Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

How Did Members of Congress Score on Animal Protection in 2007?

The Humane Society Legislative Fund today posted its 2007 Humane Scorecard, and you can read it here. The scorecard, which is published annually, provides the records of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives on major animal welfare policies. This most recent report card covers the first session of the 110th Congress.

The Humane Scorecard provides an easy way for constituents to assess how their federal lawmakers acted on animal protection issues, and it helps chart the progress of our public policy work on behalf of animals.  Animal protection is more than ever being treated like the serious moral issue it is on Capitol Hill, and lawmakers are debating policies that have enormous implications for animals.

Last year, Congress passed measures dealing with animal fighting, chimpanzee sanctuaries, pet food safety, the Canadian seal hunt, and a war dog memorial.  Appropriators provided record levels of funding for the enforcement of animal welfare laws and support for alternatives to animal testing, cut spending for horse slaughter and trophy hunting, and directed agencies to take action on de-clawing of cats and humane slaughter of poultry. Many issues are still to be settled in 2008, including the Farm Bill, which includes animal welfare provisions dealing with dogfighting, puppy imports, and experimentation on pets.

The 2007 report scores lawmakers on their floor votes on legislation to crack down on animal fighting, protect wild horses and burros from slaughter, and stop the imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies; their co-sponsorship of key bills such as those to stop horse slaughter, require the labeling of fur-trimmed apparel, and end the use of random source dogs and cats (including stolen pets) in research; and their signing of a letter requesting funding for enforcement of animal welfare laws. Members who led as prime sponsors of animal protection legislation receive extra credit.

We hope you’ll study this scorecard and use it as a tool to ensure that your legislators represent your interests in Washington, D.C. Let legislators know that you’re watching and you appreciate their support for pro-animal legislation; or if they haven’t done enough, let them know you’d like to see them do more. Here are some of my favorite highlights from the 2007 Humane Scorecard:

• A bipartisan group of 31 Senators and 100 Representatives covering 38 states led as prime sponsors of pro-animal legislation and/or scored a perfect 100—nearly one third of the Senate and one quarter of the House.
• The average Senate score was a 43, with Senate Democrats averaging 60, and Senate Republicans averaging 24.
• The average House score was a 53, with House Democrats averaging 71, and House Republicans averaging 33.
• Seventeen Senators scored 100 or 100+ (13 Democrats, 4 Republicans).
• Thirty-one Senators scored zero (7 Democrats, 24 Republicans).
• Eighty-three Representatives scored 100 or 100+ (69 Democrats, 14 Republicans).
• Thirty-seven Representatives scored zero (3 Democrats, 34 Republicans).
• The New England region led the pack with an average Senate score of 75 and an average House score of 89.
• The Rocky Mountains were at the bottom with an average Senate score of 13 and an average House score of 27.
• California, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are the only states in which both Senators scored 100 or 100+.
• Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are the only states in which both Senators scored zero.
• Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are the only states with an average House score of 90 or above.
• Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah are the only states with an average House score below 20.

I would especially like to acknowledge the following 8 Senators and 24 Representatives who scored the highest possible 100+ for receiving a perfect score and also leading on animal protection legislation:

• Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
• Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
• Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)
• Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
• Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
• Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
• Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
• Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
• Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
• Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.)
• Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
• Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
• Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)
• Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
• Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.)
• Rep. Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.)
• Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
• Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.)
• Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)
• Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
• Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.)
• Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.)
• Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
• Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)
• Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.)
• Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.)
• Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
• Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.)
• Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
• Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.)
• Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio)
• Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Yes We Can—Stop Puppy Mills

A new book scheduled for release this summer—“A Rare Breed of Love” by my good friend Jana Kohl—will change the face of the puppy mill debate in this country.  It’s the touching story of Baby, a poodle who survived a grueling decade in a northern California puppy mill factory, trapped in a tiny cage, churning out litter after litter for commercial sale.

Baby was slated to be put down after outliving her productivity, but she was lucky enough to be rescued and adopted by Jana. One of Baby’s legs had been so badly mangled in her former cage that it had to be amputated, and her vocal cords had been cut so the puppy mill owners did not have to listen to the dog's constant cries to be let out of her cage.

Baby now travels the country as a three-legged ambassador for puppy mill dogs everywhere, and she is pictured in the book spreading the word with celebrities such as Lindsay Lohan, Moby, Bill Maher, Amy Sedaris, Alice Walker, and Judge Judy.  Baby has also visited legislators and lobbied for animals on Capitol Hill. A few months after the book hits the shelves, in fact, there’s a chance Baby might have access to the White House—because one of the lawmakers featured prominently in the book is Senator Barack Obama. 

In a striking photo, Obama stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial, cradling Baby in his arms, lending his voice to the campaign to stop puppy mills. The solemn setting is a reminder of causes that are worth fighting for, and the image of battered Baby safe in Obama’s embrace sends the message that change is possible for these creatures, too.

If there’s any animal issue that needs public exposure, it’s this one. People who are seduced by puppy dog eyes at a pet store often don’t know that puppy’s mom is trapped in a cage, just like Baby was, at a puppy mill. These factory farms treat dogs like production machines, and the animals receive no socialization or human companionship. They’re not pets—they’re a cash crop.

