This Story Really Belongs On A Satire Site

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article yesterday about a recent truck accident in Maine.

The article reports:

An animal rights advocate wants to place a roadside memorial in Maine to remember thousands of lobsters killed in a highway wreck.

A member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed an application for the memorial earlier on Wednesday to build a large grave to mark the site of a truck crash that resulted in thousands of lobsters spilling out onto a highway. 

PETA hopes to memorialize the ‘countless sensitive crustaceans’ who were killed during the August 22 crash in Brunswick, the animal rights group said. 

The grave would ‘remind everyone that the best way to prevent such tragedies is to go vegan,’ the animal rights group said. 

7,000 pounds of live lobsters were destroyed and it’s believed at least 4,500 lobsters died.  It’s believed the truck’s driver lost control because of rain.

Some of the lobsters died from being crushed, police say. Detective William Moir told The Bangor Daily News that the scene of lobster carnage ‘was something I’ve never seen before. Some lobsters were loose on the ground from being spilled over so we went to work to save the ones we could.’

I don’t mean to be difficult, but I suspect there are many other places the money involved could be put to better use. I am sorry about the lobsters, but they were not purposely harmed, and I do truly believe this article belongs on a satire site.

Noble Causes The Coincidentally Result In Financial Windfalls

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today about taking the horse-drawn carriages out of Central Park in New York City. In January New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio promised that he would remove the horses from Central Park (honoring the wishes of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Mayor DeBlasio has now stated that he will introduce legislation this month to eliminate the horse-drawn carriage industry in Central Park.

Last January I posted an article explaining the financial gain involved in this move (rightwinggranny). It really isn’t about the welfare of the animals:

The bad guy in this drama, according to the carriage drivers, is  Steve Nislick, chief executive officer of a New Jersey-based real-estate development company, Edison Properties. The company “employs legions of lobbyists to influence city decisions on real estate and zoning in its favor,” journalist Michael Gross reported in 2009, pointing out that two of Edison’s businesses “have multiple locations in the same Far West Midtown neighborhood as the stables where the Central Park horses are housed.” An anti-carriage pamphlet Nislick circulated in 2008 made this interesting observation: “Currently, the stables consist of 64,000 square feet of valuable real estate on lots that could accommodate up to 150,000 square feet of development. These lots could be sold for new development.”

The Teamsters Union represents the Central Park carriage drives, and the union has already released a statement that they are unhappy with the proposed legislation.

A California Judge Who Ruled Correctly Based On The Facts

On Thursday, CNS News reported on a lawsuit brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) against California dairy farmers. PETA sued to get the daily farmers to stop running ads showing happy, well cared for dairy cows. PETA claimed that the cows were neither happy nor well cared for.

The article reports:

PETA, which filed the lawsuit in 2011, had argued that the California Milk Advisory Board and the California Department of Food and Agriculture had violated state rules that bar misleading or inaccurate marketing with the “Happy Cows” ads.

I am not totally sure how PETA knew whether or not the cows were happy, but I will continue with the story.

The article reports:

According to court documents, PETA had specifically complained that “most California dairy cows are subjected to physical and psychological pain and stress caused by intense and uncomfortable dairying practices, have a high risk of suffering from a number of diseases, and die prematurely” and that “dairy producers take into account the animals’ wellbeing only to the extent that it is economically advantageous to do so.”

The judge ruled that PETA had failed to produce any specific evidence that the cows were being mistreated. The judge also pointed out that state veterinarians and agriculture officials routinely visit and inspect California dairy farms to observe the conditions at the farms.

I am not sure what PETA would like to do to change the conditions of cows on dairy farms. I am also not sure what causes stress in cows. I think most people want to see animals treated well, but I do wonder what changes PETA would make to the average dairy farm.

The article concludes:

PETA, meanwhile, said it is “continuing a review of the judge’s decision in order to determine its next step.”

My question is simple, “How much did this lawsuit cost the dairy farmers of California, and how much of that cost will be passed along to consumers in California when they buy milk or milk products?”

Enhanced by Zemanta