Sunday, May 31, 2009
"A charity is looking for 30 brave people to be 'rescued' from the water at Mount Batten.
Hearing Dogs for Deaf People says it wants 'brave souls' to take part in an unusual charity challenge taking place at the Mount Batten Centre on Sunday, July 5.
At the charity's Newfoundland Dog Rescue event, supporters can take the plunge into the waters off Mount Batten and then be rescued by a 14-stone Newfoundland dog.
Organiser Janine Sargent said: "We're looking for anyone willing to get wet, cold and slobbered on, all in the name of charity!
"But if water isn't your thing, perhaps you would be prepared to pledge money for a friend or work colleague to take the plunge instead?
"It truly is an experience never to be forgotten – but places are very limited, so if you'd like to take part please get in touch as soon as possible."
Newfoundlands have been the St Bernards of the sea for hundreds of years and the event will make use of their lifesaving skills.
Entry is £25 per person, including a returnable £10 deposit, with a minimum sponsorship of £100.
The entry fee includes use of the centre's facilities and light refreshments. All entrants must be over 10 years old and should be in good health. Spectators are welcome.
Anyone interested should contact Ms Sargent on 01208 79786 or email email@example.com."
Monday, May 25, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
NEWS NEWS NEWS
CALENDARIO 2009 ì
E' disponibile presso la segreteria il calendario SAT 2008. Per informazioni e ordinazioni chiamare la segreteria SAT al numero 0382 559966 o E-Mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
Cari soci Vi ricordiamo che e' possibile rinnovare l'iscrizione alla SAT anche tramite bollettino postale con versamento di euro 52 per i soci sotenitori euro 26 per i soci ordinari e di euro 13 per i soci familiari o simpatizzanti sul CCP N. 26670216 intestato a SAT Societa' Amatori Terranova Via Turati 20 , 27028 San Martino Siccomario PV.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The glowing accounts in the local media regarding the late GGNRA Superintendent Brian O'Neill probably reflect personal friendships with the man rather than anything approaching objectivity. And, insofar as that is the case, journalists are clearly entitled to their opinion, although it would be more appropriately suited as Op-Ed material rather than hard news.
To the extent the media is attempting to portray O'Neill in his role as General Superintendent of the GGNRA, they have fallen far short of being accurate.
For example, they use the term "sensitive habitat" without explanation. The term has no scientific or legal definition, but came in vogue during O'Neill's tenure for the purpose of putting lands within the Park off-limits to recreational usage, the first and foremost purpose of the GGNRA as a unique urban national park (it's right there in the enabling legislation, a point I will come back to). The term is broad enough to encompass virtually anything and that is how O'Neill used it. Ironically, the media generally refers to the GGNRA as "his park" and that is exactly as he treated it. As he said to a friend of mine on the former Citizens Advisory Committee, "I will not have dogs running loose in my park." Of course, O'Neill's proprietary desires over the Park ran contrary to its purpose. He was so against the Park's unique enabling legislation that he recently enlisted Nancy Pelosi to introduce a bill into Congress that would not simply change the name of the Park, but eliminate the word "recreation" wherever it appears in the original and current enabling legislation. Clearly, under O'Neill's helm, the goal has been to eliminate recreation first from the GGNRA and make it into a museum -- something to be looked at but not used.
O'Neill's warped vision of the GGNRA (that is, one clearly contrary to the intent of Congress and the City and County of San Francisco is deeding lands to it) was manifested in several illegalities: he was found to have acted illegally in closing off a portion of Fort Funston to everyone and everything, and he was found to have violated the law in rescinding his own 1979 Pet Policy on tidelands that remain owned by the State and are without federal jurisdiction (Crissy Field and Ocean Beach being two). O'Neill also brought the nativism movement to the Park, a movement with no scientific basis but only a preferential one. So much so that allegedly non-native white deer are being massacred at Point Reyes. Forget about relocation or more humane tactics -- if the nativists have their way, the non-native is killed and forgotten about, at least until it becomes endangered or threatened. The movement perhaps finds its most ridiculous extreme in the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on "restoring native plants to Crissy Field". Of course, if you are a born and raised San Franciscan or otherwise know the history of Crissy Field, the only thing native to it was the bay. It is all landfill and there were no native plants there other than those that might have lived underwater. The nativists under O'Neill also decimated ice plant at Fort Funston (in favor of "native" plants) with the result that the Bank Swallows fled the area and have not returned.
O'Neill was also responsible for refusing to follow federal law and allow handicap access to the Park. A year or so ago, a lawsuit had to be brought in order to bring the GGNRA into compliance with federal laws protecting the handicapped. With 30 years of time to comply with such laws, they too were flouted by the GGNRA.
There are many pages that can be spent discussing the warped agenda of Brian O'Neill but I doubt they are things you wish to hear. In the end, O'Neill will be remembered by many people as a despot. More significantly, I find him to be the tragic figure portrayed by Lord Byron:
"When some proud son of man returns to earth
Unknown to glory but upheld by birth
The sculptor's art exhausts the pomp of woe
And storied urns record who rests below.
When all is done upon the tomb is seen
Not what he was
But what he should have been."
O'Neill's charge was to keep the GGNRA open and active for recreation. Virtually everything he did violated that charge and will continue to do so under the philosophy he created. This is not something for the media to extol.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Host: SAT Società Amatori Terranova
Type: Meetings - Club/Group Meeting
Start Time: Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 9:00am
End Time: Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 10:00pm
Location: Bologna - Hotel Green Park
Street: Via San Donato
City/Town: Quarto Inferiore, Italy
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.
PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.
Just seven animals -- out of the 2,216 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.
Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: killing adoptable cats and dogs – and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated – requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.
PETA has a $32 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical".
The bottom line: PETA’s leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the nearly six pets they kill on average, every single day.
The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.
Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.
Now the death toll of animals in PETA’s care has reached 21,339, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That’s not an animal charity. It’s a slaughterhouse.
PETA's Dirty Secret
Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and PETA has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.
PETA kills animals. By the thousands.
From July 1998 through December 2008, PETA killed over 21,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals". That's more than five defenseless creatures every day. PETA has a walk-in freezer to store the dead bodies, and contracts with a Virginia Beach company to cremate them.
Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during the last five years. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.
Year Received† Adopted Killed Transferred % Killed % Adopted
2008 2,216 7 2,124 34 95.8 0.32
2007 1,997 17 1,815 35 90.9 0.85
2006 3,061 12 2,981 46 97.4 0.39
2005 2,165 146 1,946 69 89.9 6.74
2004 2,655 361 2,278 1 85.8 13.60
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.03
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.25
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.18
2000 2,681 624 2,029 28 75.7 23.27
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.39
*1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.10
Total 25,112 3,083 21,339 446 85.0 12.28
* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals
» Skeptical? Click here to see the proof.
On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. And during a 2007 criminal trial, a PETA manager (testifying under oath) confirmed the obvious -- that the group uses the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.
In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.
PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.
PETA rakes in nearly $30 million each year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.
PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.
PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us?