Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

Wag the Dog: Canine Issues the Presidential Candidates Should be Talking About

The presidential campaign is in full swing, and animal lovers have surely noticed there is more talk about dogs than in previous elections: Mitt Romney’s family vacation in the 1980s in which Seamus, the Irish setter, became sick during a 12-hour trip on the roof of a station wagon; and Barack Obama’s writing that, as a child, living with his stepfather in Indonesia, he once ate dog meat. Democrats have formed “Dogs Against Romney,” while Republicans have started the Twitter meme #ObamaDogRecipes.

It’s surely good fodder for Saturday Night Live and the White House correspondents’ dinner, and for partisan barbs back and forth, but what does it really tell us about the candidates? Rather than focus on isolated incidents that occurred 30 or 40 years ago, we should be talking about national policy issues that affect dogs today. There’s so much for these candidates to address, and it would be telling for them to concentrate some of their dog talk on these issues.

Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies, the president has enormous influence over animal welfare issues that impact millions of dogs, and billions of other animals, in our country. Here are some of the dog protection issues the candidates should be talking about, if they really want to appeal to animal lovers:

Puppy Mills: Millions of dogs are confined in small wire cages, breeding litter after litter, often with no exercise, veterinary care, socialization, or human companionship. The USDA has just proposed a draft rule to close a loophole in the federal Animal Welfare Act regulations, and ensure that Internet puppy mill sellers are licensed and inspected for basic animal care standards. Kudos to the Obama administration for proposing it. The White House should finalize it in July (when the comment period ends), and Romney should embrace it and also tell voters how he plans to combat the puppy mill problem.

Dogfighting: Forcing dogs to fight to the death for entertainment and gambling is a violation of federal and state laws, but there are loopholes that allow these cruel spectacles to continue. Obama and Romney should endorse the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act in Congress to make it a federal crime to be a spectator at an animal fight, with felony penalties for bringing a child to the fight. It’s the spectators who finance the violence and the blood-letting with their admission fees and gambling wagers, and provide cover to dogfighters who blend into the crowd during law enforcement raids. The House bill has nearly 200 bipartisan cosponsors, so an endorsement from the presidential candidates requires no great profile in courage.

Class B Dealers: Pets stolen from backyards, fraudulently acquired through “free to a good home” ads, or acquired through animal shelters and other “random sources” are funneled into laboratory experiments by unscrupulous “Class B” dealers. The NIH has announced that beginning October 2012, grant recipients cannot use NIH funds to buy cats from Class B dealers, and by 2015, the same will be true for dogs. Only seven of these dealers licensed by USDA remain active in the country, down from hundreds in past decades. This is an important move by the Obama administration, and as with the puppy mill rule, Romney should laud this action and say he’s on board with it.

Service Dogs: For wounded warriors and disabled veterans, caring for a pet can help them re-enter society, offer a non-judgmental companion to reduce stress and depression, and provide routine. Service dogs can also let them know when it’s time to take medication, wake them from nightmares, or help ward off panic attacks. Such benefits can decrease the number of hospitalizations and lower the cost of care. The Department of Veterans Affairs should pair service dogs with veterans and include shelter dogs as part of the program, so that homeless dogs can be given a second chance. Obama and Romney should endorse the Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act and pledge to work with VA hospitals to provide this lifesaving therapy for soldiers as well as dogs.

Animal Welfare Funding: The president’s budget requests needed funding each year for the USDA to enforce the Animal Welfare Act and the federal animal fighting law, as well as other animal welfare laws on humane slaughter and horse protection, and programs to address the needs of animals in disasters and to ease a shortage of veterinarians in rural areas through student loan forgiveness. Despite a tough budget climate, a bipartisan group of 35 senators and 150 representatives lent their support this year for animal welfare enforcement dollars to be allocated in Fiscal Year 2013. Obama and Romney should pledge to seek adequate support for animal welfare enforcement.

With these federal polices, and more, the lives of millions of dogs and other animals are at stake. In addition to pets, the president and the federal agencies oversee rules impacting wildlife, animals in research, and farm animals on a major scale. It’s time for the presidential candidates to weigh in, not just on the personal anecdotes, but also on their animal welfare policies.

Pork Industry Needs to Clean Up Its Act

[Please note: Includes graphic descriptions of animal abuse.]

If you follow the issue of farm animal welfare closely, you are probably aware of the “flat-earth” types out there in Big Ag beyond the fringes of reality. If you point out to them the cruelty of certain factory farming practices, like the lifetime of misery spent by breeding pigs in tiny crates, the flat-earthers are ready with knee-jerk denials. If you show them video proof of animals being mistreated, they brush off the pictures as somehow “edited” and that, really, there is nothing wrong.

