cell phone spy for pc iphone schutz vor spyware phone tracking t mobile track someone by cell phone number iphone app to spy on kids android apps spy other phones cell phone spy 1 7 10 android spy screen recorder cell phone spying app obituaries spy apps samsung galaxy cell phone listening software overclocking mobile phone spy products cell phone monitoring reviews cell phone spying on you android spy apps zune best spy software iphone how can i find a cell phone location android app spy another phone whatsapp spy 1 5 android spy apps 2 dwss corp disney form forms whatsapp spy xda developers i spy on text messages top phone spy app
Great news from the makers of Botox!
Oct06

Great news from the makers of Botox!

The Animal Welfare Act sets minimum standards of care for animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or used in public exhibitions. The USDA, through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is required to enforce these standards. However, the Animal Welfare Act — the only federal law that covers animals used in research — excludes mice, rodents, and birds, which comprise approximately 95% of the animals being used for research purposes. Thus, the law offers no protection for these animals, as many as 100 million each year, and industries are left to regulate themselves. So isn’t it GREAT news to know that Allergan — maker of Botox and other products — has made the decision on its own to phase out its use of animal testing? Last June, the company announced it will eliminate 95% of its animal testing within the next three years. YES! I know any talk about  the use of Botox and other aesthetic products is going to ignite a debate. Whatever your stance on these products — like it or not — they’re not going anywhere anytime soon. As with any other pharmaceutical product, animal testing is still widespread. And, in this area, the LD50 test often has been the standard. In a nutshell, this kind of testing means that doses are tested on animals to figure out at what level 50% of the animals die. For the 100,000+ mice used each year in Botox-related research, this has meant a slow death by suffocation once the mice were injected with the product’s paralyzing ingredient. Kudos to Allergan for committing to this change, which took ten years of research and over $65 million to achieve. Although it’s not 100% cruelty-free, Allergan’s decision will save thousands of animals each year from suffering. Taking such a step, Allergen sets the example, and we can only hope its competitors will follow suit. Allergan aesthetic products include Botox, Juvederm, and Latisse. The company also manufactures products for eye care, including artificial tears for dry eye and eye drops for...

Read More
Foie Gras & Faux Gras
Sep28

Foie Gras & Faux Gras

If you’re already aware of where  foie gras comes from, feel free to skip the next paragraph. OK… so for those of you still reading, here’s the lowdown: foie gras is actually a diseased (!) liver, about 80% fat. UGH. However, even more repulsive than the idea of eating a diseased organ is the fact that these diseased livers do not happen by accident.  Geese and ducks are force fed, either by a farm worker or by a mechanical device. Necropsy reports of the birds show injuries to the esophagus, from the tubes and funnels used to force feed them; reports also describe many of the dead birds with food still coming out of their throats, which indicates that the birds are dying while in the midst of being force fed. Production of foie gras is a horrible, torturous process that causes the unnecessary suffering of up to 500,000 birds in the United States each year. The treatment of birds that end up on people’s plates in one form or another is outside the realm of any established laws — birds are not covered by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. However, The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) is a federal law that requires the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service to inspect the products once the birds have been slaughtered. The emphasis is on human health rather than animal welfare. In 2007, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Animal Legal Defense Fund, New York University’s chapter of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund, and three New York residents petitioned the USDA to prohibit the introduction of foie gras into the human food supply. Based on the PPIA , the petition claimed that foie gras, diseased liver, was essentially an “adulterated” food product and therefore in violation of the Act. Unfortunately, two years later, the USDA officially denied the petition for a rulemaking. For a more in-depth look at foie gras in the United States and what the legal system has to say about it, see Lovenheim v. Iroquois Brands (1985) and Illinois Restaurant Association v. City of Chicago (2007). California passed legislation banning the production and sale of foie gras (goes into effect in July 2012), and other state legislatures are considering similar bans. While foie gras production is still legal in European countries, Israel banned the production of foie gras back in 2003, and the production of foie gras also is illegal in Argentina. Faux Gras — Cruelty-Free Alternatives! There are countless vegan pate recipes available on the web, like this Vegan Walnut Mushroom Pate. I’ve had creative pate dishes at restaurants in cities like New York, San Francisco, and...

