Debunking the center for consumer freedom

The following article can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivistCash

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF; formerly the Guest Choice Network), is a U.S. nonprofit organization funded, according to its website, by restaurants, food companies and "more than 1,000 concerned individuals".[1] It describes its mission as defending the "right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves." CCF opposes compulsory warning labels on food, bans on smoking in restaurants, lawsuits against obesity, and similar activities. It runs media campaigns and gives out annual "Nanny Awards" to "those groups and individuals who would protect us from ourselves."[2] CCF has campaigned against positions held by Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Oceana.

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Activities
2.1 Activism websites
2.2 Domain name disputes
3 Organization and finance
4 Personnel
5 Criticism
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
8.1 CCF-operated websites
8.2 Other



[edit] History
The group was created in 1995 as the Guest Choice Network by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company.[3] The concept of the group, according to a letter by Richard Berman to Barbara Trach, who at the time was Philip Morris's senior program manager for public affairs, was "to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists ..." Its purpose, according to a planning document by Berman, was to encourage operators of "restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators" to "support [the] mentality of 'smokers rights' by encouraging responsibility to protect 'guest choice'."[4] Internal documents from Philip Morris reveal that it donated $2.95 million to the organization between 1995 and 1998.[5]

The Guest Choice Network argued that restaurants should be allowed to maintain smoking sections, and against restaurant-related initiatives from environmental, animal rights and anti-alcohol organizations,[6] and straightedgers.[7] In November 2001, the group expanded its criticism of activist groups with the launch of ActivistCash.com, which compiled information gathered from IRS documents and media reports, describing the funding and activities of groups it opposed, and listed key activists and celebrity links.

In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network became the Center for Consumer Freedom, a change the group said reflected that "the anti-consumer forces [were] expanding their reach beyond restaurants and taverns [and] going into your communities and even your homes," claiming that a broader organization was needed to act "wherever they try to take away your consumer freedom".[8]


[edit] Activities

A print ad by the center criticizing PETA President's statement that opposed animal research to cure AIDS, terming it an "extremist agenda".The group defines its mission as fighting against "a growing cabal of food cops, health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know what's best for you, [who] are pushing against our basic freedoms."[9]

CCF has argued against smoking bans and for keeping the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers at 0.10. It questions the dangers of red meat consumption and pesticides.[10][11][12][13]

In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant chains, Berman said his organization attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists. "We always have a knife in our teeth", he said. Claiming that activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine", his strategy is "to shoot the messenger ... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons."[14]

In 2002 CCF spokesman John Doyle described nationwide radio ads put out by the group as efforts to attract people to their website and "draw attention to our enemies: just about every consumer and environmental group, chef, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry."[15]

CCF has posted a number of videos to YouTube.[16] It posted the trailer for children's movie Charlotte's Web, claiming that the movie 'encourages kids to "say no to bacon" and print out stickers reading "Tofu Rulez"' and links to groups it claims are "extremist", such as the Humane Society of the United States.[17]

CCF criticizes statistics used by nutrition groups to describe a global "obesity epidemic", and in 2005 filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests against the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in response to a CDC study claiming that 400,000 Americans die each year as a consequence of being obese.[18] After the CCF campaign CDC reduced its estimates to 112,000 annual deaths, leading the CCF to advertise widely that it had discredited the study.[3]


[edit] Activism websites
The Center for Consumer Freedom publishes the website PetaKillsAnimals.com, a website to oppose animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The site claims its aim is to "stand up to malicious animal-rights activists ... who claim to 'know what's best' for you."[19] The website hosts court documents that it purports show that PETA unnecessarily euthanizes animals in its care,[20], and portrays its staff, leaders, and supporters in a negative light. The CCF has also produced anti-PETA advertising and performed publicity stunts outside PETA meetings.[21]

CCF runs ActivistCash.com, a website that claims it "provides the public and media with in-depth profiles of anti-consumer activist groups, along with information about the sources of what is called their exorbitant funding".[22] The site features generally negative profiles of various groups it believes oppose consumer freedom, such as Greenpeace, PETA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It also hosts "biographies" offering negative portrayals of key activists and celebrity supporters for various groups. The site reports what it claims are links between profiled groups and extremism, and in general argues that the groups profiled hold extreme views that are contrary to the public interest. It claims to have examined 500,000 IRS documents in its profiling, listing for each group major donors, income and expenditure, key supporters and connections with other groups.