While consumers need to take action by not purchasing dogs obtained from puppy mills, we need good public policies to stop the worst abuses, too. Senator Obama, in his response to a questionnaire from the Humane Society Legislative Fund, indicated his support for reforms to crack down on puppy mills, close loopholes that allow many puppy mills to escape federal regulation, and provide better enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. He also supports legislation led by fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to stop the imports of young puppies from foreign puppy mills—puppies from China, Russia, and Mexico who are shipped at just weeks old, exposed to extreme temperatures in airplane cargo holds and sometimes arriving in this country sick or dead.

Senator Obama doesn’t currently have pets, but holding Baby, he looks like a natural. And he has said that he promised his daughters they could get a dog when the campaign is over, providing a new opportunity to set an example as a responsible pet owner. By adopting a dog from an animal shelter or rescue group, Obama can send a powerful message that puppy mill cruelty is unacceptable. It’s a message of hope and change for all the dogs like Baby.

It's Not Super Tuesday, It's Spay Day USA

Voting is in the air this season. With competitive races in both parties, Americans have had an unusually long primary season, and it's still not over yet on the Democratic side. Voters in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont take their turn at the polls next Tuesday.

There are no state primaries this week, but there is a particularly special event to focus attention on—and it allows you to cast your vote, no matter where you live. Today is the 14th annual Spay Day USA, a national event that seeks to end the tragedy of too many pets and not enough homes. Thousands of kittens and puppies are born every hour in the United States, and millions are euthanized in animal shelters or die on the streets each year. Spaying or neutering our pets and feral cats is the most effective way to ensure their offspring won’t be born only to die prematurely and without a family who loves them.

At Spay Day events around the country, local groups and veterinarians will host various activities for the public to engage in, including free and low-cost spay and neuter services for those in need of financial assistance.  You can participate by finding an event near you. You can also enter the Spay Day USA pet photo contest, by uploading a digital photo of your pet and briefly describing how he or she has improved your life. Compete for prizes—and spread the message of spaying and neutering—by forwarding your pet’s photo to friends and family and asking them to vote. (The contest ends on March 7.)

You can vote in the contest by browsing the thousands of pet photos, or searching by pet’s name, owner’s last name, city, state, or country. For example, you could search for “Markarian,” and then vote for the four best-looking felines in the contest—Georgia, Mario, Misty, and Oliver. It’s just a modest suggestion, of course. As Al Capone said in Chicago, “Vote early and vote often!”

Hunting for Votes

Gail Collins had her trenchant wit on full display in a weekend op-ed column, “A Bad Year to Be a Mallard,” in the New York Times. She aptly noted, “There is something about an election year that makes politicians start bragging about how many furry or feathered critters they’ve killed.” Other bloggers and journalists, like Mick LaSalle in the San Francisco Chronicle, have weighed in on this “quadrennial psychosis.”

Of course, it’s not uncommon to see presidential candidates trot out their hunting bona fides and brag about their prowess as sportsmen—and, by coincidence, it tends to happen in the days leading up to primaries and caucuses in rural states like Iowa and Wisconsin. It’s a wonder, though, that candidates still feel obligated to pander to the gun lobby. It may have been a sound strategy when the likes of Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Richard Nixon were stumping on the trail, but it should be a relic of campaigns past as the number of hunters has been on a steady decline since the 1970s.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there were 16.6 million hunters in 1975 and there are just 12.5 million today. While the adult U.S. population increased by 46 percent over the last two decades, the number of hunters dropped by 25 percent. During that same time period, the number of people who participate in observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife has climbed, now numbering 71 million.

Our relationship with animals is changing, and the numbers reflect that change. Hunters now represent 5.5 percent of Americans 16 years and older, while wildlife watchers outnumber them by almost six-to-one, making up 31 percent. Even in some of the biggest hunting states, which will hold their party primaries next week, wildlife watchers outnumber hunters by four-to-one in Texas and by seven-to-one in Ohio. Wildlife watchers also contribute more money than hunters to the economy.

While fewer Americans are hunting each year, more and more people are celebrating animals in numerous ways. Two-thirds of American households have pets, and spend $41 billion annually on pet care and products—more than they spend on movies, video games, and recorded music combined. There are more than 272 million annual visitors to national parks, where people go to see the beautiful mountains and valleys, but also to see the animals in their natural habitat. There are more than 143 million visitors to accredited zoos and aquariums, where people go to see the animals, too. 

Let’s hope that presidential candidates pay attention to these social trends, and show us that they are candidates of the future, not of the past. The day will come when presidential hopefuls won't try to appeal to voters by dressing up in camo and stalking creatures in the woods. They will show their compassion, instead, by visiting a local animal shelter, with the television cameras in tow, and adopting a dog or cat.

Power to the People

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the investigation into the torture of crippled cows and the largest recall of beef in U.S. history, it’s that the agribusiness industry can’t be trusted to regulate itself.  Left to its own devices without proper government inspections and enforcement of laws and regulations related to animals and the environment, some in the sector will not exhibit self-restraint, but instead will stoop to any low just to squeeze out a few extra pennies of profit.

That’s why it’s especially appalling that Arizona lawmakers are now making a move to give more power to the agribusiness lobby, and to strip decisions away from people in local communities. Yesterday the state Senate’s Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee voted 5 to 2 in favor of S.B. 1373, which would create an industry-stacked Arizona Poultry Husbandry Council with authority over poultry practices—such as the confinement of egg-laying hens in cages so small they can’t even turn around or stretch their wings—and would prevent cities, towns, and counties from enacting any animal welfare measures for these birds.

It’s exactly the inverse of good public policy, at a time when lawmakers should tighten the safeguards for food safety and animal welfare, not give away the literal and proverbial keys to the henhouse. It’s a cynical and underhanded power grab by livestock lobbyists and their allies in the legislature.

The good news is that Arizona voters are fiercely independent, and don’t roll over quietly when asked to transfer their rights to industries. The new proposal is similar to a bill defeated in 2006—after being introduced by the same senator—which would have stripped the legislature and voters of their authority to enact common sense laws preventing cruelty to farm animals. At the time, the Arizona Republic called it “a rude legislative noise that is offensive to every Arizonan.” The Arizona Daily Star noted that the bill was “especially arrogant.”

The trophy hunting lobby tried to pull the same thing back in 2000, and placed a measure on the statewide ballot seeking to restrict the rights of Arizona citizens to vote on any future proposal related to wildlife protection.  Proposition 102 was disguised as a wildlife conservation measure, but would have provided lasting insulation for canned hunts, steel-jawed leghold traps, and other abusive practices. Arizonans saw through the malarkey, and shot it down by a vote of 38 to 62 percent.

These industry power grabs have played out in Congress, too. Last year, an early draft of the Farm Bill included language that could have stricken numerous state and local laws—ranging from prohibitions against horse slaughter to bans on the cruel treatment of farm animals. Section 123 was so broad that it could have been used to threaten animal welfare laws that do not even relate to food production, such as restricting abusive puppy mills and the ownership of dangerous exotic pets. Thankfully, the House Agriculture Committee removed this dangerous and far-reaching provision from the Farm Bill.

Let’s hope that Arizona lawmakers exhibit the same wisdom when it comes to the rights of local communities to make decisions on food safety and animal welfare. If you live in Arizona, tell your legislators to slaughter this terrible and backwards idea.

Presidential Candidates Ask, "Where’s the Beef?"

In the wake of the nation’s largest beef recall in history, food safety and animal welfare have become part of presidential campaign season. I wrote yesterday that Senator Hillary Clinton issued a statement calling for better safeguards in our food inspection system. CNN has a video of Clinton at a campaign stop in De Pere, Wisconsin—the second largest dairy state—talking about the recall of beef from sick and injured dairy cows. 

Senator Barack Obama also released a statement on the recall, offering his comments on the importance of protecting the health and safety of schoolchildren and protecting animals from cruelty. Here's what he said:

“Although the Department of Agriculture has now recalled the tainted beef, an estimated 37 million pounds has gone to school lunch programs, and unfortunately, officials believe that most of the meat has already been consumed by schoolchildren.  This incident demonstrates yet again the inadequacy of the food recall process.  Far too often, tainted food is not recalled until too late.

“When I am President, it will not be business as usual when it comes to food safety.  I will provide additional resources to hire more federal food inspectors.  I will also call on the Department of Agriculture to examine whether federal food safety laws need to be strengthened, in particular to provide greater protections against tainted food being used in the National School Lunch Program. 

“As the parent of two young daughters, there are few issues more important to me than ensuring the safety of the food that our children consume.  I commend the Humane Society of the United States for bringing this important issue to the public attention and believe that the mistreatment of downed cows is unacceptable and poses a serious threat to public health.”

We’re grateful to Senators Clinton and Obama for calling attention to this national scandal, and promising to do better—for people and for animals—if they are elected.

Beef Recall and Presidential Politics

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced a massive recall of 143 million pounds of beef—four times larger than what was previously the biggest beef recall in the nation’s history—after revelations that sick and injured cows were abused in horrifying ways and fed to the nation’s school children and other consumers. Senator Hillary Clinton has become the first presidential candidate to voice concern over the downed cow scandal, and she released a statement last night which is reprinted here in its entirety:

“The news today of the largest beef recall in our nation’s history is yet another troubling reminder that we have done too little to protect our food supply.  This incident also reveals a danger to our children, since the Hallmark company is the second largest supplier to the U.S. School Lunch program.  I believe that American families should not have to worry about the safety of the food on their dinner tables or in their children's school lunches.  That is why I have long been calling for common-sense – and long-overdue – food safety reforms, building on my work in the Senate.  As President, I will fully fund our food safety system so that our inspectors have the resources and manpower they need to do their jobs.  I will create a single food safety to replace the patchwork of regulation we have now.  I will implement an effective recall system so that potentially tainted food immediately comes off of grocery store shelves and families receive instant notification.  I will strictly enforce safety rules and impose stiff criminal and civil penalties on violators.  And I will crack down on the slaughter of sick or injured cows, a practice which poses health risks to families and children.  Now more than ever, America needs a President who will deliver concrete reforms that fill the gaps in our food safety system.”

This isn’t the first presidential election in which downed animals have become part of the national discourse. In December 2003, the first cow in the United States tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), and as humane groups had long predicted, the contaminated animal was a downer. Presidential candidates stumping on the campaign trail at that time—including Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, and John Kerry—criticized the Bush administration for failing to protect the nation’s food supply.

Four years later, the USDA’s regulations and policies still fail to adequately deter the type of inhumane handling this investigation and recall have demonstrated in graphic and appalling detail. The current rules—which undermine animal welfare and jeopardize human health—require immediate review and revision.

The next president can undertake vigorous policy and regulatory reforms that will uphold the spirit and the letter of our humane slaughter laws, and can redirect USDA resources to ensure that inspectors are observing animals and addressing any inhumane treatment on a continuous basis. Other presidential hopefuls should follow Clinton’s lead and send the message that the next administration will make it a priority to protect animal welfare and food safety.

Criminal Charges over Crippled Cows

The San Bernardino County District Attorney filed criminal charges Friday against two slaughter plant workers who abused cows too sick or injured to stand up, as revealed in recent weeks by a shocking undercover investigation by The Humane Society of the United States. The charges included felony counts of cruelty to animals and misdemeanor counts of violating California’s law on downed animals, and it’s the first time to my knowledge that such charges have been filed against employees of a slaughterhouse.

My hat is off to District Attorney Michael A. Ramos, Deputy District Attorney Deborah Ploghaus, the Inland Valley Humane Society, and Chino Police Department, who worked together to investigate this case and take action. It’s meaningless to have animal protection laws on the books unless they are appropriately enforced. Passing humane laws is the first step, but having law enforcement officials who uphold the standards set by those laws is an important component of good public policy.

"I need the public to understand that my office takes all cases involving animal cruelty very seriously," said District Attorney Ramos. "It doesn't matter whether the mistreated animal is a beloved family pet or a cow at a slaughterhouse. Unnecessary cruelty will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law."

Given the national impact of this case and the economic costs borne by taxpayers as more than 150 school districts and the U.S. Department of Agriculture scrambled to keep tainted beef out of the food supply, I hope the investigation won’t stop here. Law enforcement authorities should aggressively pursue any possible leads that point to culpability by the company itself and its senior executives.

Members of Congress, too, continue to weigh in and call for further investigation. Thursday, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Representatives George Miller (D-Calif.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) asked the General Accounting Office to examine the safety of food provided through the National School Lunch Program. This comes in addition to the USDA’s own investigation and its shuttering of the slaughter plant, as lawmakers expressed the need for a more independent assessment of the government’s ability to protect students from contaminated food.

“I’m not sure it can be dealt with with just the department investigating itself,” Rep. Miller, chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, told the Los Angeles Times. “Ever since mad cow we’ve asked for better tracking systems for beef so we can inform consumers in a real-time fashion… but parents are constantly in situations with lack of information.”

Thanks to legislative leaders and law enforcement officials for following through on the food safety and animal welfare problems uncovered by this investigation, and working to see both that justice is served and that USDA takes a fresh look at its policies and procedures related to slaughterhouses.

Motor City Madness

At the Humane Society Legislative Fund, one of our goals is to let constituents know where their elected officials stand on animal protection issues. We publish the Humane Scorecard, which tracks legislators’ voting records and co-sponsorships on key animal welfare measures. We celebrate lawmakers who use their skills and talents to advance the humane treatment of animals, and we hold those accountable who are hostile to modest and common-sense reforms to stop cruelty and abuse.

Today, the Oakland Press in Michigan published a guest column by me on Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg’s record on animal protection. Knollenberg represents a suburban district with an animal-friendly constituency, yet perplexingly he has amassed one of the worst records on animal cruelty issues in Congress. You can read the opinion piece here.

Shakeup in the Chesapeake

When the early returns trickled in last night in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, it was clear that Senators Barack Obama and John McCain would sweep the Potomac Primary. But there were a couple other Chesapeake Challenges that captured my attention all night long, and weren’t settled until early this morning. Two of Maryland’s members of Congress, Republican Wayne Gilchrest and Democrat Al Wynn, were edged out by rivals in their primary fights, and it may be the first sign of an anti-incumbent wave across the country.

The Humane Society Legislative Fund had endorsed Wayne Gilchrest in the Republican primary for Maryland’s 1st Congressional District, and had sent mail to thousands of Republican voters letting them know that Gilchrest has stood up for the humane treatment of animals in a very determined way. During his time in Congress, he co-sponsored and supported dozens of bills to protect animals, including those to toughen penalties for animal fighting, stop horse slaughter, require truthful labeling of fur-trimmed apparel, protect pets in disasters, crack down on abusive puppy mills, halt the trade in bear parts, and stop the trophy hunting of captive exotic animals.

Gilchrest lost by just 8,000 votes to Andy Harris, who in contrast has been an enemy of animal welfare. In the Maryland state Senate, Harris has continuously opposed common-sense measures to protect pets, wildlife, and farm animals. He cast his vote against bills to ban the cruel confinement of farm animals in tiny gestation crates on industrial factory farms, restrict the continued chaining and tethering of dogs outside, allow people to establish trust funds to provide lifetime care for their companion animals, and stop the use of steel-jawed leghold traps that kill and injure wildlife and family pets. Remarkably, he was even one of a handful of state lawmakers across the country who opposed legislation to ban Internet hunting, the shooting of live animals remotely from a home computer. Harris will now face off against the Democratic victor, State’s Attorney Frank Kratovil, in the general election this November.

Gilchrest had never been a 100 percent supporter of animal welfare, but he had been on the side of animals most of the time. One of our guiding principles at HSLF is that our endorsements are not about orthodoxy, but rather are about choosing the best candidate among those who are viable in any particular contest. We consider the composition of the candidate’s district, a legislator’s committee assignments or leadership on an issue, and many other factors. But as a threshold matter, we’d take a 60 or 70 percent over a zero any day of the week. As a senior Republican on the Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Gilchrest had been in a position to make a meaningful impact on environmental and wildlife protection policy, and we are grateful for all his efforts on behalf of animals.

In Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, the race was not as close, and Al Wynn lost to nonprofit executive Donna Edwards by 22,000 votes. Rep. Wynn has also been a strong supporter of animal protection, consistently scoring a perfect 100 percent on the Humane Scorecard, though he has not been a leader on any of our issues. In this heavily Democratic district, Edwards is almost assured of winning the general election in November and being newly elected to the 111th Congress.  She has an outstanding record on environmental protection issues, and we expect her also to be a stalwart supporter of animal protection.  In fact, we hope she'll be a leader on our issues, more so than Rep. Wynn has been.

Animal advocates should continue to watch these primary battles closely, especially in districts that are solid Democratic or Republican districts.  In those districts, all the action is in the primary, and a small number of voters typically exert enormous influence on the outcomes.

Leading By Example in the White House

I recently wrote about First Pets of presidents past and possibly future, and yesterday John Woestendiek of The Baltimore Sun expanded on the theme in his “Mutts” blog.  Woestendiek did another fascinating piece of reporting a few years back when he tracked down the family who gave Checkers to Richard Nixon, and told the cocker spaniel’s story on the 50th anniversary of the famous speech that kept Nixon on the ticket as veep.

Even if a dog or cat doesn’t change presidential history, being the First Pet is serious stuff.  Keeping up with correspondence and requests for pawprints is just a part of it.  Warren Harding’s Laddie Boy, who campaigned with his master for the White House, had his own chair at cabinet meetings, and spoke for the record on the working hours of guard dogs and the performance of the president’s top advisers.  FDR’s Fala had his own Secret Service moniker, “Informer,” when traveling, for his frequent need to go outside for walks inevitably signaled that the president was nearby.

At the Humane Society Legislative Fund, we pay a lot of attention to presidential pets, and to presidential example.  We’re heartened when our nation’s highest office holder is someone who has adopted animals, and had them spayed and neutered, and provided the best veterinary care.  And we’re thrilled when the president is someone who looks with favor upon the animal-friendly legislation that comes over from the Congress to be signed into law.

A president can do a lot to help pets.  LBJ once got in trouble when he picked up his two beagles by their ears.  But when he signed the 1966 legislation that became the Animal Welfare Act, he did something tremendous for dogs.  So did our current president, George W. Bush, when he signed the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act in 2006 and the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act in 2007.

“If you want a friend in Washington,” Harry S. Truman once observed, “get a dog.”  More on point, Calvin Coolidge stated, “Any man who does not like dogs and want them about does not deserve to be in the White House.”

With the primary races still competitive, it’s too early to see whose pets are going to the White House.  But our political candidates should take heed of the historical record, for keeping pets is good for your reputation. 

Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and Chester Alan Arthur had no pets.

Animals Have Lost a True Friend with Lantos' Passing

Driving to work this morning, I heard the sad news that Congressman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) had passed away from esophageal cancer. While Lantos will be remembered for many things—as an extraordinary public servant, as the only Holocaust survivor to serve as member of Congress, and as the powerful chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to name a few—I will remember him as an extraordinary leader for the cause of animal protection. At every turn, he insisted that animal protection was not only a just cause but an urgent one. His leadership was based on his deep personal conviction that every animal matters and deserves our consideration.

Lantos was the founder and co-chairman of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, along with Congressman Chris Shays (R-Conn.), which has held numerous briefings on the Hill to inform lawmakers and their staff about a wide range of animal issues from dogfighting to farm animal welfare.  He was the author of successful legislation enacted in 2006 in response to Hurricane Katrina, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act, to require the inclusion of pets and service animals in disaster plans. 

He led the passage of a House resolution last year calling on Canada to stop its annual massacre of hundreds of thousands of baby harp seals on the Atlantic coast. He has supported every major public policy involving animal protection in Congress, and has lent his strong voice to the cause of animals at every opportunity, whether calling on China to stop its misguided policies of killing pet dogs, or urging the National Football League to take strong disciplinary action against any athlete involved in dogfighting in the wake of the Michael Vick scandal.

My deepest condolences are extended to Annette Lantos, who has been by her husband’s side every step of the way. Both have been such stalwart allies to the cause.  I had the honor of presenting Congressman Lantos with our Humane Champion Award a couple years ago, and we were joined for the presentation in his office by his dog, Gigi, who was also a constant companion by his side and came to work with him on Capitol Hill.  Lantos will receive another honor posthumously, the Joseph Wood Krutch Medal, which is the highest honor awarded by The Humane Society of the United States, and Annette and Gigi undoubtedly will share that honor.

Knowing that so many of these challenges remain unsettled—that we are still working to combat dogfighting, that the Canadian seal hunt will take place again in a few weeks, and that so much cruelty continues in the world—I’m saddened that Tom Lantos will not be with us to carry on the fight.  But I’m eternally grateful that he dedicated decades of his life to this important cause, and that the policies he has shepherded have had a real and lasting impact on the lives of so many animals.

Be a Citizen Lobbyist

Next Wednesday, lawmakers at 23 state capitols will get a visit from animal advocates.  Thousands of citizens across the country who care about animal protection will participate in our 2008 Humane Lobby Day, and will ask their own legislators to support bills dealing with dogfighting, pets in disasters, Internet hunting, fur labeling, and other important policy reforms. Click here to see if your state is on the list, and RSVP to join me and other animal advocates for this important day of action on February 13.

With Humane Lobby Day just around the corner, I thought I would offer some thoughts on how to be an effective citizen lobbyist for animals. You don’t have to be a hired-gun, smooth-talking lobbyist or know all the answers in order to participate in the legislative process. You are a constituent who cares about the issue, and your elected officials care what you think! Whether you’re making a phone call or visiting them in person to make your case, there are a few basic rules that apply. Here are some tips.

Identify yourself.  Whether you’re calling to register your opinion, or visiting a legislative office in person, start by telling them who you are. Make sure to tell them where you live so they know you’re a constituent. (Typically, you only contact your own legislators, unless it’s a special circumstance such as a committee chairman.) And let them know if you represent an organization or other stakeholders—such as teachers, sheriffs, or veterinarians—who have an interest in the issue.

Be polite and professional. This is common sense, but always worth repeating. You can state your views firmly and forcefully without being hostile or argumentative. Always be friendly and courteous, even if the legislator disagrees with your position. Don’t interrupt or scream out at legislative hearings. And while it’s important to be professional, it’s also important to look professional—legislators and their staff are more likely to be persuaded by people in business attire than people wearing cut-off jeans and flip-flops.

State a clear and concise objective. Stay focused on the purpose of your phone call or meeting, and don’t wander off in too many directions. Let them know up front what you are asking them to do, and refer to bills by their numbers and names—such as, “I want Representative Smith to co-sponsor H.R. 891, the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act.” Be sure to explain any jargon that might be unclear, such as “canned hunts,” “pound seizure,” or “Class B dealers.” It’s OK to bring up more than one bill in a meeting, but you may want to limit your list to two or three bills that are most important to you.

Explain why this issue is important to you personally. Lawmakers are interested in data and statistics, but they’re much more interested in how an issue affects their constituents personally. If you have a story to tell, it’s much more compelling than charts and graphs. If you’re talking about dogfighting, you might be an animal control or animal shelter worker who has seen injured pit bulls and the toll dogfighting has taken on your community. If you’re advocating for antifreeze legislation, it might be because you had a dog who was poisoned by drinking the sweet-tasting liquid. If you’re a teacher or parent, you might comment on the impact animal cruelty has on children. Tell your story.

Don’t use form letters. Legislators want to know what you have to say, not just that you can cut and paste. They know when it’s a form letter, period. It’s OK to use talking points and language from advocacy groups like The HSUS and HSLF when you craft your letters, but it’s best to put them into your own words.

Use the web and email effectively. Visit legislators’ official web sites before your meetings, so you can learn in advance about their background, biographical information, positions on issues, and even their pets. If you send email through advocacy web sites such as humanesociety.org and hslf.org, remember to edit that part of the letter that allows you to put it into your own words. You can also send email and register comments through the legislator’s own web site. Phone calls are usually taken more seriously by legislative offices, so if you do send email, you can still follow up with a phone call, too.

Never lie or mislead. The truth for animals is harsh enough, and you don’t need to embellish. If you make up facts and figures or stretch the truth, it will always come back to haunt you. Don’t be afraid to say you don’t know the answer to a question, and offer to look it up for them later or put them in touch with someone who might know. You’re not expected to be an expert on every issue—you are a citizen who cares and has an opinion.

Work with legislative staff. Don’t be offended if you can’t get the legislator on the phone or get a meeting with him or her personally. Lawmakers rely on their staff to meet with constituents, draft legislation, learn the issues, and make policy recommendations. The staff will have more time to get to know you and your issues, and they are your gateway to the elected officials. Get to know the staff and develop relationships, so they will begin to view you as a source of reliable information on animal issues in your community.

Be prepared to compromise. Legislators may not do what you want 100 percent of the time, but they can still help advance the cause of animal protection. If you discuss three bills and they agree to support two, you’ve made progress. Don’t expect complete orthodoxy. A legislator might agree to vote for a bill when it comes to the floor, but doesn’t want to be a co-sponsor for political reasons—a vote in the hand is better than two co-sponsorships in the bush.

Listen to elected officials’ comments and questions. Don’t expect to give a monologue on animal protection. Let them react to the issues you raise, and have a conversation. Their comments and questions will give you cues on how to frame your arguments and what additional information might be useful. If they ask questions or need more information, it gives you an opportunity to follow up with them after your meeting.

Thank someone who was helpful. Always thank a staff member who took the time to meet with you, and follow up with any additional information that’s needed. And if a legislator does what you’ve requested, such as co-sponsor or vote for a bill, be sure to thank him or her for taking that action. Positive reinforcement is the most effective way to develop a good relationship for future issues.

If you have additional tips on how to be an effective citizen lobbyist, please send them to me and I may publish them on the blog. 

You Asked

Today I’d like to respond to some questions and comments that readers have sent me.

Please tell me when the legislative event in Virginia this year is? I thought I saw it online, but cannot find it now. It was July 21 or close to that. Thank you. —Gloria D.

Gloria, you’re referring to Taking Action for Animals, the nation’s largest conference for animal advocates. It will be held this year during the weekend of July 19-21, in Arlington, Virginia. I hope you will join me in the nation’s capital for keynote sessions, training workshops, more than 50 exhibitors, a Lobby Day on Capitol Hill, and much more. The program is still in formation, but the banquet dinner will feature comedian Carol Leifer, U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), other leading animal advocates, and entertainment by the Capitol Steps. Check here for updates on the program and registration.

What about the news that South Dakota is willing to help with the start-up of horse slaughter plants within the state? —Melanie W.

Melanie, there was a bill in the South Dakota state legislature that would have provided a $1 million state loan to construct a new horse slaughter plant. Fortunately, this misguided and fiscally irresponsible bill appears to be dead. The Humane Society of the United States hired a lobbyist in South Dakota and sent out alerts on the issue, and lawmakers responded. All horse slaughter plants in the U.S. have been shuttered because Texas and Illinois have banned horse slaughter, and Congress has de-funded federal inspections of horse meat for human consumption. Even the South Dakota Department of Agriculture opposed the industry loan because the legality of horse slaughter is uncertain, and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development questioned where the funds would come from. You can read more in this Associated Press article.

I find it appalling that you would ask that a call be made to Senator Nelson or to Senator Martinez to ask them to help with anything to stop animal cruelty when neither one of them signed the bill S. 311 sponsored by Mary Landrieu or the supporting bill H.R. 503 which closes our borders to shipping horses to Mexico and Canada for the purpose of slaughter for human consumption. Especially to Mexico where horses are stabbed in the neck until paralyzed, but not dead, then hung by their back legs, then have their throats slit and let bleed to death. Also, horses have to stand on that truck for hours in shipment to Mexico or Canada and wait in lots for days with no food or water or medical treatment in horrible pain and filthy conditions. This is what Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez would not vote against. How could you ask anyone to associate them with NON-CRUELTY?! —Carolyn B.

Carolyn, it’s important to note that both your U.S. Senators from Florida, Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez, supported the pro-animal position and voted to stop horse slaughter in 2005 the last time the issue came to the Senate floor. They sided with more than two-thirds of Senators who approved legislation to stop funding inspections at horse slaughter plants. The fact that they’re not co-sponsors of the new bill doesn’t mean they don’t support the right policy. But it’s also the fact that they are not co-sponsors that means we can’t take their votes for granted. It’s especially important that they hear from citizens who care about protecting horses, so they know their constituents want them to maintain their support for ending horse slaughter. Please contact your U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators today, and ask them to put a stop to the cruel exports of horses for human food.

I think that the president should adopt a homeless animal in order to set a good example for the rest of the country. Too many shelter animals are killed. —Ellie

Ellie, I couldn’t agree with you more. As I wrote in my blog about presidential pets, when it comes to spaying and neutering, veterinary care, and related topics, the power of a president’s example as a responsible caregiver can be significant. Most presidents have had pets in the White House, and we hope the next president will send a strong, humane message by adopting a pet from a shelter or rescue group.

If you have a question about HSLF, offer a comment through the blog or email your query. I may post it in a future blog.

Don't Pull the Fur Over Our Eyes

Today, The Washington Post reported that Maryland state Delegate Tom Hucker (D-Montgomery County) is introducing a bill to require the labeling of fur garments, in response to rampant deception in the fur-trimmed apparel industry.  The Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Economic Matters Committee both commented favorably on the reform, sending a signal that enactment of this important policy to protect animals and inform consumers is within our reach.

Last year, New York’s state legislature passed a fur labeling law. This year, legislation is pending in Delaware and bills are expected to be introduced in Illinois and other states. New York City, Chicago, and the Baltimore-Washington area are three of the biggest fur-selling markets in the country, and it’s encouraging that lawmakers are taking a stand to give shoppers important product information.

Over the past two winters, an investigation by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that dozens of leading designers and department stores sold fur-trimmed jackets advertised as “fake fur” which were determined through laboratory testing to be real animal fur, even dog fur.  Often when the fur was labeled as rabbit, raccoon, or coyote, it turned out to be from domestic dogs or raccoon dogs—a member of the dog family raised in factory farms and skinned alive in China. This widespread false advertising and false labeling shook up the fashion industry, and was covered on "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show".

Even though Congress banned the sale of dog and cat fur in 2000, a loophole in the federal labeling law has allowed dog fur to slip through the cracks as trim on the collars and cuffs of designer jackets. If the fur on a garment is valued at $150 or less, no label is required, and consumers are left in the dark as to its origin. With the infusion of Chinese fur into Western markets, there’s no telling what type of animal the fur came from.

Based on approximate pelt prices after processing, an individual garment using the fur from 30 rabbits ($5 each) could be sold without a label. The same goes for 25 ermines ($6 each), five raccoons ($28 each), three badgers, beavers, fishers, or minks ($50 each), three Arctic, grey, or red foxes ($50 each), one bear or timber wolf ($150), and so on. Lots of fur from lots of animals, and still there would be no requirement of a label.

A bipartisan bill in Congress introduced by Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.)—H.R. 891, the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act—would require that all fur is clearly labeled, regardless of value, and would ban the sale of raccoon dog fur to stop the worst abuses in the industry. The bill has 165 co-sponsors, more than one-third of the House of Representatives, and a Senate version is expected to be introduced soon.

It’s a sensible public policy to give consumers the right to make informed purchasing decisions. Ask your state lawmakers to support truth in fur labeling, and tell Congress to pass the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act.  Shoppers shouldn’t have the fur pulled over their eyes.

Wave of Outrage Continues in Wake of Downer Scandal

The dairy cow slaughter plant scandal grows. More than 150 school districts across the country have stopped serving beef from the Westland slaughter plant , in response to an HSUS investigation. Local television stations in cities from Austin to Bend to Billings to Sacramento to Tucson covered the cafeteria controversy. The Riverside Press-Enterprise published an important story over the weekend on the timeline of the investigation and potential enforcement actions by the San Bernardino County district attorney’s office and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Congressional reaction, too, continued to escalate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, said she was “appalled” by the revelations and called on the USDA “to address both the animal cruelty acts related to this incident and the food safety threats posed by the actions of the employees at the Westland’s facility.” She asked the agency “to conduct an industry-wide investigation to assess the Department’s inspection protocol for its efficacy to keep sick animals at these federally inspected facilities out of the food supply, and an industry-wide investigation to determine the extent to which animals are being treated inhumanely.”

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee, called on the USDA to conduct a thorough review and take swift action.  “As someone who has been involved in animal agriculture for most of my life, I urge you to do a thorough investigation on the mistreatment of these non-ambulatory cattle at the Westland Meat Company,” Boswell said. “I would also like assurances that USDA is using all available resources to close this investigation in a timely manner.”

And the authors of legislation to set animal welfare standards for government purchases of meat, dairy, and egg products—Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Chris Shays (R-Conn.)—renewed their call for passage of the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act.  Their bill would reform the meat purchases for the national school lunch program and other federal nutrition programs.

“Frankly, I am stunned that beef from downed animals may have been served in school lunches,” DeFazio said. “Most cases of mad cow disease have come from downed cattle, these animals are far more likely to be contaminated with e coli, and now we’re feeding this stuff to kids? It is past time that Congress act to protect the food supply by passing legislation introduced by Rep. Shays and myself which would have prevented this from happening. We will push for passage to ensure that our children aren’t put at this risk again.”

“The humane treatment of animals speaks to our nation’s core values, and this cruelty reflects poorly on our country as a whole,” Shays said. “Our government can have a tremendous impact in encouraging improved treatment of animals by requiring producers to meet basic federal animal welfare requirements. I look forward to working with Rep. DeFazio to ensure passage of the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act.”

We look forward to working with Congressional leaders to make sure we have public policies in place to prevent this abuse from happening again. Our nation’s children and animals deserve better.

Torture of Cows Causes Shock Waves

The shocking investigation into farm animal cruelty at a California meat packing plant that supplies the nation’s school lunch program continued to have ripple effects on Capitol Hill and around the country. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, called for quick action and asked the USDA to investigate fully.

“The allegations against Westland Meat Company are egregious,” Harkin said. “Actions like these committed by any meat company are cause for alarm, but the fact that Westland is a supplier to federal school nutrition programs is particularly concerning. It is troubling that cattle, hardly able to stand on their own, were being sent to slaughter in violation of USDA’s regulation prohibiting downed cattle from entering the food supply.” 

In Harkin’s home state of Iowa, as well as in the states of California, Minnesota, Oregon, Hawaii, Washington, and Utah, public school officials scrambled to keep Westland beef out of their cafeterias. Thousands of pounds of ground beef was put on hold so the schools could determine whether it was safe for human consumption.

California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, commented on the cruelty at the California plant as well as the safety risks. “I am very saddened to hear about the allegations of animal abuse at Westland,” he said. “I want to assure every parent whose child is on the school lunch program that the California Department of Education will not tolerate anything that threatens the safety of food given to their children.”

The USDA launched an investigation and held a briefing yesterday for Congressional staff to update them on the matter. The federal government is the largest buyer of beef from Westland, and has put a halt to those purchases. But the corporate world, too, has responded to the crisis. In-N-Out Burger, the west coast chain, announced that it has immediately stopped doing business with the slaughter plant.

Action has been swift on all fronts, but more must be done. Congress should hold hearings on the allegations of cruelty and the flaws in USDA’s policy that allows sick and weak animals to enter the food supply. And we need new laws on the books, like the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act and the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act, to stop this abuse from happening again.