Animal Rights FBI arrests animal rights activists for releasing 5,740 mink

[Poppy]

The 5700 mink weren't released all at once, if I read the article correctly. They were released across a 40k mile cross-country journey. It would be incredibly hard to estimate the ecological impact of the releases.

And whether or not they were caged or released, those mink were going to need to eat or be fed something no matter where they were. Assuming the released mink live longer in the wild than they do on the farm could possibly mean more dead animals, but if they starved or became victims of the environment, as Mikkel suggests, then it's possible that fewer net animals would die.

I don't like to assign mathematical equations to situations like this as there are so many unknowns, so many assumptions and so many variables.

Still, I do admire those who try to hurt the fur industry by whatever means. Any business loss has, at the very least, a negative short-term impact, whether it be higher insurance rates due to the claims, higher deductibles, transportation costs of replacing the lost animals (especially if the breeding stock were released), lost production, unmet deadlines, etc. Fur is an absolutely unnecessary barbaric product and it's time for it to go.

 

[Andy_T]

Regardless that I see the release of minks to the wild as a very stupid thing to do, charging those individuals with "terrorism against the fur industry" strikes me as very wrong.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I was thinking that it seems like the most cruel treatment of animals is often associated with luxury in society. Fur, top grain leather, silk, foie gras, white veal, feather pillows...

It seems like wearing fur goes in and out of fashion and I wonder if there would be a market if somebody could replicate faux fur so that it looked and felt like animal fur. If there was an upper class person who was a high profile vegan maybe they could influence the higher parts of society.

 

[Mikkel]

As long as fur industry is legal, this action will be punished. Terrorism is a hard word to use yes, but it could go under both fauna criminality and animal abuse. It's not okay to mistreat animals just because someone is mistreating them worse. You can't hit your dog just because your neightbour hit his dog with a stick.

In the fur debate here, the releasing of the minks is still used and remembered. Dead animals "everywhere", hit by cars, starved and injured. And too many people react more to that than the industry sometimes. I think it's because they think of the minks like happy and safe at the farms. Or they are plain stupid. Not always easy to know.

The fur farms have to be fought through the laws. To close them for good.

 

[Calliegirl]

The possibility of environmental damage due to the minks being released should have been considered by the government before the farm was ever approved. There could be a mass release due to other causes besides AR people. A natural disaster could cause a large amount of them to be released, or even the owner of the farm themselves due to mental illness. We had that happen in Ohio, where the owner opened all the cages and released 56 large, dangerous animals, then killed himself.

Responsibility for any damage to the ecosystem should fall on whatever department approved having a large number of non-native animals.

 

[Andy_T]

Terrorism is a hard word to use yes

I am even more concerned about the implications of being legally charged with terrorism.

In my home country, Austria, there was some time ago a show trial (it can not be described otherwise) where a group of animal rights activists were charged with "forming a criminal organization".

Read more here: THE TRIAL – a documentary about the trial against animal-rights activists

This was based on a law that was originally created to have a means to fight organized crime by creating a special offense "forming an organization with the target to influence business practice". A special investigation was launched after the owner of a clothes chain that had been targeted with protests intervened at some of his friends who happened to be in high positions in the police and law enforcement and the ruling Conservative party, with millions of Euros spent on clandestine surveillance and introduction of undercover agents into the animal rights organization.

Finally the animal rights activists were acquitted (but ruined financially due to the charges of their defense in the year-long process), but the issue that the whole investigation had been started on behalf of animal abusers, that the Attorney General had raised the charges despite not having any proof at all, law enforcement officers had been proven to have lied under oath in their testimonials and that proofs in favour of the defendants that had been found by the undercover agents were suppressed, have not been addressed by the legal system in Austria, at all.

 

[Mischief]

The possibility of environmental damage due to the minks being released should have been considered by the government before the farm was ever approved. There could be a mass release due to other causes besides AR people. A natural disaster could cause a large amount of them to be released, or even the owner of the farm themselves due to mental illness. We had that happen in Ohio, where the owner opened all the cages and released 56 large, dangerous animals, then killed himself.

Responsibility for any damage to the ecosystem should fall on whatever department approved having a large number of non-native animals.

Mink are a native species throughout Northern America.

The kind of damage they do to an ecosystem upon a mass release is not of a type that adversely affects humans (other than hunters), so I don't see that as being of concern to any licensing authorities.