Last week, one bloviator in particular caught my attention, with this gem of a commentary in Beef magazine: “Anyone who knows the history of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and its ‘undercover documentaries’ knows that what one sees on the videos and the reality of the situation are not necessarily the same thing.”

What got him worked up was the shocking undercover video released by The HSUS, which about a quarter million people have now watched online. The video, shot in April 2012, was taken at Wyoming Premium Farms, a pig factory farm in Wheatland, Wyo., which had been a supplier to Tyson Foods. The footage depicts workers kicking living piglets like soccer balls, swinging sick piglets in circles by their hind legs, and sitting and bouncing on a mother pig who has a broken leg and screams in pain.

Here’s “the reality of the situation” which the flat-earthers of Big Ag need to face: Abuse of animals in factory farms is far too prevalent. The “husbandry” that family farmers have lived by for generations cannot be supplanted by cages, crates, rampant use of drugs and unrestrained hired hands who have adopted the corporate creed that farm animals are nothing more than machines to manufacture money.

A panel of experts assembled by the agriculture industry’s own Center for Food Integrity viewed this undercover video for exactly what it is: proof positive that unacceptable and indefensible conditions existed at this factory farm where pigs are bred and raised. As the industry trade website, Pork Network, reported, here are just a few conclusions from the three panelists:

Dr. Candace Croney, associate professor of animal sciences at Purdue University: “(T)here is no context I can think of that would make the egregious handling seen in this video acceptable.”

Dr. Temple Grandin, professor of animal science at Colorado State University: “There’s definitely abusive animal handling shown in that video.”

Dr. John Deen, professor of veterinary epidemiology at the University Minnesota: “The actions seen in this video are abusive to the pigs and unacceptable to society as a whole.”

In response to the video, an editorial in the Casper Star-Tribune called on authorities to “investigate this and prosecute the apparent abuse to the fullest extent of the law.” The newspaper rightly hopes “this deplorable incident will serve as an example for other producers who might be tempted to cut corners or tolerate inhumane behavior.”

It’s time for Big Ag’s deniers to stand down. And it’s time for the pork industry and its apologists to stand up—to stand up for what is right.

In recent months, leading food retailers—such as Safeway, Burger King, McDonald’s, and Denny’s—have pledged reform in their sourcing of pork. But too many of the pork industry’s bigwigs have turned a deaf ear, and responded chiefly by trying to change the subject. That is, they’ve spent way too much time lobbying the halls of Congress opposing a bill that has nothing to do with their own industry but everything to do with farm animal welfare. The pork lobbyists are trying to stand in the way of legislation strongly supported by the egg industry and animal welfare groups to provide more space for laying hens and more accurate labeling of eggs in grocery stores.

It’s time for laggards among pork producers, their trade association representatives, and the commentators who pander to them, to listen to consumers, to retailers and to scientists—it’s time to give up the denials, time to drop the diversionary politics. It’s time to clean up their own industry.

Maryland Court Unleashes Canine Profiling

Dog lovers across the country are barking mad over last week’s Maryland Court of Appeals decision declaring that all pit bull-type dogs are “inherently dangerous.” The misguided and overreaching ruling treats all pit bulls and pit bull mixes as a category, rather than individual animals. It could make owners, landlords, veterinarians, kennels, animal shelters, rescue groups, and anyone in custody of a dog automatically liable, regardless of whether they know a dog actually poses a threat.

This is a major step backwards for the state of Maryland, and puts both dogs and people at risk. This sweeping decision is a case of canine profiling. It may force law-abiding citizens to face a painful and life-changing decision—move out of Maryland or give up their beloved dogs. It could increase the number of stray pit bull-type dogs on the streets and euthanized in shelters, turning back progress made by animal shelters and rescue groups over the past few decades.

There are already reports surfacing this week of pit bulls abandoned in the wake of the court ruling, such as two unaltered dogs thrown out on the street in the Southern Park Heights neighborhood of Baltimore when their owner was threatened with eviction. Rather than protect public safety, the court’s fiat has the opposite effect: It has the potential to create packs of free-roaming pit bulls roaming Maryland neighborhoods, rather than living safely as beloved family pets. Taxpayers and municipal agencies will bear the financial burden of addressing public health and safety problems caused by feral dog packs.

The entire decision is misguided, because breed alone is not predictive of whether a dog may pose a danger. A dog’s propensity to bite is a product of several factors including early socialization, a dog’s living conditions and the owner’s behavior. For example, chained dogs and non-neutered dogs are much more likely to bite.

And who’s to decide whether a dog is a pit bull and therefore unwelcome with a cursory visual exam? According to a recent study by the Maddie’s Fund Shelter Medicine Program at the University of Florida, which looked at a group of 120 dogs at four animal shelters, 55 of those dogs were identified as “pit bulls” by shelter staff, but only 25 were confirmed as pit bulls by DNA analysis. Additionally, the staff missed identifying 20 percent of the dogs who were pit bulls by DNA analysis, while only 8 percent of the “true” pit bulls were identified by all staff members. (Even DNA testing is not 100 percent reliable, but it underscores why breed-specific policy is unworkable.) The National Canine Research Council has a clearinghouse of resources demonstrating that breed labels assigned to dogs of unknown origin are usually inaccurate.

Many dogs merely resembling the pit bull-type look will be swept up and punished by this ruling, and there may be expensive court battles over whether a dog is or isn’t a pit bull. With as many as 75 percent of shelter dogs being mixed breeds, this is not an anti-pit bull decision, but an anti-dog decision.

In issuing this ruling, the Maryland Court of Appeals has clearly overstepped its authority. Sound public safety policies should be made by the legislature after conducting appropriate fact-finding and hearings and considering the available science. We will be asking Maryland state lawmakers to immediately pass legislation to clarify the law and overturn this dangerous ruling. Concerned Maryland citizens and dog lovers should contact your state legislators today.

You can also show your support by submitting your favorite pit bull pictures to the “We Love Maryland Pit Bulls” photo album on the HSUS Maryland Facebook page. Or post them with the hashtag #LoveMDpitbulls on Twitter. Let’s show Maryland officials they should punish the deed, not the breed.

NRA Poster Boy Pleads Guilty to Poaching—Again

Ted Nugent, the NRA’s longest-serving board member and a featured speaker at the NRA’s recent convention in St. Louis a couple weeks ago, has pleaded guilty in federal court for transporting an illegally killed black bear in Alaska. He reportedly shot a bear with a bow and arrow, but failed to kill the animal. Four days later, he shot another bear in violation of the law.

It was Nugent’s second poaching crime in just two years. Back in 2010, he pleaded no contest to killing a young deer with the use of bait and not having a properly signed hunting tag in California.

The NRA says in its “code of ethics” that it condemns poaching: “I will obey all game laws and regulations, and will insist that my companions do likewise.” But talk is cheap. Here’s a board member, an NRA national spokesperson, and an annual convention presenter who has been caught poaching twice. If the NRA’s credo means anything, and isn’t just rhetorical window-dressing, it should be applied to Nugent. 

Anti-poaching work largely falls on the shoulders of state and federal wildlife agencies, game wardens’ associations, some responsible hunting groups, and The Humane Society of the United States. Since 2008, The HSUS has offered more than $400,000 in rewards for information in poaching cases, donated equipment and robotic decoys to cash-strapped state wildlife agencies, sponsored an anti-poaching tip line, and launched a network aimed at ensuring that poaching crimes are taken seriously by prosecutors. The HSUS and HSLF have helped to pass laws to strengthen poaching penalties, and block efforts to weaken them or to strip wildlife officers of their powers. We often fight the NRA when we try to strengthen anti-poaching laws.

When the NRA won’t even stand up against illegal poaching, it’s no surprise the group is on the side of the most unsporting and inhumane legal practices, no matter how extreme or how reviled by rank-and-file sportsmen. The NRA is fighting against Senate Bill 1221 in California, which passed the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water this week by a vote of 5 to 3, and would ban the use of packs of radio-collared dogs to chase bears and bobcats onto tree branches where trophy hunters can shoot the frightened animals at point-blank range. Judd Hanna, a hunter and president of the California Game Wardens Foundation, provided a litany of cases of poaching and other unethical behavior by houndsmen, in his statement of support for S.B. 1221.

At the federal level, the NRA is now pushing the U.S. Congress to pass a $12 million package that provides a bailout to a tiny group of wealthy trophy hunters who want to import polar bear heads and hides in defiance of current law, mandates hunting on nearly all federal land without regard for the impact on wildlife or other resources, and strips the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to protect habitat, animals, and people from lead poisoning through toxic ammunition exposure. They rammed the bill through the House on the heels of the NRA convention, and now they are targeting the Senate.

It’s time to tell Congress that a group that won’t stand up to poaching has no business asking for a $12 million hand-out from taxpayers to roll back our existing conservation laws. Please call your two U.S. Senators today at (202) 225-3121 and urge them to oppose H.R. 4089.

Senate Subcommittee Hears Bill to End Chimp Research

Just following Earth Day and the release of the Disney Nature documentary Chimpanzee, which features chimpanzees in the wild where they belong, Congress considers the fate of the approximately 950 chimpanzees currently languishing in six U.S. laboratories.

Today, the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, chaired by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., held a hearing on S. 810, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act. The bipartisan bill, introduced by Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., will phase out invasive research on chimpanzees, stop breeding of chimpanzees for invasive research and retire the approximately 500 government-owned chimpanzees to the sanctuary they deserve.

The scientific, economic and ethical evidence has been mounting in recent years—all clearly pointing to the need to end invasive research on chimpanzees and move science forward. An Institute of Medicine report released in December concluded that the vast majority of biomedical research on chimpanzees is unnecessary and didn’t identify a single area of biomedical research that absolutely requires chimpanzee use. The IOM report has changed the dynamic on this issue and helped to build consensus for the policy of phasing out invasive research on chimps.

Dr. Martin Wasserman, a physician and former Maryland State Health Secretary testified in support of the bill today, and he emphasized the scientific advances that have rendered the use of chimpanzees unnecessary and the non-chimpanzee models that are more efficient and effective for advancing human health. We are grateful to Chairman Cardin for holding this important hearing, and to the other subcommittee members, especially Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who spoke in favor of the legislation and the need to protect approximately 200 chimpanzees housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility in his state.

Chimpanzees, because of their size, long lifespan and special behavioral needs, are extremely expensive to use and maintain in a laboratory setting. So, why would we continue to spend money on research that isn’t necessary and on maintaining expensive government contracts with private companies to take care of the chimpanzees? For example, the government spends $4.5 million per year to maintain a group of approximately 175 chimpanzees who haven’t been used in 10 years. Sanctuaries are available and can provide superior care at a lower cost. Ending invasive chimpanzee research and retiring these animals to sanctuary would save the government $300 million over the next decade. With so many lawmakers concerned about the federal deficit and government waste, here’s an opportunity to save money and make government run better.

An undercover investigation into the world’s largest chimpanzee laboratory revealed chimpanzees isolated in small, steel cages for months at a time and psychologically disturbed animals, such as Sterling, who self-mutilated and was deemed ineligible for research yet remained in a concrete enclosure. Sadly, we recently learned that Sterling passed away and never got to live in a sanctuary where he could feel sunshine on his face and grass beneath his feet.

And remember those chimpanzees in the wild who were featured in Chimpanzee? There is a growing body of evidence that exploiting captive chimpanzees in the U.S. impacts the conservation of the species in the wild. And the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is currently considering The HSUS’s 2010 petition to protect all chimpanzees as endangered, no matter where they may be found.

We should be doing all that we can to protect chimpanzees in captivity and in the wild, and Congress now has an opportunity to do so. Take action and urge your lawmakers to pass this legislation, before time runs out for these special animals.

House Votes to Shoot Down Conservation Laws

The U.S Congress has a lower approval rating than polygamy and pornography, and sometimes it’s easy to understand why.  When it comes to creating jobs, passing a budget, and meeting other important challenges for the American people, there is little more than gridlock and partisan bickering. But when it comes to bilking the American taxpayers to benefit special interests such as the trophy hunting lobby, there’s just no stopping them.

This was on full display yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives—the very day millions of Americans were paying their taxes—when a majority of lawmakers exhibited utter fealty to the NRA and the sport hunting lobby by passing a $12 million package to shoot holes in multiple landmark conservation laws. It was shameless pandering to the NRA, a piece of political theatre staged on the House floor right on the heels of the NRA’s convention in St. Louis.

H.R. 4089, the so-called Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, is an omnibus package that combines several bad ideas into one bill—reopening the imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada, encouraging more reckless killing of threatened species; opening millions of acres of federal lands and wilderness areas to sport hunting, regardless of the impacts to the environment and other park users; and halting efforts to switch from toxic lead ammunition to non-toxic alternatives that do not poison wildlife and the environment.

U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., led the effort to protect polar bears by offering an amendment to strike the trophy import language from the bill. The imports have been forbidden since 2008 when the Bush Administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, but it hasn’t stopped wealthy trophy hunters and their allies in Congress from putting polar bears in their sights time and again. As Rep. Peters told his colleagues:

The trophy hunting community was aware that the ESA listing would take place for well over a year prior to its effective date, and trophy hunters were warned by federal agencies and hunting associations that the final listing would cut off imports immediately. These individuals knowingly assumed the risk that their trophies might not be approved for importation, and decided to hunt and kill these beautiful creatures anyway. They have also had their day in court; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a federal court have already rejected hunters’ requests to import trophies after the effective date of the listing.

H.R. 4089 will essentially treat these 41 trophy hunters who killed their bears before the ESA listing occurred as though the listing had never taken effect. While it is too late to save these bears, enacting this legislation creates a perverse incentive for trophy hunters to take any species soon to be protected under the ESA because Congress will just bail them out after the fact. 

Unfortunately, the House rejected the Peters amendment by a vote of 155 to 262, with 145 Democrats and 10 Republicans siding with polar bear protection, and the rest siding with wealthy trophy hunters. We are grateful to Rep. Peters for leading the charge to protect polar bears on the House floor, and also to Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Jim Moran, D-Va., who spoke in favor of the amendment. Please be sure to check how your Representative voted, and express your thanks to those voting yes and disappointment to those who voted no.

The final bill passed by a vote of 274 to 146, including the harmful language on sport-hunted polar bear trophy imports, toxic lead ammo, and forcing decisions on hunting to be handed down by Washington bureaucrats rather than local public lands managers. Now the bill goes to the U.S. Senate, and it must be stopped. Please call your two U.S. Senators today at (202) 224-3121, and urge them to oppose H.R. 4089. It will cost American taxpayers $12 million, it only benefits special interests, and it’s an expensive power grab that guts our wildlife conservation laws.

Shoot Down Polar Bear Trophy Hunts and Other Radical Proposals

As early as next week, the U.S. House of Representatives may consider H.R. 4089, the so-called “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012,” a highly controversial omnibus bill that combines several radical hunting proposals into one awful package. Among other things, the legislation seeks to allow importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada; mandate that the Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service open nearly all federal public lands to hunting without regard to the impact on wildlife and other resources; and strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate toxic lead. Each one of these component parts would warrant our vigorous opposition, but to combine all of them into one package, is a disgrace and the House should reject it.

Please call your U.S. Representative today at (202) 225-3121, and follow up with an email, asking him or her to vote “No” on H.R. 4089.

The measure would undermine several current federal wildlife protection and environmental laws, further imperil already threatened species and the environment, and undermine federal agencies’ ability to carry out their wildlife and public lands management obligations.  I want to demonstrate why this bill, in all of its component parts, is such a disaster:
 
POLAR BEARS: H.R. 4089 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow the importation of two classes of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada. First, it would allow import of polar bear trophies taken in Canada before February 18, 1997, regardless of whether the polar bear was taken from an approved or unapproved population. Since prior to 1997 there were approved populations from which U.S. trophy hunters could take bears and import their trophies, only trophy hunters who killed polar bears from unapproved populations would benefit under this provision. We shouldn’t reward these trophy hunters who killed polar bears in contravention of the MMPA and now seek to benefit from their unlawful behavior.
 
Second, H.R. 4089 would allow import of polar bear trophies taken in Canada and only from bears hunted from approved populations before the May 2008 Endangered Species Act listing took effect. In practice, it would treat trophy hunters who killed their bears before the ESA listing took effect as though the listing had never taken effect. The trophy hunting community was aware that the ESA listing would take place for over 16 months prior to its effective date, and trophy hunters were repeatedly warned by federal agencies and hunting associations that the final listing would cut off imports immediately. These individuals knowingly assumed the risk that their trophies might not be approved for importation, and allowing them to import those trophies now would constitute an unfair bailout.
 
The MMPA prohibits the sport hunting of polar bears in the U.S. and it prohibits the import of any marine mammal, including dolphins, whales, seals, sea lions, and walruses. The law should be consistently applied, and we should not have a special carve-out for a few trophy hunters who shot polar bears in Canada, knowing full well that they may not be able to import the trophies under U.S. law. While some argue this is just a small number of trophies, it encourages hunters to continue killing protected species in other countries, store the trophies in warehouses, and simply wait for their allies in Congress to get them a waiver on the imports. It sets a dangerous precedent, and encourages more killing of threatened species and protected marine mammals, which flies in the face of the ESA and MMPA.
 
FEDERAL LANDS: H.R. 4089 would open sensitive and primitive wilderness areas to recreational hunting and shooting activities, despite the fact that these areas have been long protected from invasive human recreational pursuits. Further, H.R. 4089 would open up national park lands to recreational hunting even though such activity is generally prohibited by law.
 
H.R. 4089 would also exempt all federal agency decisions concerning recreational hunting or shooting activities from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. No analysis of the impacts of these activities to target and non-target wildlife, habitats, or any other aspect of the environment would be permitted. These provisions of H.R. 4089 are entirely antithetical to the science-based principles of sound wildlife and federal lands management. 
 
H.R. 4089 explicitly requires federal agencies to facilitate recreational hunting opportunities on all federal lands. This will raise serious safety concerns, and create significant conflicts with the non-consumptive activities, such as hiking and wildlife watching, of other public lands visitors who contribute significantly more to the U.S. economy than hunters. If H.R. 4089 passes, virtually every decision by federal agencies to restrict hunting and shooting activities would be subject to expensive lawsuits as to whether the decision is “necessary and reasonable.”
 
There are millions of acres of federal lands currently open to sport hunters who have the opportunity to participate in recreational hunting on many national wildlife refuges, national forests, and other federal properties. The activities mandated in H.R. 4089 are already disproportionately favored against the interests of other larger outdoor user-groups.
 
LEAD AMMUNITION: H.R. 4089 would also eliminate the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate ammunition, under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already banned the use of lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting—a policy which has been in place for more than two decades yet waterfowl hunting still thrives in this country due to the many forms of non-toxic ammunition available—and the National Park Service prohibits the use of lead ammunition by agency staff and contractors, with both agencies’ decisions being based on the known deleterious effects of lead. Such decisions should be left to the discretion of federal agencies based solely on the best available science on the impacts of toxic substances such as lead.
 
This omnibus measure includes several highly controversial pieces of legislation that would severely roll back federal conservation laws and set a dangerous precedent for the management of wildlife and the environment. Please call your U.S. Representative today at (202) 225-3121, and follow up with an email, asking him or her to vote “No” on H.R. 4089.

Don’t Turn the Clock Back on Animal Welfare Enforcement

Congress made important progress last year addressing serious gaps in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enforcement of key animal welfare laws by providing the agency much-needed funding to allow for better inspection programs. The USDA’s own Inspector General had issued damning audits in late 2010 regarding the agency’s woefully lax oversight of puppy mills under the Animal Welfare Act, and its weak efforts to rein in the cruel practice of “soring” show horses (deliberately inflicting severe pain on the horses’ legs and hooves to make it hurt for them to step down, so they will exaggerate their high-stepping gait and win prizes), which is prohibited under the Horse Protection Act. Despite intense budget pressures, Congress responded to these concerns and in November 2011 enacted significant increases in USDA’s budget to improve enforcement of both the AWA and the HPA.

These small dogs were rescued from a Texas
puppy mill. photo: The HSUS

Now Congress is gearing up to consider the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations bills. Every agency program has some political support in Washington, or it would never have been funded in the first place, and those programs and their supporters are competing for finite dollars. The budget pressures haven’t gone away, but neither have the terrible problems at puppy mills or in the horse soring industry, nor the pressing need for adequate oversight of other facilities covered by the AWA, such as laboratories, roadside zoos, and circuses. It would be a severe setback to lose the critical gains from last year.

There are other areas that Congress can cut, as we proposed last fall to the “Super Committee” considering ways to reduce the deficit—for example, warehousing chimpanzees in costly laboratory cages; rounding up wild horses to keep them in long-term holding pens; using inefficient, unreliable, very costly, and cruel animal testing when much better alternative methods are available; taxpayer-financed poisoning of wildlife; and massive subsidies for wealthy operators of huge factory farms.

Congress can achieve macro-level cuts while still taking care to ensure that specific small and vital accounts have the funds they need. Whether an animal welfare law will be effective often turns on whether it gets adequately funded. Having legislators seek that funding is crucial, especially when there are strong competing budget pressures as there are now. Our fortunes are intertwined with those of animals, and proper enforcement not only helps these creatures but also helps to protect consumers and improve food safety, public health, disaster preparedness, and other social concerns.

Congressmen Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La., are circulating letters to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, seeking funds in Fiscal Year 2013 to hold the line on last year’s funding levels for enforcement of key animal welfare laws. They are asking their colleagues to co-sign these letters and lend their support. The funds requested in the letter are modest, but are critically needed to implement and enforce the Animal Welfare Act, the Horse Protection Act, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the federal animal fighting law, and programs to help prepare for the needs of animals in disasters and to address the shortage of veterinarians in rural and inner-city areas and USDA positions.

