Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

An Eye on 2014: Anti-Animal Politicians In the Mix

Some of the leading opponents of animal welfare in the U.S. House of Representatives may run for the U.S. Senate in 2014, where if elected they would ostensibly have more power to block common-sense animal protection policies. While Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has not yet made a final announcement about whether he will seek the open seat vacated by five-term Sen. Tom Harkin (a great friend to animal welfare), we do know that Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., was the first to throw his hat in the ring to succeed two-term Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

The African lion Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., hunted and ate,
on display in his congressional office.
photo: Betsy Woodruff, National Review

Broun has one of the most extreme anti-animal voting records in the Congress; time and again he opposes the most modest efforts to prevent cruelty and abuse, and he goes out of his way to attack animal protection. Although he is a medical doctor, he voted twice, in 2008 and 2009, to allow the trade in monkeys, chimpanzees, and other primates as exotic pets, which can injure children and adults and spread deadly diseases such as tuberculosis and herpes-B virus. He voted to allow the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. Shockingly, he was one of only three lawmakers to vote against legislation in 2010 to ban the trafficking in obscene animal “crush” videos, in which scantily clad women in high heels crush puppies, kittens, and other small animals to death for the sexual titillation of viewers.

Before coming to Congress, Broun was a volunteer lobbyist for Safari Club International, an extremist trophy hunting group that advocates for the killing of threatened and endangered species around the globe and at canned hunts here at home. The organization’s PAC has given more than $15,000 to Broun since 2007, and he has been their point man in the House. His congressional office has so many dead, stuffed animals on display—including an African lion, a bear, and a Dall sheep—that Roll Call described it as “something between a zoo and a pet cemetery.” Broun recently told National Review about his international hunting exploits, saying that he dined on African lion meat: “The lion wasn’t particularly tasty. It was kind of chewy, but I ate it too.”

So it was with enthusiasm that he voted to allow wealthy American trophy hunters to import the heads and hides of threatened polar bears killed for sport in the Arctic, and he voted to allow the carrying of loaded firearms in national parks and open more national park units to sport hunting. Although he claims to be a conservationist, he voted against programs to support the conservation of marine turtles, Southern sea otters, imperiled crane populations, and rare dog and cat species such as wolves, leopards, and jaguars around the world. And he voted to weaken the Endangered Species Act and prevent the listing of imperiled species and designation of critical habitat. With this voting record, he doesn’t bear even a passing resemblance to a conservationist.

Although he claims to be a fiscal conservative, Broun votes to spend our tax dollars when they serve his own interests. He supported a $12 million package that would overturn key protections for threatened polar bears, expand sport hunting on federal lands, and prevent restrictions on toxic lead ammunition that poisons wildlife and the environment. And he voted to spend millions of tax dollars to kill predators with steel-jawed leghold traps, toxic poisons, and other inhumane methods, as a subsidy for private livestock ranchers.

Broun is certain to face a competitive Republican primary, and given his extremist views, he won’t get a pass in the general election from Democrats. HSLF will be exposing his record every step of the way, and we’ll keep you updated as the 2014 races begin to take shape, and as we take stock of what’s at stake for animal welfare.

The 700 Club

The animal protection movement hit a major marker this week, with 700 new animal protection laws enacted in the states since 2005. Two bills signed into law in New Mexico—allowing the purchase of protective equipment for police dogs and the adoption of the dogs after their retirement—ushered in the 699th and 700th new state policies during that time period.
 
Since the launch of the Humane Society Legislative Fund in 2005, we and our partners, including The HSUS, Doris Day Animal League, and state and local animal welfare groups around the country, have helped to reshape the legal landscape for animal protection in the states. Dogfighting is now a felony in all 50 states, and cockfighting is illegal in all 50 and a felony in 40. All but one state (Montana) have criminal penalties for animal fighting spectators, all but two (North Dakota and South Dakota) have felony-level penalties for malicious animal cruelty, and all but three (New York, Texas, and West Virginia) make it a felony to possess fighting dogs. All but six states (Alabama, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) now restrict the private ownership of dangerous wildlife such as big cats, primates, wolves, bears, and venomous snakes, to one degree or another, to protect public safety and the animals themselves who are caught up in the trade. Seventeen states require the addition of a bittering agent in antifreeze and engine coolant to prevent the poisoning of animals, and this lawmaking led to a voluntary agreement with the industry to change the sweet-tasting product nationwide.
 
We are marching forward to close the gaps in the legal framework where they exist, and increase the penalties and provide additional tools for law enforcement. Hundreds of new laws have been passed to protect pets and service animals, help animal shelters, crack down on abuses at large-scale commercial puppy mills, and protect wildlife and equines. And issues that were perceived as very difficult just eight years ago, such as improving the treatment of animals on industrial factory farms, are making progress as well: Nine states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, and Rhode Island) now ban the extreme confinement of breeding pigs in metal gestation cages where they can’t turn around for virtually their entire lives, and four (California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island) ban the practice of dairy cow tail-docking, the routine and painful amputation of cows’ tails. 
 
More issues are on the move this year, and just yesterday, the New Jersey Assembly overwhelmingly approved A. 3250 to ban gestation crates, by a vote of 60 to 5. The bill now goes to the Senate for concurrence and then to Gov. Chris Christie, and if enacted, will make New Jersey the tenth state to address this abusive pork industry practice. This week, the West Virginia Senate Natural Resources Committee passed S.B. 466 to ban dangerous wild animals as pets—moving the state one step closer in cracking down on this unregulated practice. This morning, the Maryland House Environmental Matters Committee passed H.B. 1148 to ban the trade in shark fins—a critical step toward Maryland becoming the first Atlantic state to join California, Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington in cracking down on the brutal practice of cutting off sharks’ fins at sea and leaving them to die slow and painful deaths for shark fin soup. Other priority bills that lawmakers will consider this year including banning toxic lead ammunition that poisons wildlife and the environment in California, prohibiting hound hunting and trapping of bears in Maine, and protecting dogs and their families from a dangerous policy that discriminates against pit bulls in Maryland.

We are blocking policies that harm animals, too: We and our coalition partners with Keep Michigan Wolves Protected are preparing to submit more than 225,000 signatures of Michigan voters to qualify for the statewide ballot and repeal the legislature’s authorization of a sport hunting and trapping season on wolves, a species just beginning to recover from the brink of extinction.
 
Join us in celebrating this milestone for animal protection policymaking, and help usher in more laws to prevent cruelty and abuse, by contacting your state lawmakers today.

Unfinished Business: Cracking Down on Animal Fighting Spectators

The first major animal protection bill of the 113th Congress was introduced today, and it’s a key piece of unfinished business that got to the one-yard line in the last session. U.S. Reps. Tom Marino, R-Pa., Jim McGovern, D-Mass., John Campbell, R-Calif., and Jim Moran, D-Va., have reintroduced the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act—to close a loophole in the federal animal fighting statute and make it a crime to attend or bring a child to a dogfight or cockfight. We are grateful to these lawmakers for leading this effort in the House of Representatives, and hope you will take action and ask your own U.S. Representative to join as a co-sponsor of H.R. 366.

During the last Congress, the Senate passed this reform twice—first during debate on the Farm Bill in June, when it was approved as an amendment by a vote of 88 to 11, and second on its own, when it passed by voice vote in December. The House Agriculture Committee also approved the legislation by a vote of 26 to 19, when it was offered as an amendment to the Farm Bill in July. But the House and Senate didn’t reach agreement on a final Farm Bill. And House leaders failed to allow a floor vote on the free-standing animal fighting bill, even though it had 228 House cosponsors (more than half of the House), had zero cost to the government, and was endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and more than 300 sheriffs and police departments from all 50 states.

Spectators are more than just bystanders at animal fights. It is spectator admission fees and gambling dollars that finance these criminal operations. Each time two more animals are placed in the pit, the spectators start shouting out bets, gambling on which animal will kill the other. Even worse, animal fighters use the spectator loophole as a means to avoid prosecution. At the first sign of a raid many will abandon their animals and blend into the crowd, claiming to be spectators as a way to avoid prosecution.

Moreover, outlawing attendance at animal fights is a well-established, legally sound, workable enforcement mechanism. Already 49 states have laws banning attendance at dogfights and 43 states prohibit attendance at cockfights. Montana is the only state where it’s still legal to attend a dogfight. When animal fighting cases are brought by state and local officials, those laws are put to use.

But many animal fighting rings are multi-jurisdictional in nature. A local sheriff does not have the authority or the resources to go to other states to question people who attend an animal fight or may otherwise be involved in an animal fighting ring that originates in their backyard but involves numerous others living in other jurisdictions. In those cases, federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture step in and investigate. Federal agents use federal laws, and the current federal animal fighting statute, while strong in many respects, has this one remaining gap that needs to be filled. H.R. 366 will give law enforcement the tools they need to make sure that the entire cast of characters involved in animal fighting is prosecuted.

HSUS investigators have assisted law enforcement agents in many dogfighting and cockfighting raids throughout the years, and one constant reality at these fights is the presence of children. It’s hard to imagine a place less appropriate for a child than an animal fight filled with cruelty, blood-letting and criminal activity. One recent case put a spotlight on this very issue: In December, police in Chester County, Pa., discovered a dogfighting pit in a home where five children lived.

H.R. 366 would finally make it a federal crime to knowingly bring a minor to an animal fight, and crack down on the spectators who fuel the criminal animal fighting industry with their admission fees and gambling wagers. Please add your voice and encourage your U.S. Representative to co-sponsor this critical legislation today.

Michigan Voters to Make their Voices Heard on Wolf Hunting

I’ve just returned from western and northern Michigan, where I joined animal advocates, tribal leaders, and conservationists at kick-off meetings to launch the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected ballot measure campaign, and to turn back the state legislature’s recently passed bill authorizing the trophy hunting of wolves for the first time in nearly 50 years. Dozens of volunteers in Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Marquette, and other communities have joined the “Wolf Pack,” each pledging to gather 687 signatures of Michigan voters—one for every wolf in the state’s fragile and recovering population.

Those volunteers are hitting the streets in frigid winter temperatures, and bringing us closer to our goal of collecting 225,000 signatures over the next two months to qualify the referendum for the November 2014 ballot. Gathering the necessary signatures and securing a place on the ballot would stay the legislature’s bill from taking effect for the next two years—until Michigan voters have the opportunity to have their say on the issue in November 2014—potentially saving hundreds of wolves from recreational hunting and trapping. And if Michigan voters ultimately say “No” to the wolf hunting bill, they could save thousands of wolves over the next decade or more.

Wolves have been protected under the Endangered Species Act for decades, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Congress recently stripped the species of all federal protections in the Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies, respectively, turning over management to states with hostile and aggressive hunting and trapping plans. Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming all rushed to kill these rare creatures, allowing especially cruel and unfair practices, such as painful steel-jawed leghold traps, hunting over bait, and using packs of dogs to chase down and kill wolves—even killing Yellowstone’s celebrated wolves that had been studied for years. Michigan lawmakers rushed a bill through in the lame-duck session over the holidays to add to this carnage, but Michigan may become the first state in the country where the voters, not the politicians, will make the final decision on whether to open a wolf hunting season. 

It’s not right to spend decades bringing the wolf back from the brink of extinction only to turn around and allow them to be killed for sport. What’s more, it’s already legal in Michigan to kill wolves in order to protect livestock or dogs, and allowing the killing of wolves just for sport is unnecessary and will accomplish nothing. People don’t eat wolves, and it’s just pointless trophy hunting for no good purpose.

If you live in Michigan, please join the campaign to save wolves from the same reckless sport hunting and persecution that put these animals on the endangered species list in the first place. Kick-off events are being held this week in Lansing, Kalamazoo, Flint, Ann Arbor and Detroit—you can attend one closest to you, or sign up here to volunteer. With your help, we can send the message that voters want wolves protected, not persecuted.

Paid for with regulated funds by the committee to Keep Michigan Wolves Protected,
5859 W. Saginaw Hwy. #273, Lansing, MI 48917

Hot Off the Press: The 2012 Humane Scorecard

Before the November election, I posted a preliminary version of the 2012 Humane Scorecard, and last week, after the conclusion of Congress’ “lame-duck” session, I provided a look at our year in review for animals. We made some modest progress, but the 112th Congress left a lot of unfinished business on animal protection issues, paving the way for a challenging new session.

I’m pleased to announce today that the Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2012 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during the two-year session of the 112th Congress. We rated legislators based on their votes on issues such as agribusiness subsidies, criminal penalties for attendance at animal fighting spectacles, and a pro-gun, anti-wildlife package; their cosponsorship of priority bills on eggs and hen housing, chimps warehoused in research labs, animal fighting, and puppy mills; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection measures. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we counted garnered strong bipartisan support; in the House, they ranged from 154 to 228 cosponsors, and in the Senate from 18 to 33.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. The HSUS historically and in recent years HSLF have been publishing the Humane Scorecard since the 103rd Congress (which covered 1993-1994), so this annual congressional snapshot has been available for two decades.

When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps demonstrate the level of support animal protection ideas hold in different regions of the country and with the two major political parties. It provides a look back and a look ahead by evaluating where we have been effective, and where we need to focus our energies in the coming months. In looking at the record for the 112th Congress, you’ll see that much more needs to be done, and we are ready to move forward in the new 113th Congress.

Here are a few of the most important statistics from 2012:

• A bipartisan group of 33 Senators and 113 Representatives covering 38 states, three U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia led as prime sponsors of pro-animal legislation and/or scored a perfect 100—one-third of the Senate and more than one-quarter of the House.

• The average Senate score was a 51, with Senate Democrats averaging 59, Senate Republicans averaging 41, and Senate Independents averaging 93.

• The average House score was a 42, with House Democrats averaging 75, and House Republicans averaging 16.

• Nine Senators scored 100 or 100+.

• No Senators scored zero.

• Sixty-one Representatives scored 100 or 100+.

• Ninety Representatives scored zero.

• The New England region led the pack with an average House score of 85 and an average Senate score of 77, followed closely by the Mid-Atlantic region with a House score of 64 and a Senate score of 62, and the West with a House score of 58 and a Senate score of 66.

• The Rocky Mountains and the Southeast were at the bottom with average House scores of 24 and 26, respectively, and average Senate scores of 37 and 39.

• There was no state with an average Senate score of 100, nor any state in which both Senators scored zero.

• Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont were the only states with an average House score above 80, and of them, only Rhode Island had an average House score of 100.

• Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming were the only states with an average House score of zero, while Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah had an average House score in single digits.

I’d like to give special thanks to the following three Senators and 25 Representatives who scored the highest possible 100+, meaning they had a perfect score on animal protection and also provided key leadership on a particular issue or issues:

• Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

• Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

• Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)

• Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.)

• Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.)

• Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.)

• Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)

• Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)

• Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

• Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

• Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

• Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

• Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.)

• Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)

• Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)

• Rep. Ed Towns (D-N.Y.)

• Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio)

• