednesday they were astonished to find at least 14 wild black bears guarding an illegal marijuana growing operation after a recent raid on the property in westernmost Canada. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Sergeant Fred Mansveld said police believe two growers arrested in the raid had used dog food to lure the animals onto

See the rest here:

LONDON — A supermarket has defended selling squirrel meat as a “sustainable” form of food, amid protests by animal activists who accused him of cashing in on a “wildlife massacre”. “In a few years’ time, it’s going to become like rabbit,” said Andrew Thornton, who introduced squirrel meat into his branch of the Budgens supermarket in north London this year. “Squirrel is a very sustainable form of meat,” he told AFP on Thursday, explaining that while it takes 15 tons of grain to produce one ton of beef, “squirrels feed from nature — there are too many of them around.” Squirrel meat was once a common feature of the British diet and in recent years has returned, being sold by speciality game dealers and restaurants and endorsed by celebrity chefs, who have cooked up recipes for squirrel ragout and squirrel offal skewers. It is increasingly seen as acceptable to eat grey squirrels, whose population has exploded since being introduced here in the 19th century. Story continues below… Some groups now advocate culling grey squirrels to protect the domestic red squirrel, which is now a protected species. Although he is currently out of stock, Thornton said he had been selling about 10 to 12 squirrels a week, sourced from a game supplier in Suffolk, eastern England, and “we’ve had a number of customers asking for it”. His actions have provoked outrage from animal rights activists, however. “Culls of thousands of grey squirrels by so-called conservation groups to boost populations of red squirrels are irrational, inhumane and destined to fail, so it is very sad that Budgens are allowing profit to be made from wildlife massacre,” said Juliet Gellatley of Viva (Vegetarians International Voice for Animals).

Read this article:

LONDON (AFP) – The strongest and most expensive beer ever created sold out within hours Friday, a Scottish brewery said, as they courted controversy by packaging the bottles inside the bodies of stuffed animals. BrewDog, the self-described maverick brewery, presented the beer — which contains a record 55 percent alcohol — inside the bodies of dead squirrels and stoats. Animal rights activists rushed to condemn the stunt. “It’s pointless and it’s very negative to use dead animals when we should be celebrating live animals,” Advocates for Animals policy director Libby Anderson told BBC Scotland. “This seems to be a perverse idea.” Story continues below… BrewDog said the limited edition Belgian ale — made with juniper berries and dubbed “The End of History” — was also the costliest beer ever sold. The squirrel bottles cost 700 pounds (1,000 dollars, 840 euros) each and the seven stoat bottles went for 500 pounds a pop. All sold out within four hours of going on sale, BrewDog managing director James Watt told AFP. Watt said the controversial drink was the last in a line of experimental brews, explaining: “For the final installment in the strong beer series, we wanted to create something epic, something monumental.” He said there were no plans to come up with a beer to beat this record, insisting: “We’re quite happy at 55 percent.” As for the taste, Watt described “The End of History” as a “complex” beer with a multitude of flavours including honey, mint and cinnamon. He recommended sipping the drink “much like you would a malt whiskey”, served up in a spirit glass rather than a pint glass.

Go here to read the rest:

An expose at a local Houston television station is sure to rile company critics when it enters the mainstream media: an operator at a BP phone bank has accused the company of setting them up as a diversion for anguished residents affected by the recent oil spill. “We’re a diversion to stop them from really getting to the corporate office, to the big people,” claimed “Janice,” a pseudonym for an operator interviewed by Houston’s Channel 11 . The network adds : The calls come in from around the world, but it’s the desperation of those on the Gulf Coast that has affected her the most. “I don’t want to get emotional, but it’s so frustrating when these people live right there and nothing is being done to help them,” the operator said. Story continues below… For weeks on end, twelve hours a day, there is a little secret that Janice says she has witnessed firsthand. Because the operators believe the calls never get past them, some don’t even bother taking notes. “And they just put down, type ‘blah blah blah.’ No information, just ‘blah blah blah,’” Janice admitted. BP and US officials are also facing accusations that they’re inhibiting the media from covering elements of the spill, which began Apr. 20 after an offshore oil rig exploded and collapsed into the Gulf of Mexico. Raw Story’s Muriel Kane reported on this on Saturday . In a video clip obtained by the liberal blog ThinkProgress , a local news team from WDSU in New Orleans was told by a private security guard that they were not allowed to talk to cleanup workers on a public beach or come within 100 yards of cleanup operations. “Who’s saying that?” reporter Scott Walker asked the guard. “Because no one can tell me that, unless you’re the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, you’re the Coast Guard, or you’re the military, can you tell me where to go on this public beach.” “I can tell you where to go because I’m employed to keep this beach safe,” the guard replied, adding, “You are not allowed to interview any workers.” CNN’s Jim Acosta similarly reported on Thursday that his efforts to film attempts by the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Service to rescue oil-covered birds had been blocked, even though his news team had received permission from the state Fish and Wildlife Service to enter the bird triage center. “I’m going to have to ask you to stop taking pictures,” a National Guardsman told them. “It’s more important for the animals to have a quiet, calm, controlled area at this point,” a Fish and Wildlife Service representative insisted when asked for an explanation. CNN’s Anderson Cooper also recounted being “prevented by federal wildlife officials from photographing birds covered in oil being brought ashore. … They actually now have this area where the birds come in roped off and guarded by National Guard troops.” With earlier reporting by Muriel Kane.

Go here to see the original:

The US Supreme Court has struck down a federal law banning videos depicting cruelty to animals, saying the law was “overbroad” and violated the First Amendment. The ruling brings to an end an 11-year-old law designed to stop the production of “crush” videos — footage of people extracting sexual pleasure from slowly crushing animals to death. While many commentators on Tuesday hailed this as a victory for free speech, some worried that the ruling would open the door to the commercialization of animal cruelty. The justices voted eight to one to strike down the law, with only the usually conservative Justice Samuel Alito dissenting. In the case before the Supreme Court, a Virginia man had been convicted under the law for selling videotapes of dog fights. According to ABC News , Robert Stevens had been given a 37-month sentence for “knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty, with the intention of placing them in interstate commerce.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said that applying the law to Stevens’ case showed the law was too broad. In his ruling (PDF), Chief Justice John Roberts said the law is “invalid under the First Amendment.” Story continues below… “The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.” According to Law.com , the ruling means the justices saw the law as being so broad as to be almost arbitrary. “It could criminalize, for example, hunting videos in the District of Columbia where hunting is illegal,” the Web site posited. While some commentators hailed the ruling as a “victory for free speech,” the Associated Press reports that animal-rights groups are upset at the outcome: Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 26 states joined the Obama administration in support of the law. The government sought a ruling that treated videos showing animal cruelty like child pornography, not entitled to constitutional protection. In his dissent, Justice Alito expressed concern that the ruling would mean a spike in the production of animal cruelty videos. “The Court strikes down in its entirety a valuable statue, that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty,” he wrote. “The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue was in 1982 when it carved out an exception to the First Amendment on the issue of child pornography,” ABC News reported. AP notes, “For the second time this year, the justices struck down a federal law on free speech grounds. In January, the court invalidated parts of a 63-year-old law aimed at limiting corporate and union involvement in political campaigns.”

See the rest here:

The US Supreme Court has struck down a federal law banning videos depicting cruelty to animals, saying the law was “overbroad” and violated the First Amendment. The ruling brings to an end an 11-year-old law designed to stop the production of “crush” videos — footage of people extracting sexual pleasure from slowly crushing animals to death. While many commentators on Tuesday hailed this as a victory for free speech, some worried that the ruling would open the door to the commercialization of animal cruelty. The justices voted eight to one to strike down the law, with only the usually conservative Justice Samuel Alito dissenting. In the case before the Supreme Court, a Virginia man had been convicted under the law for selling videotapes of dog fights. According to ABC News , Robert Stevens had been given a 37-month sentence for “knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty, with the intention of placing them in interstate commerce.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said that applying the law to Stevens’ case showed the law was too broad. In his ruling (PDF), Chief Justice John Roberts said the law is “invalid under the First Amendment.” Story continues below… “The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.” According to Law.com , the ruling means the justices saw the law as being so broad as to be almost arbitrary. “It could criminalize, for example, hunting videos in the District of Columbia where hunting is illegal,” the Web site posited. While some commentators hailed the ruling as a “victory for free speech,” the Associated Press reports that animal-rights groups are upset at the outcome: Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 26 states joined the Obama administration in support of the law. The government sought a ruling that treated videos showing animal cruelty like child pornography, not entitled to constitutional protection. In his dissent, Justice Alito expressed concern that the ruling would mean a spike in the production of animal cruelty videos. “The Court strikes down in its entirety a valuable statue, that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty,” he wrote. “The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue was in 1982 when it carved out an exception to the First Amendment on the issue of child pornography,” ABC News reported. AP notes, “For the second time this year, the justices struck down a federal law on free speech grounds. In January, the court invalidated parts of a 63-year-old law aimed at limiting corporate and union involvement in political campaigns.”