Your two U.S. Senators and one U.S. representative need to hear from you today. You can find your federal legislators’ names and contact information here.

Please urge your two U.S. Senators to co-sign the Senate animal welfare funding group letter being circulated by Senators Boxer and Vitter, or make their own parallel individual requests, before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee’s deadline of March 30th. And please urge your one U.S. representative to co-sign the House animal welfare funding group letter being circulated by Representatives Smith and Blumenauer, or include these items among his/her own individual requests, before the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee’s deadline of March 20th. (Note that over 100 Representatives have already joined on the House letter—so if yours is on the current list, you can thank him or her for stepping up). 

This is just the latest installment in a multiyear effort. The HSUS and HSLF have been steadily building the enforcement budgets for these laws, recognizing that laws on the books won’t do animals much good if they’re not enforced. Over the past fourteen years, for example, we’ve succeeded in boosting the annual funding for enforcement of the AWA by 195% (a cumulative total of more than $102 million in new dollars to the program). Today, there are 122 AWA inspectors, compared to about 60 during the 1990s, to help ensure basic humane treatment at thousands of puppy mills, research laboratories, zoos, circuses, and other facilities.

With your help, Congress can sustain these efforts to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. It’s an investment in the animals’ future—and our own.

Tiger Mascot Costs Too Much to Tackle

Nearly five months after Terry Thompson sent about 50 tigers, lions, bears, and other dangerous exotic animals to their deaths by setting them free in the community of Zanesville, Ohio, state lawmakers now have a bill in front of them to crack down on the problem of exotic pets. Senate Bill 310, introduced by Sen. Troy Balderson, R-Zanesville, is a serious-minded response to stop the flow of big cats, primates, bears, wolves, and crocodiles into private hands in Ohio’s neighborhoods, where the animals themselves suffer and pose a threat to public safety. Ohio is one of seven states with no rules governing private ownership of dangerous exotic wild animals.

Obie, the Massillon High School live mascot
photo: UNI-watch.com

The bill does, however, have a few gaps, and it should be toughened up to provide a more comprehensive policy reform to match the scale of Ohio’s problem. First, it provides a blanket exemption for private citizens associated with the so-called Zoological Association of America (ZAA), a front group for exotic animal owners that masquerades as a private accrediting organization (and a group not to be confused with the professional and credible Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA). It would have been easy for someone like Terry Thompson to become accredited by ZAA, and that’s the problem. Second, it specifically allows people to acquire large constricting snakes, such as pythons, anacondas, and boa constrictors, as pets.

Additionally, the bill provides an exemption for school mascots, a provision carved out for the benefit of Massillon High School and its tradition of acquiring a new tiger cub, Obie, each year. It had appeared that allowing for an unending series of Obies was in the cards politically. But The HSUS and the Columbus Zoo expressed concern, and now today, Massillon’s local newspaper, The Independent, said “this is one tradition that the Massillon Tiger football program can and should live without.” The editorial continued:

There are just too many downsides to the live animal mascot, not the least of which is the chance—however remote—that a maturing Obie could somehow escape his keepers and attack someone or something….We can understand the resistance to legislation making it illegal to have a live exotic animal school mascot, especially when the Massillon program predates legal bans on exotic animals. But this law is not an attack on Massillon, our football traditions or individual rights. It’s an attempt to improve public safety born out of recent events at an exotic animal ‘farm’ near Zanesville.

The Independent is right that the Obie football tradition should be retired. And it’s not just for animal welfare and public safety concerns, but also for the fiscal impact and the costs involved to care for Obie’s needs long after his use during the few weeks of football season. Annual food costs alone can cost around $10,000 for a single tiger. With an estimated 20-year lifespan, that’s $200,000 to feed one Obie. Over the 43-year tradition that Obie has been on the sidelines at Massillon home games, that’s $8.6 million in Obie’s food costs alone. Someone has to pick up the tab, like a recurring annual signing bonus, and a mascot exemption for Obie would be an unfunded mandate by the Ohio legislature.

But captive tigers also require spacious, enriched, and secure housing, veterinary attention, and knowledgeable and experienced staff to provide proper care. Reputable sanctuaries typically spend more than $60,000 to construct housing and can spend up to $40,000 per year on care—an $800,000 commitment over the 20-year lifespan of each rescued tiger. After Obie spends a single season in Massillon and then becomes a free agent, he either goes to private animal sanctuaries that must assume these costs over time, or he goes to some horrid roadside zoo, or perhaps he’s sold into a canned hunting operation or to a wildlife parts dealer, so that tiger bones or penis can be sold for thousands of dollars. In just about every case, it’s a bad outcome for the tigers or the people who are enlisted to care for them.

Many Obies have been provided by Stump Hill Farms, a grossly substandard private menagerie with a long list of serious Animal Welfare Act violations, including citations for repeated failure to maintain and provide secure tiger enclosures, unsafe handling of a juvenile lion during public exhibition, declawing a juvenile tiger (a painful procedure that leads to chronic health problems), failure to provide veterinary care, and failure to vaccinate animals or even conduct routine parasite exams. After football season, some Obies have been returned to Stump Hill Farm or sent to Tiger Ridge Exotics, which has a similarly deplorable record of animal care.

It’s time to permanently bench this outdated, inhumane, dangerous, and costly tradition.

Newspapers Press for Hen Protections

I wrote last week about the diverse coalition of stakeholders backing federal legislation to improve the treatment of 280 million egg-laying hens—including animal protection, egg industry, veterinary, agricultural, and consumer organizations. Newspapers from around the country have weighed in as well, calling on federal lawmakers to act swiftly, and today I’d like to provide a round-up of some of the newspaper editorials endorsing H.R. 3798. Please take a look, and then take action by asking your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to pass this bill.

Philadelphia Inquirer: “The congressional legislation that has resulted from this unusual alliance shows a good balance between real-world egg-production practices and the idealistic goal of free-range chicken farming…. Congress, though, has a clear mandate to act from the farmers who know best how they want their eggs done.

San Diego Union-Tribune: “This bill, H.R. 3798, deserves swift enactment. And the process by which it even got this far ought to be a model for politically warring factions everywhere.”

The New York Times: “It’s well past time to create a national standard that promotes more humane conditions everywhere. Yet the American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group for farmers, the National Pork Producers Council, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association oppose the bill. They seem to fear that common sense and a humane regard for the well-being of farm animals will spread to their own industries.”

Salem (Ore.) Statesman Journal and Green Bay (Wisc.) Press Gazette: “The legislation exemplifies how traditional adversaries can put aside their distrust and work together for each side’s mutual benefit. As lead sponsor, Schrader deserves credit for his role on H.R. 3798. Congress should pass it. Soon.”

Los Angeles Times: “A federal law is the only way to mandate uniform standards, and this smart and focused measure is supported by the United Egg Producers, which represents 88% of the nation's egg farmers. As legislation goes, it's a good egg.”

The Oregonian: “It's no sure thing that Congress will approve the national standard; pig producers opposed to any national farm standards already are raising objections. But the agreement on laying hens is a fair compromise.”

Albany (Ore.) Democrat Herald: “We know that animals feel discomfort and pain. We know that bad conditions can cause them great distress. Because the animals are in our power and helpless, we must avoid cruelty at all costs. Congress should pass the bill.”

Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News: “This is an important measure, especially in Pennsylvania, which is the third-largest egg producer in the country….This is not just about providing better conditions for chickens, although that is important. The changes also give consumers better information about the eggs they buy. Wording will specify how the animals that laid their eggs are kept—from caged hens to those that are free to roam.”

Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star: “Allowing hens a little room to spread their wings and places to perch, nest, and scratch seems pretty reasonable….The accord between the HSUS and the egg producers is something to crow about.”

Clarksville (Tenn.) Leaf Chronicle: “Federal regulation of eggs and other agricultural products is not new. Most people in the egg industry want this updated legislation because it sets a uniform playing field for everyone instead of having states develop their own standards. Furthermore, evidence suggests that hens' egg production increases at farms that have installed the new cages.”

Santa Rosa (Calif.) Press Democrat: “There also are significant political obstacles, starting with cattlemen and other livestock interests who oppose the bill. But the same organizations successfully challenged a California law governing slaughterhouses, arguing in court that federal standards should prevail. Fair enough, let the same approach extend to egg farms.”

Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune: “Compromise offered the best possible outcome. Federal rules would benefit all 280 million hens rather than just 6 million Washington cluckers. The egg industry would get a nationwide standard to live by rather than a hodgepodge of state laws, and voters won’t have to make the call about how best to balance animal welfare and commerce. Would that more groups were able to settle their differences in such a way, without forcing the electorate into all-or-nothing scenarios that rarely come without major complications.”