CCF operates a number of other websites, including PhysicianScam.com, Trans-FatFacts.com, Animalscam.com, Obesitymyths.com, and CSPIScam.com. MercuryFacts.com and FishScam.com contain a mercury calculator that offers an alternative calculation of amount of a fish that can be eaten before getting an unsafe dose of mercury, calculated as ten times the reference dose recommended by the EPA.


[edit] Domain name disputes
CCF has created sites with similar domain names to organizations it opposes. In January 2002, CCF had to transfer the domain name chefscollaborative.info to the owner of the "Chefs Collaborative" trademark (see http://www.chefscollaborative.org/).[23] In October 2002, after the CCF registered two domain names, cspinot.com and smartmouth.org, similar to those used by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), CSPI filed a complaint, which was upheld, and the two domain names were transferred to the CSPI.[24][25] [26]


[edit] Organization and finance
CCF is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) U.S. nonprofit organization.[9] As such it does not disclose the identity of its funders. However, some information is available from statements made by CCF and its funders, and on yearly IRS Form 990 filings.

Initial funding for the Guest Choice Network organization came from Philip Morris, with the initial donation of $600,000 followed by a $300,000 donation the following year. Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington wrote in a 1996 internal company memorandum: "As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now." [27] By December, 1996, supporters included Alliance Gaming (slot machines), Anheuser-Busch (beer), Bruss Company (steaks and chops), Cargill Processed Meat Products, Davidoff (cigars), Harrah's (casinos), Overhill Farms (frozen foods), Philip Morris, and Standard Meat Company (steaks). The group's advisory panel comprised representatives from most of these companies, plus further representatives from the restaurant industry, Senator George McGovern, and Carl Vogt of law firm Fulbright & Jaworski[28]

In subsequent years, GCN acquired more donors, but was still largely funded by large corporations. The IRS Form 990 for the six-month period from July to December 1999 shows income for that period was $111,642, of which $105,000 came from six unnamed donors. Form 990s for the Center for Consumer Freedom are available for years 2002-2004 on the GuideStar website.[29][30][31] For the last available year, 2004, revenues were $3.6 million, while expenses reached $3.25 million.

By 2005 the group reported having over 1,000 individual supporters[9][3] and, according to Berman, about 100 corporate supporters[32] Other companies that have publicly acknowledged making donations to CCF include Coca-Cola; Wendy's; Tyson Foods; and Pilgrim's Pride.[3][32][33]


[edit] Personnel
The latest available IRS Form 990 for the 2004 calendar year lists Richard Berman, Jacob Dweck, David Browne and Lane Cardwell as directors and John Doyle as secretary and treasurer. All received nominal $250 salaries, except Berman, who received $18,000.

Several Berman & Co employees and associates have associations with CCF. Doyle is a Berman senior vice president, David Martosko has been described in news stories as CCF director of research,[34] and Justin Wilson is cited as a CCF senior research analyst and has appeared multiple times on television networks including CNBC to debate the issue of "trans-fats bans".[35][36]


[edit] Criticism
The Center for Consumer Freedom has drawn criticism from several groups for its startup funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company. It has been described as an astroturf group that portrays itself as a grassroots organization while actually being largely funded by the fast food, meat, and tobacco industries.[37][3][38][39][40] It is also criticized for its efforts to portray groups such as the Humane Society of the United States as "violent" and "extreme", and for its opposition to banning the use of trans fats.[41][42][43][44][45] The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has also campaigned against the CCF's validity as a non-profit tax exempt charitable organization, filing an IRS complaint in 2004 attacking CCF's claims that its advocacy campaigns were "educational" in nature.[46][47][3] Some corporations, including PepsiCo and Kraft Foods, have declined to work with CCF, saying they do not agree with some of the group's arguments or its approach to advocacy.[32]

Several groups, organizations and government agencies attacked by CCF have claimed that CCF’s interpretation of scientific data has been intentionally inaccurate to please CCF clients.

In refuting a study by the National Weight Control Registry, a Brown Medical School research project which tracks thousands of people who have permanently lost weight, CCF stated that it “is not how little they eat or how often they record their food, but how much they move." Suzanne Phelan, a registry co-investigator and Brown assistant professor, denounced CCF’s interpretation, pointing out that “Without giving people a diet, just asking them to record induces weight loss." [48]

An online article by the United Auto Workers points out that CCF’s Center for Union Facts “twists the facts about unions.” They support this by revealing that of the thousands of unfair labor practice complaints, which CCF claims attack unions, were filed by anti-union companies in order to delay union organizing or votes. [49]

The president of the American Federation of Teachers Edward J. McElroy stated that CCF’s attacks claiming that unionized teachers oppose educational reforms were unfounded. McElroy referred to CCF’s founder Berman as "an ethically challenged attack dog" and "a shameless lobbyist who has shilled for pesticide, alcohol and tobacco companies." [50]

When CCF called for the New York Times to retract a story about mercury levels in fish as “bad science,” senior Newsweek editor Sharon Begley pointed out glaring errors in CCF’s calculations referring to CCF’s statements as “nonsense” and suggesting that “Someone needs to go back to 4th grade math.” Using statistics from the EPA, Begley dismissed CCF claims that “ it’s not possible for anyone to exceed a reference dose with a single week’s worth of exposure” and that “you’d have to exceed the allowed dose by 10-fold every day for your entire life to be at risk.” [51]

David Martosko, Director for Research for CCF, told ABC-TV in San Francisco that “the drunk driving problem in this country has been reduced to a small hard core of repeat offenders." ABC refuted that information, reporting that “government statistics don't show that. The majority of arrests are first-timers.” They also reported that Martosko has no background in science but was a music major in college and later an AM talk radio show producer prior to joining CCF

Getting ready to return from my hiatus

Between the new job and my camera being stolen I haven't had much of a chance to update the blog. I've got a new digital camera on the way and I'm settling into a rythm with my new job so be on the look out for more activity. Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to stop by and read what I have to say.

Feast or Famine: Meat production and world hunger

Feast or Famine:
Meat Production and World Hunger

By Mark Hawthorne


Hanging in the Newseum in Washington, DC, is a photo that is about as heart-rending an image as you’re likely to find anywhere. Taken by Kevin Carter for The New York Times in 1993, the photo depicts a starving Sudanese toddler crumpled on the ground, as if her stick-like legs could no longer bear the weight of her large head and swollen stomach, bloated from the malnourishment disease called kwashiorkor. While that alone is disturbing, what makes the tableau truly haunting is the vulture patiently waiting just a few feet behind the emaciated child. This photograph earned Carter a Pulitzer Prize and epitomized the toll famine is taking on developing countries around the world.

Tragically, of course, hunger has only become an even graver issue in the last 15 years — a point made clear in a report released July 29 from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Recommending urgent action for long-term relief, the CSIS report calls for “a strategic U.S. approach to the global food crisis.”

“Food crisis,” however, implies some recent, short-term cause and effect, when in fact the “perfect storm” of rising energy costs, grain hoarding, government subsidies, drought and the demand for biofuels diverts attention from an entrenched industry and a remedy neither the CSIS nor many social activists want to contemplate: eliminating meat production.

“Whoa!” you say. “Don’t take away my steaks and cheeseburgers.” Meat-eating is such an ingrained aspect of Western culture that proposing its demise, even to save the world, deserves some discussion. Fair enough.

The United Nations estimates that 854 million people — nearly 13 percent of the world’s human population — go hungry every day. And the problem is only getting worse. Josette Sheeran, executive director of the UN’s World Food Program, says, “The world’s misery index is rising.”

So is our hunger for meat. As Gene Baur observes in Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food, in 1950, 50,000 farms produced 630 million “meat” chickens in the United States. By 2005, the U.S. had 20,000 fewer farms — but they were producing 8.7 billion chickens for meat. That’s a lot of chicken feed. In fact, every year industrial animal factories in the U.S. feed 157 million metric tons of legumes, cereal and vegetable protein to livestock, resulting in 28 million metric tons of animal protein for human consumption. Nutritious plant-based food that could feed humans instead goes to feed animals in a very inefficient use of resources.

Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, DC, states it succinctly: “People go hungry because much of arable land is used to grow feed grain for animals rather than people.” He offers as one example the Ethiopian famine of 1984, which was fueled by the meat industry. “While people starved, Ethiopia was growing linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for European livestock,” he says. “Millions of acres of land in the developing world are used for this purpose. Tragically, 80 percent of the world’s hungry children live in countries with food surpluses which are fed to animals for consumption by the affluent.”

The demand for meat has been especially dramatic in developing countries. “China’s meat consumption is increasing rapidly with income growth and urbanization, and it has more than doubled in the past generation,” says Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. As a result, land once used to provide grains for humans now provides feed for chickens and pigs.

The USDA and the United Nations state that using an acre of land to raise cattle yields 20 pounds of usable protein. If soybeans were grown instead, that same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein. Animal agriculture also wastes valuable water resources. Population biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 gallons of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 gallons.

Here’s another way to look at it. According to the aid group Vegfam, a ten-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, ten people growing corn and only two people producing cattle. Reducing meat production by just ten percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people, estimates Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer. Sixty million people — that’s the population of Great Britain, which, by the way, could support 250 million people on an all-vegetable diet.

Not surprisingly, the meat industry has a beef with these statistics. They say, for example, that the grains and soybeans fed to farmed animals are not of the high quality that humans would expect to eat (tell that to a starving child). Yet it’s difficult to dispute the fact that animal agribusiness uses land and water that could be used to grow plant foods for human consumption.

As Rifkin observes, it is ironic that millions of consumers in developed countries are dying from diseases of affluence such as heart attacks, diabetes and cancer, brought on by eating animal products, while the poor in the Third World are dying of diseases of poverty caused by being denied access to land to grow food grain for their families.

“We are long overdue for a global discussion on how to promote a diversified, high-protein, vegetarian diet for the human race,” says Rifkin, whose book Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture addresses the moral paradoxes of eating meat.

Are those steaks and cheeseburgers really worth all the lives they take — human and non-human? It would be naïve to think the world will go vegetarian overnight, or even in a few decades. But looking at Carter’s powerful photograph, I can’t help but believe we have been woefully mistaken in how we treat those with whom we share this planet. If we hope to bequeath a sustainable world to future generations, we’ll have to shake loose this meat-produced disaster and embrace a kinder way of living.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Hawthorne is the author of Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism www.strikingattheroots.com He writes a blog on activism at strikingattheroots.wordpress.com

http://www.all-creatures.org

Biblical teachings on animal cruelty

WWW.ALL-CREATURES.ORG

by Mercy Aiken
www.bible.com

Does God hear the cries of those who do not communicate in human language?

Does His heart respond to the fearful mewing of a motherless kitten or the exhaustion of a donkey staggering under a load far too heavy for it?

Does He care about the animals that are bred in cramped quarters and exploited for profit?

God was so interested in the welfare of the animal kingdom that He created, that He even commanded Noah, in the time of judgment on the earth, to make the ark big enough to hold two of every kind of animal that existed.

The Bible actually has much to say in regard to animal abuse. In the beginning, God created the earth and all the creatures on it to be under the authority of humanity. He entrusted these beautiful elements of His creation to our care (Genesis 1:26).

Our sinful nature causes us to abuse these things, sometimes without even realizing it. Yet, God expects the Christian, above all others, to be sensitive to all of His creation, knowing that exploiting or abusing it shows a disrespect for God Himself.

Abuse of anything that God made is not the character of God, but rather of the Evil One.

Domestic Animals: "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10).

Throughout the Bible, God shows how He expects us to care for our animals in practical ways. In the Law of the Israelites, for example, one of the purposes of the Sabbath year of rest for the land, was to let the land lie fallow--and so that the poor as well as livestock and wild animals could eat from it (Exodus 23:11 and Leviticus 25:7).

The Sabbath day itself was not only for humans to rest. God also commanded us to give our animals rest on the same day. (Exodus 20:10).

He also commanded the Israelites to help both their friends and enemies when their ox or donkey had fallen over, or was carrying a burden too heavy for it to bear (Exodus 23:5 and Deuteronomy 22:4).

In addition, livestock were also allowed to eat as they worked (Deuteronomy 25:4).

Finally, God says to us in Proverbs 27:23: "Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds."

Part of the reason that God anointed young David to be king over Israel, was that he was a good shepherd and could be trusted with the sheep under his care, even risking his life for them when they were attacked by lions or bears (1 Samuel 17:34).

God knew that if David had this sort of heart for his sheep, he would be a faithful shepherd over an even greater treasure the people of Israel.

Wild Animals--His eye is on the sparrow:

In addition to domesticated animals, God also watches over wild animals and commands us to do the same.

In Deuteronomy 22:6-7, God promises a long life to those who will watch over wild birds. If we rape the land or the creatures in it, what will sustain us in the future?

He allows for the taking of eggs, but commands that we release the mother bird to continue living in the wild and reproducing as He intended.

In Job 38:41, God says that He hears the cries of newborn ravens crying to Him for food. Jesus went on to say that God supplies food for the wild birds and that not one of them falls to the ground without Him knowing it (Matthew 6:26, 10:29).