Read More
Efforts to Ban NYC Horse-Drawn Carriages
Sep23

Efforts to Ban NYC Horse-Drawn Carriages

Just last month, there was a rally outside City Hall for individuals to speak out against NYC’s carriage-horse industry. From its inception during the time of World War II until the 1980s, the horse-drawn carriage industry in NYC went virtually unregulated, a classic example of politics at play. But as automobile traffic increased and accidents started happening in the streets, people started taking notice and advocating for a ban on horse-drawn carriages. Other cities already have done so – including London and Paris. The New York City Bar Association has been among the ban’s supporters. In New York, approximately 200 horses are subject to walking the asphalt up to nine hours a day, seven days a week, even in extreme temperatures. Helplessly mixed in with cars and trucks, they are exposed to fumes all day long (“nose to tailpipe”) and can become spooked by the city’s noises and general chaos. Even if the carriages were limited to Central Park, as they have been in the past, the horses still have to navigate the traffic-heavy streets while getting to and from work. And, when a carriage and a car collide — as they have numerous times — the result is never anything short of heart-wrenching. Beyond the working conditions and safety issues while the horses are in the public eye, at the end of the workday, the conditions these horses have at “home” are just as dire: the multi-storied stables of Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues are not the happy pastoral settings we tend to envision. Furthermore, when the horses have become too old to be of use to the industry, they are sold for slaughter. The industry’s response has been to suggest that, rather than a ban, all that’s needed is more effective regulation. The latest legislation regarding the industry in New York was Law 35-A, enacted in April 2010. The law, on its surface, looks promising from an animal welfare perspective, offering the horses five weeks each year outside of the city, fewer working hours, better living conditions, and restrictions in terms of acceptable “working” outside temperatures. Unfortunately, the purpose of Law 35-A was mainly to placate the public and take the media’s focus off the industry following a series of accidents and negative publicity. Not only are the regulations not enough, but they also are not well enforced. For a comprehensive look at the history of New York’s horse-drawn carriage industry, see Katherine Hutchinson’s “Should They Go the Way of the Horse and Buggy?” in Animal Law, volume 17 (2010). Also, a news report by HLN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell that aired this summer highlights the most recent efforts by citizens and legislators...

Read More
Custody of Companion Animals in Divorce/Separation Cases
Sep16

Custody of Companion Animals in Divorce/Separation Cases

My friend Gemma has been kind enough to let me share her recent blog post on this important subject for guardians of companion animals… Because pets are living, breathing, feeling property, issues regarding custody of a pet following marital dissolution or a breakup are not as clear-cut as they are regarding your grandmother’s armoire or assets in the joint bank account. Given that division of even these non-living property items is often murky enough to warrant retaining an attorney, it is wise to make pet ownership issues clear before entering into a relationship or getting a pet. Of course, if you’re already married with pets or jointly acquired a pet with your significant other, it’s a bit too late for preventative preparation. Whether you fall in either of the categories above, it is imperative to understand the potential issues that may arise involving your pets should your relationship ever come to an end. It’s Monday and cloudy here in Seattle, so let’s talk about divorce! A Brief Discussion of Current Law Technically, animals are personal property. Just like your TV, stripped bare of context, law still terms your pet as a tangible piece of property, subject to equitable division at marital dissolution. During a divorce, property must be tallied up, then split up, taking into consideration any agreements made between the parties before or during marriage or in anticipation of dissolution. Laws governing division of marital assets are pretty general, so courts have a lot of discretion regarding division. Discretion is even higher in states that follow an equitable distribution framework rather than a community property scheme. General Rule 1: You are entitled to keep any separate property you brought into the marriage. Unless you agreed otherwise, your assets and debts pre-marriage are yours to keep upon dissolution. Thus, pets acquired solely in your name and prior to marriage are presumed to be separate property. Of course, you may be required to provide proof that the animal was indeed your own investment — contracts from adoption agencies or breeders in your name alone, dog license registration documents, or vet records can help establish this. General Rule 2: You are entitled to keep property gifted to you or inherited by you. If your spouse (or anyone else for that matter) gifted your pet to you, then, even if originally purchased by your spouse, the animal will likely be your separate property. The same goes for any animals inherited, whether during the marriage or not. Exception to Rules 1 and 2: Courts often will consider facts outside legal property status when deciding pet custody issues.  In the case of In re Marriage of Stewart, the...

Read More
Teagan’s Story: A Happy Beginning
Aug31

Teagan’s Story: A Happy Beginning

Last October, my friend Nicole, who lives in Portland, told me about this beautiful dog she was adopting. Teagan, a German Shepherd, was found on the roadside in Mississippi. She’d been starved down to almost nothing, shot, and left for dead. One arm was caught up in her collar; and, because a bullet went through her eye, she now has a permanent wink. Thanks to the Rocky Ridge Refuge in Arkansas, Teagan was rescued and slowly nursed back to health. Her care required several surgeries and treatment for a major infection throughout her whole body, possibly caused by bullet fragments still in her body. Nine months after my conversation with Nicole, at the end of June, Teagan finally was well enough to make the trip from Arkansas to Oregon… home. I joined Teagan’s Fan page on Facebook immediately, and I’m looking forward to meeting her in a couple of months when I’m in Portland again. I’m especially moved by Teagan’s story because it is an amazing example of the resiliency of animals and humans alike. A year ago, Nicole lost her beloved German Shepherd, Alec. Theirs is a true love story: when Alec became paralyzed and wheelchair bound,  Nicole and Alec worked together to get him walking again. (To read more about Nicole and Alec’s journey together and his therapy, you can visit Nicole’s blog.) In the last year of his life, Alec walked without his wheels. Alec’s passing — and so soon after this achievement — has been a devastating loss for Nicole. I know she will carry Alec with her everyday, just as I still carry Pushkin. But life gives us new opportunities to open our hearts and to love. Teagan and Nicole have opened their hearts to each other in a way that shows courage, compassion, healing, and hope. I had the privilege of meeting Alec, and I have the privilege of having Nicole as a friend in this lifetime. I know that, now, Alec is close by and watching over Nicole and Teagan. And he’s welcoming Teagan, who traveled all the way from Mississippi to be part of their family. The only thing better than a story with a happy ending is one with a happy beginning. So much to look forward to, as they just start down the road together. Peace and love to Teagan and Nicole! About State Cruelty Laws Teagan’s abuser was never found. Had he or she been arrested, the charges would have been based on Mississippi’s animal cruelty statutes. In Mississippi, the penalties for animal cruelty: “fined not less than ten dollars nor more than One Hundred Dollars, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail...

Read More
Anti-Poaching in Africa
Aug17

Anti-Poaching in Africa

On the plane flight to Washington D.C., when I was heading to the Taking Action for Animals conference before moving on to South Africa, I was reading the August issue of Vanity Fair. In it, a sixteen-page article on the ivory trade, which results in the slaughter of thousands of African elephants. At the conference, three different sessions I attended brought up the ivory trade problem again. Finally, after the conference weekend and during our hour-long refueling stop in Senegal, I got into a lively discussion with a group of college students sitting near us on the plane, along with one of their faculty chaperones who was an Ethics professor: all were very interested to learn more about Animal Law and eager to discuss issues ranging from whale hunting to companion animal cruelty cases. Once the stop in Senegal was over and we all sat back down in our seats to continue on to Johannesburg, one of the students passed me a magazine: “Have you seen this?” The Vanity Fair issue. Among the places my husband Seth and I would be visiting was Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, which was featured in the article; however, poaching is a widespread problem throughout the continent. Particularly after all the pre-trip ivory trade talk, I landed in Africa with open eyes and open ears. I was curious to hear what those living there would have to say about the issue and to learn more about local efforts to end the atrocities. We weren’t five minutes in the Johannesburg airport before we saw the first sign of awareness and activism: an anti-poaching poster with the ghastly picture of a dead rhinoceros, blood dripping from where his horn used to be. Although the rhinoceros horn is not made of ivory, the animal is also the target of poaching for its unique feature; like elephant tusks, the rhinoceros horn is a top commodity on the illegal wildlife trade market. According to the Vanity Fair article, there has been an increase in the demand for ivory, largely attributable to a nouveau-riche class in China that desires such ostentatious signs of wealth. It’s estimated that up to 100 elephants a day are being killed; in addition, the rhino is endangered — we didn’t even get to see one during our trip.  As far as the laws are concerned, most African countries have a ban on the sale of ivory. For example, Kenya has a zero-tolerance policy regarding the sale of ivory. Making a strong statement against the trade, Kenyan officials burned the country’s old stores of ivory back in 1989. However, other countries allow for the sale of...

Read More
Page 3 of 712345...Last »