September 01, 2003


Minks are on the loose:

"Over half our livestock was shredded. Murdered. Eaten alive," said Jeff Weaver, who discovered the dead birds on his farm Thursday. "These are not like regular farm animals. They're our pets."

Weaver, who breeds Indian Runner ducks and Banny chickens, said his field was full of the animals Thursday morning.

"One of the mink had part of a chicken in its mouth and was headed for the creek," he said. "They're starving. They'll kill anything in their path."

The mink also killed Weaver's geese, chicken and ducks, as well as wounded a dog and ate a 50-pound bag of bird feed.

Who the hell is behind this mass slaughter of the peaceful creatures?

The Animal Liberation Front, considered a domestic terrorist group by the FBI, has claimed responsibility.

Makes sense. They’ve liberated all those ducks and geese from the oppressive demands of breathing and eating. Check this stunning Animal Lib logic:

Animal activists argue that while the farm animals' deaths are unfortunate, it proves minks raised in captivity can survive in the wild.

Sure they can. Just so long as there are plenty of wild chickens around.

On farms.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 1, 2003 03:41 AM

BTW, here's another story about "animal rights" terrorists that is not getting nearly enough attention: two bombs at Chiron Corp. in Emeryville, CA. Claim of responsibility by an "animal rights" group, and threats of violence against employees. Some quotes:

If you choose to continue your relations with HLS you will no longer be subject only to the actions of the above ground animal rights movement, you will face us.

This is the endgame for the animal killers

You might be able to protect your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?

Bomb story here.
Claim of responsibility here.
Full statement here.

Surely, if burning hummers can get worldwide media attention, bombs and death threats should, too.

Posted by: Ken Summers at September 1, 2003 at 05:32 AM

You know, I used to live in that area, and now I'm wishing I still did. Non-native pests? That means open season on minks, no license, no bag limit. Make your own coats!

Break out the Bushmasters, folks, we're goin' varmint huntin'.

Posted by: Rob Lyman at September 1, 2003 at 06:10 AM

How nice of the Animal Liberation Front to admit that they caused the pulping of this farmer's livelihood. If I were Weaver, I'd send the ALF a bill for damages; when they don't pay, I'd either take them to court or hire a collection agency (which could be worse for the ALF members involved, depending on the collection agency).

(Yes, I said "when they don't pay". Even if these 'revolutionaries' had a clue about property rights or an ounce of guilt about their actions, I doubt they'd have the money to pay--after all, all the more-money-than-brains Hollywood types send their dosh to PETA.)

Posted by: Peter the Not-so-Great at September 1, 2003 at 06:16 AM

You know, this is anti art as well. Mink hairs are used in some of the finest watercolor paint brushes. It is virtually impossible to achieve delicate and subtle, as well as bold strokes without them. ALF equals art censorship, pure and simple.

Posted by: Charles at September 1, 2003 at 09:27 AM

Oh, and as an advisory for any one living in the Shonomish area, minks will "lock" their jaws when they bit you. To get them to release you will have to squeal in the loudest high pitch you can. So I was told by a mink rancher (sorry, I don't use the term farmer for those in the mink industry. I associate the term farmer with plants not animals.) near where I lived as a teenager.

Posted by: Charles at September 1, 2003 at 09:32 AM

Jesus, it's a furry little four-legged bezerker! I have to give them credit.

Posted by: Amos at September 1, 2003 at 10:42 AM

But surely this is completely in-line with the Animal Liberation Front's general aim. They liberate the chickens from their lives and the farmers from their livelihood. Makes sense to me.

Posted by: TimT at September 1, 2003 at 11:09 AM

Male minks also have an actual penile bone - lock up your badgers and ferrets!

(Hence the phrase, I guess...)

Posted by: mojo at September 1, 2003 at 11:29 AM

At least Animal Liberation is dedicated- so dedicated, in fact that they believe even brain flukes have a right to be free, that's why they have released them into the wilds of the brains of ALF members- everything makes sense when your tiny mind is being controlled by parasitic trematodes.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 1, 2003 at 11:37 AM

I would hire a professional private investigator find out as much about the ALF organization and personel as possible then sue the ALF and its "associates" into bankruptcy.