These small, but kind and practical commands written throughout the Bible give us good insight into how God expects us to treat animals.

Surely we will have to answer to Him for any abuse that we have committed against them.

God created animals for us to love and to learn from. In them, we see our own dependence upon God illustrated in their dependence upon us.

We can also see elements of our foolishness manifested in them (who has not seen a crowing rooster and laughed at the comic caricature of ourselves crowing to all the world in our foolish pride?) In addition,

God also tells us to learn from their wisdom:

"Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest" (Proverbs 6:6-8). (Job 12:7-10 KJV)

"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee;
and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee:
and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."

Although worship of animals as deities is strictly forbidden in Scripture, we are to respect them as a part of God's creation.

Some believe that because only humans were created in God's image, they alone are worthy of respect and care. Yet, the Bible tells us that even the angels were not created in God's image, yet we are to respect them!

We are to respect all of God's created order, not to worship facets of it, but to see in it the same call that we ourselves have, which is to glorify God.

All of God's creation was made with the ability and the power to glorify Him, each in different ways. In this, animals, as well as humans, share a common element with the rest of creation. Perhaps the words from these Psalms say it best of all (emphasis added):

Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him from the heights above.

Praise him all his angels, praise him, all his heavenly hosts.

Praise him, sun and moon, praise him all you shining stars.

Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.

Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded and they were created.

He set them in place forever and ever; he gave a decree that will never pass away.

Praise the Lord from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths, lightening and hail, snow and clouds, stormy winds that do his bidding, you mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars, wild animals and all cattle, small creatures and flying birds kings of the earth and all nations, you princes and all rulers on earth young men and maidens, old men and children.

Let them praise the name of the Lord, for His name alone is exalted;

His splendor is above the earth and the heavens (Psalm 148: 1-13).

Let everything that has breath praise the Lord (Psalm 150:6).

UPDATE FROM VBSPCA.COM

West Virginia Dog Rescue

8/28/2008

The Virginia Beach SPCA is honored to be able to respond to West Virginia puppy mill dog rescue. We can only do this because we know we can rely on the generosity of our community and donors to support our efforts. We expect to spend $52 for the first day alone for each rescued dog in providing initial assessments and medical care, and need to raise $6000 per day to operate our shelter and its programs.



Adoptions

• We are not accepting reservations for specific dogs or breeds.
  
• We will not ship dogs.
  
• Adopters must live within a 75 mile radius of our shelter.
  
• Our existing ADOPTION CRITERIA will apply, and may also include additional special requirements based on the animal's needs. Adopters will also be required to attend our "Getting To Know Your Dog" class.
  

If you are interested in adopting an adult rescued dog, you can be added to our availability notification list by sending an email to INFO@VBSPCA.COM Please include "Adoption" in the subject line. All the dogs are currently receiving medical and behavioral assessments. We anticipate that it may be a minimum of 10 days before many of these dogs will become available for adoption. We will notify you via email as dogs become available, and you will have the opportunity at that time to come to the shelter and complete an application. Please refer to our ADOPTION CRITERIA prior to completing an application, to ensure that you bring all relevant documents. And please don't forget that we currently have 375 other wonderful shelter animals that are already available for adoption.



Fostering/Volunteering


Individuals interested in providing foster care for the recently rescued adult dogs are asked to complete a FOSTER APPLICATION and attend our Volunteer and Foster Orientation on September 2nd at 6PM at the Virginia Beach SPCA. Applications can be emailed to cat@vbspca.com, faxed to 427-5939, or brought to the training class on the 2nd. All applicants are required to submit a completed application, attend the orientation and become a VBSPCA member ($20 membership fee).


Ongoing Updates


Please check our website frequently, as all updates related to the rescued dogs, their availability, and foster/volunteer opportunities will be regularly posted on our home page.

WWW.VBSPCA.COM

I feel the need to clarify my position on animal rights.

I'd like to clarify my stance on animal rights. To most people the words animal rights activists conjure images of masked radicals fire bombing research labs due and PETA activists harrasing people in the streets. I think that it's sad that the idea that non human animals deserve to live free from unnecessary violence is considered so radical. I have recently decided that I no longer wish to be an omnivore. I didn't make this decision because I think that eating meat is wrong, I made the decision because factory farming usurps the laws of nature and is detrimental to the survival of our planet. I follow the Native American view of respecting any animal that you choose to kill and making sure you use it all. If you understand that you are taking the life of something for subsistence and make sure it doesn't go to waste it is not unethical to kill an animal. However factory animals can't fight back when they are confined in cages so small that they can't move, and fighting back is a natural instinct when being preyed upon. Taking away an animals predator and prey instinct is against nature. Not to mention that if we freed up the amount of resources it takes to commercialy raise animals for food we'd have more than enough food for everyone on the planet. Here are the statistics according to www.vegtaste.com

- 70% of grains used to feed animals that can feed the billions of starving people around the world.

- The world's cattle alone need massive quantity of food, equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people.

- Amount of feed needed to produce just one 8-ounce steak would fill 45 to 50 bowls with cooked cereal grains

- The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to make 1 pound of beef.

- Reducing U.S. meat production by 10 percent would free grain to feed 60 million people.


On the topic of violent animal rights activism, I am a pacifist and don't believe that we should bring any more violence into the world than is necessary for our own survival. I don't believe that people should be targeted with violence, but rather the corporate structures that are complicit in the institutional abuse of living creatures. When laws are unjust it is our moral responsibility to break them with out harming anyone in the process.

On the topic of vivesection, technological advances have been made so that live animal vivesection is no longer necessary. Just about anything that can be done to a live animal can be simulated mathmaticaly and programmed into a computer with the same results. Instead of pumping all kinds of money into these labs, we should be putting that money into technologies that will make these labs obsolete. The truth of the matter is that so many different corporate entities have their hands in lab bussiness that they will fight tooth and nail to keep this change from happening. I'm not anti medical research but when inhumane experiments become a multi billion dollar a year industry that's where I draw the line.

On the topic of euthanasia, as sad as it may be untill people stop breeding their pets for greed and neglecting to have their animals spayed and neutered there are going to be more animals than homes. I'd rather see an animal die painlessly than get hit by a car or picked up by an abuser or some other awful fate. I will continue to educate people on the effects of pet overpopulation in hopes that the people I reach can help make a difference in our communities.

I understand that some of my ideology may seem a bit extreme to some people, and it is not my goal to try and force my beliefs on to anyone. I am here to offer an alternative viewpoint to a worldwide problem so that people can inform themselves and act in accordence to their own belief systems. I'm not going to go firebomb medical labs, I'm not going to attack ceo's of farms or any other violent non sense like that. However I am going to continue to help find homes for unwanted pets and to educate people that the survival of the human race depends on the survival of all living things on the planet no matter how much opposition I may encounter. And one final thought, just because I consider my self a proponent of animal rights doesn't mean I condone every thing that PETA and their splinter groups do. People like to assume that just because I'm an activist in the cause means that I agree with everything they do and that's just not true. I'm not willing to go as far as to discredit the organization alltogether beacuase they have done good things however not all animal rights activists follow PETAS brand of animal rights.

VBSPCA Disaster Team On Route To West Virginia for largest puppy mill rescue in the states history!

The Virginia Beach SPCA..'s Disaster Team is currently on route to Parkersburg, West Virginia in response to what is being called that state..'s largest animal rescue. Approximately 1000 dogs have been surrendered by Whispering Oaks Kennel following investigations stemming from dog-related pollution. The kennel was run by 73 year old Sharon Roberts, who operated an internet-based puppy sales business. The dogs, used solely for breeding, have spent their entire lives in wire mesh cages and have had minimal human contact outside of feedings.


The roundtrip rescue trip is expected to take at least 22 hours, with the Disaster Team and approximately 100 dogs arriving back at the Virginia Beach SPCA late Thursday evening. "We have been fighting against puppy mills for years. When a situation arises where we can help rescue the animals who have been exploited in this way, we must respond," said Sharon Adams, Executive Director of the Virginia Beach SPCA.


The dogs will require medical assessments, behavioral assessments and veterinary care. The Virginia Beach SPCA anticipates that all the dogs will require foster care for socialization and housetraining prior to becoming available for adoption. We will be providing detailed information regarding foster care requirements for those individuals interested in assisting. Potential foster families will be pre-screened, required to enter into foster contracts, and attend training to prepare for some of the challenges they may encounter in caring for the dogs.
Please click here to support our rescue efforts and the costs associated with the ongoing care these dogs will require.

Please click here to support our rescue efforts and the costs associated with the ongoing care these dogs will require.

If you are interested in fostering please email us at foster@vbspca.com
Or visit Volunteer foster care for more information