See the original post here:

An Icelandic volcano has erupted following a week of small earthquakes, spewing lava and ash into the air and forcing hundreds to flee on Sunday, but causing no casualties. Smoke could be seen rising from behind Eyjafjallajoekull glacier and volcanic ash filled the sky after the eruption that began around midnight on Saturday and which was foretold by a week of localised earthquakes. It occurred in a remotely populated area about 125 kilometres (75 miles) east of Iceland’s capital Reykjavik and caused 600 people to flee their homes. The eruption brought to a halt all flights into and out of the Nordic island nation, but they resumed with serious delays mid-day Sunday, while all domestic traffic remained grounded. The risk of floods posed by melting glacial ice prompted the authorities to declare a state of emergency and to immediately evacuate the area. Story continues below… It was the first volcanic eruption in Iceland since 2004, and the first in the vicinity of Eyjafjallajoekull, in the south of the island, since 1823. “We did not have time to be afraid and everyone was so calm and stoical,” farmer Dorhildur Bjarnadottir, 51, told AFP in Hvolsvoellur, a small town of 800 near the glacier where some of the evacuees took refuge. “The worst part in all of this is to leave our animals behind at home,” her husband added. “Around 600 people have been evacuated and the area is still closed,” local police chief Kjartan Thorkelsson told AFP. “Because the eruption is still going strong, we will continue to keep the highest level of security.” He added: “All roads are closed and continue to be closed, but those who need to drive between places will be registered and allowed to do so. We encourage people who have been evacuated to remain calm.” Significant floods were avoided because the fissure eruption occurred between two large glaciers, Eyjafjallajoekull and Myrdalsjoekull, said Magnus Tumi Gudmundsson, a professor of geophysics and civil protection advisor. “We are extremely lucky that the eruption did not occur underneath the glacier, so therefore a gigantic glacier flood did not occur,” Gudmundsson said. With about 15 magma exits at the fissure, he said, the volcano “is not a big eruption” by Icelandic standards. But Gudmundsson warned that extreme caution had to be exercised, because the eruption was taking place so close to two large glaciers. “The eruption could end within one or two days, but also within one or two years,” he told reporters. The Red Cross set up an emergency telephone line and opened three evacuation centres in the towns of Hella, Hvolsvoellur and Vik to help people displaced by the eruption. “People have been extremely calm and the registration of inhabitants went splendidly,” Red Cross field manager Hrafnhildur Bjornsdottir told AFP. Bjoerk Valdimarsdottir, whose sister lives in the vicinity of the eruption, told Swedish news website dn.se the area’s residents had completed evacuation drills last summer to be prepared for a volcanic eruption. “Everything went smoothly thanks to last summer’s practicing,” she said, adding residents were asked to refrain from using their mobile phones to avoid overloading the network. Valdimarsdottir said the glow from the eruption could be seen near the capital, where she lives. “There are lots of people who want to go there to take a look and that’s why they closed the road some miles out of Reykjavik,” she said. “Those who live in the area are enormously worried about their animals. The ashes can poison the soil and kill the cattle.” Asked by Swedish public radio if she felt there was any danger, local resident Christina Bengtsson also said the biggest problem was volcanic ash. “The ashes can be dangerous for the animals,” she said. “When we went out before, we could feel (the ash) in our mouths. From my window, I see a red sky. If I went out the door, I could also see fire.”

Visit link: