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.

Where do the GOP Candidates Stand on Animal Issues?

The Humane Society Legislative Fund has not yet made any recommendation in the 2012 presidential race, but over the coming months we will be evaluating President Obama’s animal welfare record during his first term and looking at where the major Republican candidates stand on animal issues. Three of the major candidates remaining are current or ex-governors, one is a former U.S. Senator and House member, two serve in the U.S. House, and one served in the House and was Speaker of the House.

In short, each one has a record on animal welfare issues, and it’s an especially good time to examine the issues with the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday evening, and primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina later in January. Animal advocates should factor animal issues when they evaluate the candidates and make a final decision.

Michelle Bachmann: Bachmann has generally gotten low marks on animal issues in Congress, earning an 8 percent (out of 100) on the Humane Scorecard for the 110^th Congress, a 13 percent for the 111^th Congress, and she’s on track to get 13 percent again for 2011. She has supported only a handful of animal protection bills during her congressional career, voting for measures to make animal fighting a federal felony, to ban commerce in animal crush videos, and to pair veterans with service dogs for therapy. She also supported an amendment in the House this year to limit agriculture subsidy payments to factory farms. She has, however, opposed most animal welfare measures, including modest reforms to ban the trade in dangerous primates as pets, to stop the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses from public lands, to prohibit the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada, and to assist conservation programs that protect rare cats and dogs, cranes, marine turtles, and sea otters. She also voted to use tax dollars to kill wildlife as a subsidy to private livestock ranchers, and to block the Environmental Protection Agency from collecting data on greenhouse gases from factory farms.

Newt Gingrich: Gingrich earned a 21 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 103^rd Congress, but did not have scores for subsequent sessions since the Speaker of the House typically does not vote. He did vote to allow sport hunting in the Mojave National Preserve, and to allow foreign aid dollars to be used to promote trophy hunting of elephants and other species. On the positive side, he cosponsored legislation to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, and when he was Speaker helped to prevent the weakening of endangered species protections. Gingrich is, so far, the only presidential candidate who has actively talked about the importance of the human-animal bond while on the campaign trail. He launched a web site called “Pets with Newt,” and he is widely known to be a fan of zoos. Gingrich wrote the foreword to the guidebook “America’s Best Zoos,” and often stops by to visit the local zoo when he’s in a new city.

Jon Huntsman: During his time as governor of Utah from 2005 to 2009, Huntsman signed a number of animal protection bills into law, including measures to create a dog and cat spay and neuter fund, to allow out-of-state veterinarians to assist during emergencies, and to ban the remote-controlled shooting of live animals over the Internet. He did more than sign bills, and actively used his leadership position to move an important policy toward enactment: At a time when Utah was one of a handful of states that did not have felony-level penalties for animal cruelty, Huntsman called a special session of the legislature in 2007 to address, among other issues, a felony animal cruelty bill known as Henry’s Law, named after a tortured dog. His spokeswoman said the governor supported the bill and that “Gov. Huntsman believes this legislation is very important and a progressive step in the right direction in how we can all better treat animals.” When he signed a bill in 2008 creating a first-offense felony penalty for abusing dogs or cats, he praised the animal advocates for their persistence in advocating for the new law, and stated, “As we treat our animals, so do we treat our fellow human beings. There is a connection there that I think is undeniable.”

Ron Paul: Like Bachmann, Ron Paul has consistently received low marks on animal issues in Congress: He earned a 10 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 108^th Congress, a 14 percent in the 109^th Congress, a zero in the 110^th Congress, a 7 percent in the 111^th Congress, and he’s on track to get a 25 percent for 2011. He has voted to allow the slaughter of American horses for food exports, the killing of Yellowstone National Park bison, the trophy shooting of bears over piles of bait on federal lands, the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses from public lands, the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies, and the slaughter of downer livestock too sick or injured to walk on their own. He voted to block EPA from collecting data on factory farm emissions and voted against conservation legislation to protect rare cats and dogs, cranes, marine turtles, and sea otters. He was one of only a handful of lawmakers who opposed legislation to ban commerce in animal crush videos, to provide for pets in disaster planning, to ban the trade in dangerous primates as pets, to make dogfighting and cockfighting a felony, and to fund the enforcement of the federal animal fighting law. He has supported a handful of animal protection measures, to bar the trade in big cats as pets, to pair veterans with service dogs, and to cut funding for several government programs that harm animals, such as agriculture subsidies, lethal predator control, trapping on national wildlife refuges, and trophy hunting programs in foreign countries. 

Rick Perry: During his time as governor of Texas over the last decade, Perry has amassed a very strong record on animal protection, signing a number of animal protection bills into law, including measures to strengthen the animal cruelty and animal fighting laws multiple times, to regulate the private ownership of dangerous captive wildlife, to require the inclusion of animals in disaster plans, to protect bats, to allow the establishment of pet trusts, and to restrict the tethering of dogs, among others. The most recent legislative session was a banner year for animal protection lawmaking in Texas, and Perry signed bills in 2011 to regulate large-scale commercial dog and cat breeders, to ban attendance at cockfights and possession of cockfighting weapons, to require people convicted of cruelty to reimburse shelters for the costs of holding animals, and to allow pets and companion animals to be included in protective orders. The cockfighting industry and large-scale dog breeders urged him to veto these bills, and he tossed aside their concerns. He did veto a bill that would have allowed counties with populations greater than 450,000 to adopt ordinances regulating the roadside sale of animals. Perry famously paused while on a morning jog last year to shoot a coyote, and the state recently authorized the shooting of feral hogs from helicopters as well as the shooting of feral burros in Big Bend State Park. His staff members, however, are working with HSUS staff on the burro issue, and they have indicated that they are open to non-lethal approaches.

Mitt Romney: Romney attracted the ire of animal advocates when they learned that during a 1983 vacation, he put the family’s Irish setter, Seamus, in a carrier and strapped him to the roof rack of the station wagon. When the terrified dog urinated and defecated during the 12-hour drive, Romney pulled over, hosed down the dog, and continued the voyage from Boston to Ontario. As chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney also came under fire from animal protection groups for allowing a rodeo exhibition that included calf roping. His term as Massachusetts governor from 2003 to 2007 was mixed, and Romney did not distinguish himself on animal issues. He appointed a raft of animal-unfriendly people to the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board, even though Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure calling for more balanced wildlife policy. He vetoed a bill that would have given students the right to choose alternatives to animal dissection in the classroom. He did, however, sign a number of animal protection bills into law, including measures to strengthen the animal cruelty and animal fighting laws and prevent a convicted animal abuser from getting the animal back. 

Rick Santorum: Of all the candidates who have served in Congress, Santorum was arguably the most active on animal protection issues. He earned a 60 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 108^th Congress, and an 80 percent for the 109^th Congress. But more importantly, he was the lead sponsor of the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) to crack down on large-scale commercial puppy mills, and held a hearing on the bill when he was the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation. He was also a leader in the Senate urging adequate funding for the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the federal animal fighting law, and other animal welfare programs. He cosponsored legislation to establish federal felony penalties for dogfighting and cockfighting, cosponsored legislation to require the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze and engine coolant to prevent the poisoning of pets, and voted to stop the slaughter of American horses for food exports.

It’s clear that Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman have the strongest animal protection records. They showed leadership and active support for our issues, and HSLF commends them for their past performance. Bachmann and Paul have demonstrated a consistent hostility or indifference to these concerns. Romney has largely been indifferent and has not been an active supporter. Gingrich has been a bit enigmatic, but he understands the power of the human-animal bond and has taken action to protect some of the most charismatic species.

Stepping Up Enforcement Against Puppy Mills

The dogs are finally getting their day. In recent weeks, there have been two major actions that will step up federal enforcement to crack down on the worst puppy mill abuses in the country.

First, the U.S. Department of Agriculture moved to permanently revoke the licenses of two of the worst known puppy mill operators in the country, Marsha Cox of Mar-Don Kennels in Missouri, and Kathy Jo Bauck of Puppies on Wheels in Minnesota. Both operators had amassed page after page of Animal Welfare Act violations for issues such as filthy conditions, dogs in below-freezing temperatures without adequate protection from the bitter cold, and sickly or underweight dogs who had not been treated by a veterinarian. Bauck had been told to stop performing botched surgeries on dogs without a veterinary license in 2006, and convicted of animal cruelty and torture in 2009. It’s a wonder why such facilities were permitted to operate for so many years when conditions were so terrible, and we are grateful to the USDA for taking meaningful action to revoke these licenses.

These critical enforcement efforts then got an additional boost from congressional leaders, as they finalized work on the bill that funds USDA for this fiscal year. House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jack Kingston, R-Ga., and Ranking Member Sam Farr, D-Calif., announced that they will reprogram approximately $4 million for USDA to increase enforcement of problematic animal dealers, especially large-scale, commercial puppy mills. This funding prioritizes resources within the agency in the wake of problems revealed during a shocking internal audit last year.

The May 2010 audit by USDA’s Office of Inspector General revealed many deficiencies in APHIS’s Animal Care unit, which is charged with inspecting commercial puppy mills, kitten mills, and other large-scale animal dealers for compliance with the federal Animal Welfare Act. The audit revealed that “Animal Care’s enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers,” allowing serious repeat violators to continue to harm animals without significant penalties, that “Animal Care inspectors did not cite or document violations properly to support enforcement actions,” and that minimal, if any, penalties were applied. The report contained shocking photos taken by Animal Care’s inspectors, including a puppy mill dog whose leg was so badly damaged due to an untreated injury that the bones were fully exposed, and another with his face completely covered in ticks.

The report recommended numerous improvements to enhance enforcement and better protect dogs, but as always, funding is a key component to implementing significant changes. This new funding support from Congress will help the USDA to properly enforce violations, maintain a full staff of inspectors, better train and monitor inspectors, shut down some of the most problematic puppy mills, and help prevent future abuses of dogs.

“The Inspector General confirmed evidence of a growing problem with large-scale dog dealers or ‘puppy mills,” said Chairman Kingston. “We have come together on a bipartisan basis to give the USDA the necessary resources for enforcement without sacrificing any other area of plant or animal health. This is a temporary fix and we look forward to working with the USDA to establish a more structured and dedicated source of funding for this program.”

“For too long reckless dog breeders have taken advantage of a lack of proper oversight to increase their profits at the expense of the health of thousands of dogs,” said Ranking Member Farr. “Protecting the health and safety of young dogs has been a passion I have carried from my days in the California Legislature to the halls of Congress. It has been a long and hard effort to extend these protections to our most vulnerable pets. These funds will finally allow the USDA to properly enforce violations, shut down puppy mills, and prevent future abuses of dogs and unsuspecting consumers.” 

One of the most interesting aspects of the OIG audit report was its noting that public pressure helped drive the study: “In the last 2 years, there has been significant media coverage concerning large-scale dog dealers (i.e., breeders and brokers) that failed to provide humane treatment for the animals under their care. The breeders, negatively referred to as “puppy mills,” have stirred the interest of the public, Congress, animal rights groups, and others.” The public demand for stronger enforcement of puppy mill abuses continues, and an online petition asking the Obama administration to crack down on puppy mills selling directly to the public over the Internet now has more than 30,000 signatures, and is currently the most popular open petition on the White House web site. 

We are grateful to Chairman Kingston and Ranking Member Farr, as well as to Senate Chairman Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., and Ranking Member Roy Blunt, R-Mo., for taking action to address the OIG’s damning report and to step up enforcement at puppy mills. Thanks to their leadership, and to all the citizens who weighed in, hope may be on the horizon for many dogs suffering in puppy mills.

A Fin-Tastic Day at the Capitol

The Discovery Channel’s “Shark Week” wrapped up earlier this month, but yesterday was Shark Day at the California legislature. More than 100 animal advocates from across the state gathered at the capitol in Sacramento, many carrying stuffed toy sharks and wearing shark t-shirts, to advocate for A.B. 376. The legislation to ban the sale of shark fins, introduced by Assemblymembers Paul Fong, D-Cupertino, and Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, passed the Assembly in May by a vote of 65-8, and is now pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

Actress Bo Derek was among the lobbying team, and joined members of WildAid, The HSUS, Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance, and other groups in speaking to lawmakers about the proposed shark fin ban. As Derek told the committee, “Sharks have been around for nearly 400 million years, and yet many stocks may be wiped out in a single human generation due to the increasing demand for shark fins.”

Shark Day at the California Legislature
photo: Jennifer Fearing

Tens of millions of sharks are killed every year to supply the cruel and wasteful trade in shark fins used for shark fin soup. They’re obtained by cutting the fins off the shark and throwing the animal, often while still alive, back into the ocean to die a slow death. Sharks are our ocean’s top predators and are important for the health of all other marine species and our entire ocean ecosystems.

It’s one of the most wasteful forms of killing and unsustainable destruction of our ocean wildlife—all for a bowl of soup. In the last couple years, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands have all passed legislation to stem the tide of sharks being killed for their fins, and a federal bill signed by President Obama strengthens the enforcement of shark finning laws at sea. 

Now California must join its Pacific neighbors in stopping shark finning and extinction, especially because the state is the biggest market for shark fins outside of Asia. If you live in California, please take action and ask your state senator to support A.B. 376.

Deficit Reduction Must Tackle Ag Subsidies

Congressional leaders and the White House have reached an eleventh-hour deal to raise the debt ceiling and cut about $2.4 trillion in federal spending over the next 10 years. The deal still needs to pass both chambers of Congress to avoid defaulting on the federal debt. It appears both parties had to give more than they wanted to and tackle some tough issues, yet largely absent from the closing political debate, once again, has been the need to deal with the multi-billion-dollar federal subsidies for industrial agriculture, including many of the highest-earning and most profitable farmers in the land.

From 1995 to 2009, federal farm subsidies have cost taxpayers a quarter of a trillion dollars. Today’s agribusiness subsidies—paid at a time of record-high commodity prices—drive up the deficit and distort the market, while also jeopardizing public health, the environment, and animal welfare. Most of these excessive commodity subsidies go to a small number of large-scale, wealthy producers, keeping animal feed artificially cheap and encouraging massive factory farm development, while driving out smaller and more humane and sustainable farmers.

Congress can support small family farmers and reduce deficit spending by capping eligibility for subsidies to farmers with an adjusted gross income of $250,000 or less, and by capping the total amount of money an entity can receive under the commodity payments program of the Farm Bill at $125,000 or $250,000. Several amendments to rein in agriculture subsidies came up on the House floor earlier this year during debate over both the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2011 and the Fiscal Year 2012 agriculture spending bill, but it remains unclear whether Congress can finalize individual appropriations bills this year, and whether lawmakers aligned with the agribusiness lobby will continue trying to punt on the tough questions, putting them off until next year’s Farm Bill.

The Administration’s deficit reduction commission recommended cutting $10 billion in farm subsidies from 2012 to 2020, and the President’s FY12 budget proposal included a decrease of $3.2 billion for USDA, largely from direct payments to high-income farmers. The debt ceiling deal will create a new congressional commission to recommend government spending cuts, and we urge this group to finally say enough is enough and stand up to the lawmakers who keep fleecing American taxpayers for the benefit of corporate factory farms. It’s time to wean big agribusiness off the government trough. If the government is going to hand over subsidies, it should be to foster innovation and to incentivize best practices—not to provide hand-outs to big agriculture and to reward its poor conduct and consolidation.

Governor Brown Steps Up to Stop Animal Cruelty

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed two important animal protection bills into law this week, filling gaps in the law and marking more measurable progress for animals in the Golden State.

Senate Bill 917, introduced by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, prohibits the sale of animals in parking lots, alongside roads, at carnivals or boardwalks, and also increases the state’s criminal penalties for animal neglect. Animals sold at these unregulated, outdoor venues may live in unsanitary, crowded cages, without food or water, and without protection from extreme heat or cold. Some of the animals are so ill they die shortly after purchase, representing a problem for consumers as well as animal welfare.

Senate Bill 426, authored by Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, strengthens the state law against animal fighting, by allowing landlords to evict tenants who engage in the public nuisance of dogfighting or cockfighting activities on their property. California has weak penalties for cockfighting crimes, especially compared to neighboring states such as Arizona and Oregon, and it's become a magnet for animal fighters who want to evade the tougher penalties elsewhere. Just this past weekend, Madera County officials arrested nine people, including two juveniles, and seized 45 roosters at a property that borders a school and has been used repeatedly for cockfighting.

Sutter Brown, the governor's dog, getting a belly rub
from a Boy Scout troop.
photo: Jennifer Fearing

The bills on roadside sales and animal neglect, in fact, had passed the legislature before, but were vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had a schizophrenic record on animal welfare issues. The new governor’s signing of these common-sense policy reforms demonstrates just what a difference a single election can make and the importance of having humane-minded lawmakers elected to public office. The governor’s Welsh corgi, Sutter Brown, is not only a familiar tail wagging around the Capitol, but the governor’s support for animal welfare policies is getting noticed by animal advocates, too.

“Governor Brown’s signing of these bills signals his desire to enact meaningful reforms protecting animals in the Golden State,” said Jennifer Fearing, California senior state director for The HSUS. “With two strokes of his pen, Governor Brown brings us closer to stopping cruel animal fighting, unscrupulous peddling of animals on roads, and heartwrenching animal neglect. We are grateful for his humane leadership.”

The two California measures bring us up to 82 new laws for animal protection passed in the states so far in 2011. Some of the major highlights include Mississippi becoming the 47th state to establish felony-level penalties for animal cruelty, Oregon and Washington banning the sale of shark fins, Hawaii making it a felony to be a spectator at a dogfight, Texas cracking down on cockfighting and puppy mills, and a number of states strengthening the penalties for wildlife poaching and requiring the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze and engine coolant to prevent poisoning of pets and wildlife.

A few state legislatures are still in session, and we could see another record year for animal protection lawmaking as 2011 comes to a close. Please find out about the pending animal welfare bills in your state, as well as the federal bills in Congress, and let your elected officials know these public policies are important to you as a constituent. 

Taking the Profit Out of Animal Fighting

Over the last decade, The HSUS and HSLF have worked with Congress several times to strengthen the federal law to combat dogfighting and cockfighting, closing loopholes on commerce in fighting birds and weapons attached to them, upgrading the penalties for all animal fighting to a felony offense, and barring the possession and training of fighting animals. But there is still one particular deficiency in the federal law: While 49 states (all but Montana) make it a crime to attend an animal fight, with 27 having felony penalties for spectators, there is no federal prohibition to address the people who allow this criminal enterprise to thrive with their admission fees and gambling wagers.

We hope that will soon change, as U.S. Reps. Tom Marino, R-Pa., and Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, this week introduced H.R. 2492, the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act, to close this gaping loophole and stop the cruel people who fuel this criminal industry. Their bill would prohibit knowing attendance at organized animal fights and impose additional penalties for causing a minor to attend such events. Just last night, CBS 42 aired exclusive undercover video footage of cockfights in Central Alabama, showing young children ringside and illustrating what a problem this is.

Like any underground crime, dogfighting and cockfighting only thrive because people spend money on it. And these individuals don’t walk into a bar on Main Street and accidentally stumble across a dogfight. They knowingly seek out the criminal activity at clandestine locations, and they often quietly whisper secret passwords to enter. They pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in admission fees and gambling bets, generating the bulk of the revenue for this illegal enterprise. And they provide cover for dogfighters and cockfighters, who blend into crowds at the first sign of a police raid to evade prosecution.

As Rep. Marino said in introducing the bill, “As a former state and federal prosecutor, I’ve seen first-hand the criminal culture that surrounds animal fighting events and the damaging influence this environment has on our children. We try to protect our kids from criminal violence and yet there is no safeguard for those adults who take impressionable children to animal fights where they can witness these heinous acts in person. I introduced this legislation to make sure that law enforcement has all of the tools necessary to deprive the organizers and profiteers of these horrific events from receiving the support they need to continue this activity.”

Rep. Sutton added, “Animal fighting is a horrible and barbaric activity, and by making it a federal crime for individuals to knowingly attend these events or bring minors to them, we will make tremendous strides in putting an end to it once and for all. I am proud to stand with Members from both sides of the aisle and look forward to passing this common-sense, humane legislation.”
 
Congress should act swiftly to pass this bill and crack down on the entire cast of characters involved in animal fighting. The spectators are not innocent bystanders—they are willing participants in organized crime who are there for their own amusement and gambling profits and because they are titillated by the bloodletting. Take away the spectators and you take away the profit. Our laws should be tough enough to stop people from financing the torture of animals.

Progress for Farm Animals in Ohio

The Ohio Department of Agriculture has denied a permit for an Iowa-based agribusiness company, Hi-Q Egg Products, to construct a new battery cage facility confining six million egg-laying hens, which would be in addition to the nearly 27 million already in cages in the state. It’s a proposal that was vehemently opposed by Union County citizen groups, animal welfare advocates, environmentalists and family farmers who didn’t want the industrial operation and its accompanying air and water pollution. It’s a positive development that the company has retreated on its request and said it won’t appeal the agency’s decision, although there is concern over a bill in the Ohio legislature, HB 229, that would make it easier for new factory farms to evade the need for local approval in the future.

The HSUS
Egg laying hens confined in a battery cage

One element of the carefully-crafted agreement on animal welfare issues reached last summer by The HSUS and Ohio agricultural leaders was an immediate moratorium on the construction of new battery cages, where hens are crammed into spaces so small they can barely move an inch for their entire lives. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, in fact, has approved a package of farm animal welfare rules reflecting all of the agricultural elements of the agreement—a ban on new battery cage construction, a phase-out of all veal crates for calves and gestation crates for breeding pigs, a ban on transporting downed cattle too sick or injured to walk to slaughter, and standards for the humane euthanasia of sick animals on the farm—along with a phase-out for tail-docking of dairy cattle. During the process, there was concern that the veal rule would be weakened, and calves would be allowed to be confined in crates for the first half of their lives, but after hearing from more than 4,700 Ohio residents, the board voted unanimously to restore the original crate ban. This entire package of agency regulations is now awaiting final approval by a legislative committee.

The non-agricultural elements of the animal welfare agreement are not as far along in the process, but we hope they will be soon. We expect legislation to be introduced shortly in the Ohio legislature to strengthen the state’s anemic penalties for illegal cockfighting—among the weakest in the nation—and to set standards for the care of dogs in large-scale puppy mills. An emergency rule banning the private acquisition of dangerous wild animals as pets—big cats, bears, primates, wolves, alligators, crocodiles, and large constrictor and venomous snakes—has expired, but the Ohio Department of Natural Resources is working with stakeholders to develop new permanent regulations.

In short, nearly a year after the Ohio agreement, we’re well on our way toward seeing implementation on a wide range of animal welfare policies, and we’re on track to raise Ohio’s ranking from one of the worst states on animal welfare to one of the better ones. As Steve Hoffman wrote in the Akron Beacon Journal, “There is still work to do, but so far there has been give-and-take.” Working together to find solutions has elevated the political reputation of the animal welfare movement in Ohio, and has already resulted in victory for millions of animals.

Introducing the Animals & Politics Podcast

I'm pleased to introduce my new Animals & Politics podcast. Click on the player below to listen, or you can click here. I am grateful to my friend Patrick Ferrise for hosting the first podcast. From time to time in this forum, you’ll be hearing from me about proud accomplishments of our elected leaders and regulatory officials on behalf of animals. But today I want to draw your attention to a couple of stories about government’s abject failures.

Michael Markarian - Animals & Politics Podcast #1

20 Years of Advances for Animals

This morning I spoke to a group of animal welfare advocates from around the world gathered in Orlando, Fla., for The HSUS’s 20th anniversary Animal Care Expo, the largest trade show for animal care and sheltering professionals. Several leaders in the field looked back over two decades and reported on progress that has been made for animal welfare. I offered some observations on the advances for animal protection legislation over the past 20 years.

Throughout a large part of the twentieth century, few animal welfare groups focused on state policy, and fewer still on national policy. Nonetheless, there were several ballot initiatives dealing with vivisection, rodeo, moose hunting, steel-jawed leghold traps, and veal crates, with voters rejecting most of the measures. Only one of them passed—a 1972 measure in South Dakota to ban dove hunting—but voters reversed the dove hunting ban eight years later.

In 1988, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to institute a mountain lion hunting season. Animal protection advocates sued the state to delay the onset of the hunting. Concomitantly, they launched and qualified an initiative—with volunteers amassing in excess of 600,000 signatures—to ban any trophy hunting of lions. In June 1990, voters approved the measure, and its passage sparked renewed interest in the initiative process by animal protection advocates.

Since 1990, HSUS and its affiliates (The Fund for Animals, Doris Day Animal League, and HSLF) have been involved in 42 statewide ballot campaigns, and have won 30, for a 72% win rate, one of the highest of any social movement. During the past 20 years, when voters have been asked to weigh in on animal protection policies, time and time again they have sided with animals: five states have banned cruel traps, four states have banned hound hunting and bear baiting; three states have banned cockfighting; three states have banned the confinement of farm animals; and states have taken action on horse slaughter, greyhound racing, puppy mills, and other subjects.

With citizens directly voting in favor of animal protection reforms at the ballot box, it has sent a message to lawmakers that there is widespread and bipartisan support for these policies, and has helped to provide support for additional laws passed through representative government. Consider the dramatic changes in just 20 years:

• In 1991 only seven states had felony-level penalties for animal cruelty (California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin). Today, 47 states have felony animal cruelty laws, with Mississippi’s cruelty law enacted just last week and only North Dakota, South Dakota, and Idaho now remaining as outliers.
• In 1991 only 14 states considered dogfighting a felony offense. Today, all 50 states make it a felony, and we have a national policy on the issue.
• In 1991 five states allowed legal cockfighting (Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, and Oklahoma), and of the 45 that banned it, only 13 had felony penalties. Today, cockfighting is banned in all 50 states, and a felony in 39.
• In 1991 there were virtually no restrictions on standard agricultural practices. Today seven states have banned or are phasing out the extreme confinement of farm animals in crates or cages.
• In 1991 only 17 states had some licensing and regulation of large-scale commercial dog breeders. Today, the laws in many states have been strengthened, and 31 states now have laws in place to crack down on puppy mills.
• In 1991 virtually no state laws required disaster plans to include animals, yet post-Katrina 16 states passed laws to protect animals in disasters, and the Congress passed a national policy on the subject.

All in all, with an average of 50 new laws for animals passed in the states each year, we estimate there have been at least 1,000 new statutes for animal protection enacted since 1991. Add to that the federal laws on animal crush videos, fur labeling, shark finning, big cats as pets, chimpanzee sanctuaries, pet food safety, animal fighting, dog and cat fur, alternatives to animal testing, pets in air travel, military and law enforcement dogs, puppy mill imports, banning USDA inspections of horse slaughter, and so many other successes, and the past two decades have been an unprecedented era of lawmaking for animal protection.

With new innovations over the last 20 years, there have been new issues to confront. Who ever thought, for example, that the Internet would be used to allow people to shoot animals at canned hunts remotely with the click of a mouse or the stroke of a keyboard? Now, 40 states have taken action to ban Internet hunting. And with the progress made on animal protection issues around the country, our opponents are fighting back with new tactics of their own—such as the “Ag Gag” laws proposed in Florida, Iowa, and Minnesota to ban journalists and whistleblowers from reporting on factory farm abuses. 

Whatever the challenges of the coming decades, and whatever new issues emerge, we will be prepared to continue the fight for animal protection. But today we look back and celebrate the progress of the last 20 years and the public policies that have prevented so much cruelty and abuse.