image.examiner / CC

Back in October, we told you about the geniuses (sarcasm alert) in Clay County, Florida, who decided that the best way to figure out whether a dog had died from heatstroke when an animal control officer left her in a sweltering truck was to—wait for it—put another dog in the sweltering truck and see if that dog would suffer horribly too. (Fortunately, he survived and was returned to the city animal shelter.)

Like I said: geniuses.

As you might expect, we filed a criminal complaint, but the prosecutor's office refused to take the case. So, because the Clay County brain trust had decided that they were qualified to conduct experiments on animals, we filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because this impromptu experiment appeared to violate numerous Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations.

Now, the USDA has cited Clay County Animal Control for no less than five—count 'em, five—violations of the AWA. From the USDA's memo:

Clay County Animal Control does not have an IACUC [Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee]. No protocol was prepared, and a veterinarian was not consulted for this project. There were no searches for alternatives, nor were there any attempts to demonstrate that this project did not unnecessarily duplicate previous experiments.

The animal control brainiacs said that they didn't think that this kind of atrocity experiment was regulated, but, as the USDA official dryly noted, "I explained to them that this was." Apparently, the explanation was slow enough and used one-syllable words, because the violators understood it well enough to assure the USDA that "they will not perform any research activity in the future." Phew!

Clay County's dogs (and other animals) should be able to rest easier—and so should the human residents, as it's now likely that county officials will think twice before deciding that they're qualified to, say, perform open-heart surgery.

Written by Jeff Mackey

livinggallery / CC

Today, lawyers gave their closing arguments in the court case involving Ringling's use of steel-barbed bullhooks and shackles on the elephants it forces to perform. Over the course of the six-week trial, the following evidence was presented:

• Elephants are chained for an average of more than 26 hours at a time, sometimes for as many as 60–100 hours straight on extended trips. Chained and barely able to take a step, the elephants sway neurotically.
• Kenneth Feld—CEO of Feld Entertainment, the company that owns Ringling—had to admit that he's seen handlers use bullhooks to hit elephants in the secret places where the wounds don't show up as much (i.e., under the chin, behind the ear, and on the back of the leg).
• Ringling's animal behaviorist testified that an elephant who had been struck with a bullhook was seen dripping blood on the arena floor during a show.
• In internal e-mails that came to light, a Ringling veterinary assistant reported, "After this morning's baths, at least 4 of the elephants came in with multiple abrasions and lacerations from the [bull]hooks. … The [lacerations] were very visible …. [A handler] applied … wonder dust just before the show." (Wonder Dust is a gray dressing powder that circus workers can use to conceal bloody bullhook wounds.)
• Another internal report documented that Troy Metzler, a longtime Ringling elephant trainer, struck Angelica, a female Asian elephant, three to five times while she was held in stocks before unloading her and then shocking her with an electric prod.
• Two former Ringling employees, who had previously blown the whistle to PETA, described the abuse that they witnessed while working for the circus, including a violent beating of an elephant that lasted at least 30 minutes.

Check back with the PETA Files in the coming months for an update on the verdict. We hope that the elephants win, but regardless of the outcome, the trial has already generated lots of deservedly negative publicity for this miserable circus. And that's a good thing considering how hard Ringling works to put a misleading, positive spin on clamping elephants in irons, dominating and intimidating them with bullhooks, and confining them to boxcars and arena basements for much of their lives.

Written by Alisa Mullins

thecolbertreportfans / CC

So, who watched The Colbert Report last night? I did, of course, but that's not unusual for me. Once again, Stephen's endless pursuit of hard-hitting news has led him to feature PETA's ideas—and Ingrid was on the show!

Colbert interviewed Ingrid on a subject that's either revolutionary or revolting, depending on your point of view: in vitro meat. As you may remember, PETA is offering 1 million dollars to the first team of scientists that can develop a method to produce viable, commercially available, lab-grown chicken meat by 2010. If the in vitro meat looks and tastes just like the "real thing" and can be sold at a competitive price, then even those who refuse to kick their meat addictions will have no justification for the continued slaughter of animals for food.

As you may have seen in last night's episode, scientists are already tackling this, ahem, meaty issue. And hey, who knows—maybe the "Colbert Bump" was exactly what this contest needed! We anticipate an absolute flood of entries in the very near future.

As for in vitro meat, what does the PETA Files nation think—revolutionary or revolting?

Written by Amanda Schinke