Heated animal rights protest at UCLA finds its way to the Internet

Animal-rights activists observing the annual World Week for Animals in Laboratories at UCLA met their match in UCLA researchers, staff and students protesting on the other side of the street.  Due to many recent, violent attacks on UCLA researchers, including incendiary devices in cars and on porches,  they formed the Pro-Test group to counter the animal-rights activists.  Two activists linked with the Animal Liberation Front, listed as a domestic terrorist group by the FBI and ATF, were officially charged on Monday.

Both sides of the debate moved from the street corner to the Internet on our L.A. Unleashed blog.

belcar says: A bunch of bloated UCLA employees protesting during work hours is not news. We California taxpayers are paying them to protest! And UCLA gets funding for its nicotine experiments on primates from Philip Morris! Where else would such conflicts of interest be tolerated?

Such a corrupt institution.

Reader says: I'm going to ask again -- why does the Times refuse to ask even the most basic questions about animal use in research?

You foist on your readers a complete logical fallacy in the form of this Pro-Test statement:

"'With over 70% of Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine going to those who have used animals in their research, it is little wonder that scientists believe that such methods are still crucial in helping treat and cure modern diseases'"

I'm sorry - WHAT? Because scientists who are rewarded often use animals in their research, THEREFORE scientists believe using animals in research is necessary? (For prizes, or results?) What kind of bizarre logic is that? If these people could point to RESULTS, i.e. thus-and-so disease has been cured through the use of animals, you bet they'd be saying that. The question is, if they're not telling us what they've cured, what proof exists that they've cured ANYTHING with animals?

What we do know is that drugs, from Vioxx to Thalidomide, WERE tested on animals, were supposed safe, put on the market, and then killed and deformed a bunch of people because it turned out the animal tests had no relevance to human physiology.

Additionally, UCLA uses monkeys (and collects Philip Morris' six million dollars) for "research" on addiction to nicotine. How many chain-smoking monkeys do you know? And why should even one monkey have to die for a freely chosen human vice?

And for the final insult to our intelligence, the Times has the temerity to actually print David Jentsch's absurd contention that "While he acknowledges that some monkeys are killed as part of his research, he maintains that they do not suffer."

Really? And you feel no compunction about just printing that with no substantiation whatsoever? Just because a guy in a labcoat says it, it must be true?

I'm going to go buy a labcoat, then steal a car. When anyone questions my conduct, I'll just tell them I'm a scientist and I'm conducting research. Apparently in L.A. that's the ultimate "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Betty says: By definition, 'animals treated well while being researched on' is a complete oxymoron. Emphasis on moron. How can anyone possibly make the logical assessment that the animals are treated 'well' when they are being prodded, pulled, dissected (often while conscious since anesthesia is expensive), poked (with needles), substances poured down their throats and stuffed into their eyes, toxic gas forced into their lungs, killed, and the list goes on? How can that ever be a life of well-being? Just b/c they have food and water and shelter (albeit a 1x1 cage)? These so-called pseudo scientists are just worried about losing their grants and research funds and their jobs even though they know that animal testing is obsolete and bears poor results. There is no excuse for animal testing. Move to high-tech alternatives: living cell, tissue, computer models. And make alternatives a priority instead of fighting it!

Read the counter argument from the other side after the jump...

Is 'Ratatouille' really gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

We've got a live one over at our food blog, The Daily Dish.

Is the Academy Award-winning "Ratatouille" really a gay-coming out story? Ostensibly, the movie is a straight-forward tale about a rat whose true passion lies in the kitchen. But Times Staff Writer Betty Hallock found out about an upcoming lecture at UCLA that portrays the film as a homosexual coming of age, with a heavy dose of Oedipal and race conflicts.

Readers were divided. Here's what a couple had to say:

Says SaMo:

When I first saw the movie, I too thought there was a gay subtext in the fact that the rat, by its very nature, does not "belong" in the kitchen. The movie suggested that even this supposed taboo could be overcome...But it does the gay rights movement a disservice.  [That] to me was the problem with the movie: it set up an impossible to overcome hurdle. I don't want rats cooking for me, so I really couldn't root for Remy to succeed.  But I'm all in favor of gay people doing anything they want: marrying, adopting, fostering children, whatever.

Says Storm:

Okay, really I am gay and I did not see any kind of coming out from the RAT. You could apply the rats self awareness to simply growing up...this is a big push....Really, just let it go...stop looking for the gay angle.

-- Rene Lynch

Photo credit: Disney/Pixar

Is the zoo good enough for you?

Jack Hanna, a television personality and famous wildlife expert, recently sent a letter to the L.A. City Council supporting an L.A. Zoo expansion project that would complete an exhibit for an endangered elephant. The elephant, Billy, has aroused quite a stir on our pets blog Unleashed.

Commenter's opinions ranged from sending Billy to a wildlife sanctuary back in Africa, to completing the multi-million dollar zoo exhibit here in L.A. Some of the more entertaining thought-provoking comments on the blog entry explored the nature and role of a zoo in our society.

Kate Woodviolet says: I don't think Jack Hanna means ill, but keeping elephants in zoos is beneficial to zoos. Elephants are a big draw, and no doubt are genuinely beloved by their keepers, but that doesn't necessarily translate into what's best for the elephant.

Paul Gachot says: Zoos are extremely important aspects of our urban environment. Experiencing live animals triggers something in us that bypasses our 'civilized' selves and nourishes our deepest existential core. Developing children need to experience animals, smell their smells, analyze their ways of moving and interacting.

lbrook says: ALL the TRUE EXPERTS feel the same way about this exhibit - and about Asian elephants in ACCREDITED ZOOS - We have a moral obligation to save this extremely endangered species. And we have the obligation to treat them humanely.

As politicians and interest groups battle over Billy's fate, the elephant sits in an exhibit that is much smaller than the new one that's been put on hold because of the controversy. Should a zoo be a place for children to gawk at caged animals? A place for captive breeding programs to save endangered species? Should we just eliminate them all together? The Unleashed readers have a variety of opinions, and you can weigh in here.

Discuss the Supreme Court's ruling on Navy sonar use

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling will allow the Navy to use high-powered sonar off the SoCal coast, despite protests from environmentalists who say the sonar harms whales and other marine mammals.

The Times' David Savage reports:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts said the Navy needs to train its crews to detect enemy submarines, and it cannot be forced to turn off its sonar when whales are spotted nearby. "The public interest in conducting training exercises with active sonar under realistic conditions plainly outweighs" the concerns voiced by environmentalists, he said for a 5-4 majority.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling?  Do the Navy's needs trump the potential effects on marine life?  Weigh in here.

Photo: Dennis Fujimoto/AP

SOLVED! The mystery of Tungsten's Excalibur (a.k.a. Chip)

Friday I challenged L.A.'s dog owners to log into our new database of dog names and explain why they chose their pet names. The results were great, and included an apparent explanation for what I thought to be one of the city's more mysterious names: Tungsten's Excalibur (Chip).

Chris:

He is a son of CH Tungsten's Sword in the Stone as in King Arthur. His dad's nickname is Rocky. Excalibur is the sword taken out of the stone. His nickname is Chip ( as in off the rock) He is a Norwegian Elkhound.

Illuminating explanations were also offered for Elva, Zorra and Manina, among others.

You can now browse a list of all the comments left by doggy database users by visiting here. It's also available in RSS format.

If you want to play along at home, go ahead and dive into the data by searching your dog's name in the box below. I'm looking forward to hearing your story.

-- Ben Welsh

What's in a dog name?

UPDATE BELOW

If there's anything to be learned from L.A.'s Top Dogs, our new database of local dog registrations, it's that Angelenos can come up with some creative names for their pet pooch. There are rappers, cars, movie stars, superheroes, and even a dictator or two. In the video above, The Times' Myung J. Chun asks owners what name they've chosen.

At the same time, database users have also begun to chime in on the question only an owner can answer: Why?

Kelli:

Violet was my grandma's name.

Matt:

We named our Beagle Carlin after sharing a connection over a common love of the comedian on our third date. I told her I should marry her cos she knew 'the seven dirty words' - and recited them in order! Sure enough, three and a half years later, we tied the knot. And Carlin is a very precocious 2 and a half

diane ferris:

he was named Anderson when we got him from the shelter--named after the park they found him in. it seemed to fit, so we kept it.

Marco:

we named our beagle 'latte' because she is tan and white and she warms us up, just like a hot latte!

To join the fun, search for your dog's name using the box here and post your reasons to the database. Or, if you prefer, leave them in the comment roll below.

-- Ben Welsh

UPDATE: I'm happy to report that users pitched in over the weekend by posting their personal naming stories, including an explanation for one of L.A.'s most mysterious names. Check out that and other dog name stories at L.A.'s Top Dogs, which now features a list of all user comments as well as an RSS feed.

Greenspace: Gray wolves back on endangered species list

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to environmentalists last week who had challenged the delisting of gray wolves as an endangered species. U.S. District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy criticized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's removal of the known predator from the endangered list, writing in a report that the action "demonstrated a possibility of irreparable harm" to the species. The injunction comes just months before planned fall hunts in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, which have since been canceled.

The original story on Greenspace attracted 24 comments, with some supporting the judge's decision and others declaring the world better off without the wolves.

Jsens3 wrote:

It is ridiculous that the federal government has wasted even one dollar protecting a known vicious predator and that a federal judge has so little to do he squanders time on something like this. Doesn't the judge have anything important to do? I wonder what these folks will do to advance the cause of the brown recluse spider, rattlesnakes cobras, poison ivy, AIDS, dengue fever, river blindness, hookworm, malarial mosquitos, ebola, and other myriad enemies of the human race?

Anonymous wrote:

Errm, it`s a known predator, but that`s why it`s needed. If you do your research you`ll discover that the Yellowstone ecosystem was collapsing because of the absence of wolves. It`s good to keep 'em around.

Jeff Call wrote:

I have lived in Idaho all my life. We don't have the same way of life as you in LA. I have 5 children 2 left at home and have raised them on deer and elk we don't eat beef at our house we prefer the leaner meat. Wolves make that way of life harder. We also have seen government trappers staying in the same motel as us in Challis in 1998 being paid to kill a pack of wolves that was in too much trouble. This has gone on all along but it is not publicly announced. We have used a lot of money on the wolves. Why not let some hunters pay to shoot them instead of us taxpayers paying to have them shot. Also do the math the goal was 300 wolves there are over 1500. Increasing at 24% a year that means in 5 years we would have 4398, 10 years would be 12,893. They have far exceeded their expectations even though silently our government has been killing them from the get go. They do need to be controlled.

What? wrote:

Jeff and Jsens3 - should we allow ALL species that can kill humans to be hunted into extinction? Before you answer that, remember that we humans are our own worst predator. Just because an animal has the ability to kill doesn't mean it is a threat to humanity.

Should gray wolves continue to be protected, or is it survival of the fittest? Howl at us in the comments.

-- Mark Milian

Photo: A gray wolf pup. Credit: Kent Kauden / Associated Press

Throwing an...erm...monkey wrench into the legal system?

You may have heard some rumblings on the ol' Internets about a certain chimp (um, this one) named Matthew Hiasl Pan.  If you haven't, our pets and animals blog L.A. Unleashed is here to tell you all about it. 

Basically, here's the deal in a nutshell.  Matthew here has some friends in the animal rights world who say he needs a guardian to look out for him.  Sounds normal so far, right? 

Here's the catch: the law says that only humans can have legally-appointed guardians.  End point?  Vienna-based Assn. Against Animal Factories argues that Matthew should be declared, for legal purposes, a human.

Needless to say, some of you took issue!  Here are a few of our favorite comments:

Paul said:

Good Lord. I'm as liberal as they come, but this is ridiculous.

jen brought up some practical matters:

The activists need to consider the fact that if an animal is considered a "person", what happens if he is injured and needs to be put to sleep. Is that murder? Does he have the right to vote? Does he need a social security number? The list goes on. Why not just have his owner identify a trustee to their estate (including the chimp)?

CLW threw down some serious law-book-learnin':

Is it any more absurd, ridiculous or outlandish for a chimp to be declared a "person" than a corporation? Yet our law considers corporations as "persons".

R Thomas Berner pondered:

Why would a chimp want to lower his standards and become a human?

Ahhh, Wilma.  Someone always has to take it there:

Next, they'll want the new "person" who is still a chimp to have the same rights to marry a human. Why not? When will it all end?

...and Snyder just wants us all to get along:

...Why infringe on someone trying to help out a friend? Look at the hatred in what you are writing, no wonder so many people are better friends with animals then the faceless bloggers and think very little before they write.

Weigh in on the debate here! 

- Lindsay Barnett

Photo: Lilli Strauss / Associated Press