Posted by: Imam Psycho Muhammed at September 1, 2003 at 04:51 PM

Quote of the day from Jeff Weaver, the farmer whose Indian Runner ducks (one of the most beautiful animals on earth) were torn apart by 10,000 fur coats with teeth:

"I'm not into anyone running around with fur coats on," he said. "But you cannot let 10,000 semicarnivorous animals out without having serious consequences."

ALF members should be locked up with the minks, which could feast on their scrawny vegetarian bodies before being turned into fur coats bearing the following label:


Posted by: ilibcc at September 1, 2003 at 05:29 PM

Simple premise folks: Animals are NOT chattel property, yours or anyone else's. Ya know folks, there ARE a great many enlightened people in this world who are firmly convinced that, contrary to biblical lore embraced by the unwashed masses, man was NOT put on earth to have some bizarre kind of exclusive dominion over animals, and that the very act of harnessing animals for any purpose, be it food (beef, fishing, hunting, wool, eggs, dairy, etc.) or entertainment (circuses, horesracing et al) is inherently evil. Given all of the other (bad/superstitious/ignorant/innaccurate) advice that assorted tomes (talmud/bible/koran/pick-your-fave-book-of- mystical-incantations) have given out on a number of topics, I'd have to say I can't strongly condemn people for ruining the livelihood of others (who gain that livelihood by exploiting animals) by opening cages, paddocks and so on. I don't recall any horses ever giving informed consent to run (and quite possibly be mortally injured in) races.

Posted by: Peta Piper at September 2, 2003 at 05:45 AM

What is this "evil" you mention, PetaPumper?

Sounds like a human concept, and therefore necessarily suspect.

Posted by: mojo at September 2, 2003 at 07:33 AM

---"Sounds like a human concept, and therefore necessarily suspect."---

That's Mojo with Moxie. I salute you.

Posted by: Charles at September 2, 2003 at 09:26 AM

Peta Piper

Farming is not inherently evil. There is cruelty in the world, but let us concentrate our minds and make very clear distinctions.

My chickens are happy scrabbling about their yard, well-fed, well-watered, well proteced from foxes.

But one day I am going to eat them. An old boiler makes great soup. I might even sell a few eggs at the gate.

You cannot possibly have issues with the quality of life of my chickens. Not even remotely.

Inherently evil.

Get a grip.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 2, 2003 at 11:04 AM

I'm sure my two hounds didn't make informed consent when we took them home, but fifteem years later give them the option of eating garbage and dying several years early from either parasites or injury, or living in an airconditioned house, have meals cooked and served to them and sleep on a king size chiropratic bed (in custom made pyjamas)I think I know what the choice would be.
Peta Piper- if you think too much, you'll give yourself a conniption fit; just go back to worrying about how double amputee aboriginal lesbians with learning difficulties are being discriminated against by all us warmongering right wing death beasts.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at September 2, 2003 at 11:05 AM

Lovely how all kinds of side issues were brought up by my comments. First of all, to Habib, being the GUARDIAN (i.e. not "owner") of a pet is not the same as exploiting livestock for food, fur and scientific experiments, ok? So now that we have THAT straight, let's move on to ilibcc who confidently predicts I ought to have no problem with the quality of his/her chickens' lives despite the fact that in the same breathless moment, s/he has announced s/he is going to boil them. Hello. Earth calling ilibcc! Are you planning to wait unitl they expire of natural causes before you do that? Or are you going to KILL them? 'Cuz I'm sorry but you can't really argue for "quality of life" when one of the qualities is that you play god and decide when to arbitrarily end it. Great quality that is not. And BTW, if ya are gonna kill them, were you planning to euthanise them gently? Or, more likely cut their scrawny little heads off? All of which brings up back to the original: It is a simple premise folks: I repeat - animals are NOT YOUR chattel property, nor anyone else's. They are not here for you to herd, cudgel, shoot, stab, skin, eat, milk, de-egg-ify, although arguably they may possibly be on Earth so that we, supposedly the most intelligent of species, can care for them with a minimum of interference. But that's about it. Not your property. Period.

Posted by: Peta Piper at September 4, 2003 at 05:23 PM