 

[Second Summer]

The fur farms have to be fought through the laws. To close them for good.

Yes, but not exclusively, I think. It's a campaign that has to be fought on multiple levels: we need grassroots organizations to raise awareness and bring attention to the issues, politicians who are sympathetic to the cause on both sides of the political spectrum, news media that will cover the issue, veterinarians and scientists who are willing to speak out against the madness, opinion makers and celebrities who will do their part etc. Parliament will only act if there is considerable pressure to do so.

 

[Second Summer]

I am even more concerned about the implications of being legally charged with terrorism.

In my home country, Austria, there was some time ago a show trial (it can not be described otherwise) where a group of animal rights activists were charged with "forming a criminal organization".

Read more here: THE TRIAL – a documentary about the trial against animal-rights activists

This was based on a law that was originally created to have a means to fight organized crime by creating a special offense "forming an organization with the target to influence business practice".

Thanks for posting that, Andy. I haven't yet read your links, but I was wondering, wouldn't such a law also affect organizations like environment organizations, consumer groups or Better Business Bureau type organizations? It sounds horribly draconian. Is the law still in effect?

 

[Andy_T]

I haven't yet read your links, but I was wondering, wouldn't such a law also affect organizations like environment organizations, consumer groups or Better Business Bureau type organizations?

Absolutely! That was one of the points mentioned when the law came into discussion again.
How the law is worded, the requirements of having a number of individuals, having a hierarchical organization, and trying to exert influence on business or society, you could today use it to indict the Auto club, as they have a number of employees, are organized hierarchically, and conduct crash tests and publish the results with the clear - and admitted target - to get the auto manufacturers to build safe cars. Guilty as charged.

In the case of the animal rights activists, one of the many charges brought was that they had "threatened" a clothes manufacturer to stage further (peaceful, permitted) demonstrations until they change their policy of selling fur. This was one of the reasons why many (even non-vegans) were outraged about the process.

And yes, the law is still in effect. When it was passed, those responsible for formulating it promised that it would, of course, not be used to criminalize lawful actions. Now, as the criticism is strong and people are requesting that the law should be changed, the responsibles say "But .... terrorism! Organized crime! How should we handle that in the future???"

 

[Mikkel]

Yes, but not exclusively, I think. It's a campaign that has to be fought on multiple levels: we need grassroots organizations to raise awareness and bring attention to the issues, politicians who are sympathetic to the cause on both sides of the political spectrum, news media that will cover the issue, veterinarians and scientists who are willing to speak out against the madness, opinion makers and celebrities who will do their part etc. Parliament will only act if there is considerable pressure to do so.

Of cause we need to try to push the politicans in to banning furfarms. Petition, demonstrations, write letters, document what happens etc etc. It was what I ment buy fighting them through the laws. But not buy voilence, "rescuing" aninmals, burning down farms etc. I don't think it does much well, because most of the farmers will not get out of business that way (and that is the goal in the end).

This year, the politicans decided here in Norway that the fur farms loose one of the economic helps from the goverment. I think and hope that it's one of the things that can start to close down some farms (the smaller ones in the districts). It's a start. And I belive we will see a ban in some years now.

And it is horrible that they use terrorism in this case, but thinking about some of the laws US like the AG-GAG and the one that you aren't allowed to collect data to show polution, they are a bit special on that part (no offence for you Americans, but those laws are just crazy)

 

[Mischief]

And it is horrible that they use terrorism in this case, but thinking about some of the laws US like the AG-GAG and the one that you aren't allowed to collect data to show polution, they are a bit special on that part (no offence for you Americans, but those laws are just crazy)

No offence taken. Those laws are indeed crazy/awful. I don't think they would withstand a judicial challenge, once someone takes a case that route.

 

[FortyTwo]

Is there a "natural habitat" for mink? Where or what kind of place would that be?

There is, as mentioned, but let's say there wasn't (or that releasing them into said habitat was impossible).

Once someone has stolen animals from a fur farm/similar horrible institution, they are then responsible for those animals. I firmly believe that someone cannot just wash their hands of that responsibility by dumping them wherever and going 'oh well, better here than there'. That may indeed be true, but unless you can be sure, then you shouldn't do it in the first place.

I am all for resistance, even if it is illegal, even if it does involve stealing abused animals. But please, if you're going to do something like that, make sure you know what you're going to do with the animals you take. Make sure you can give them a place to thrive.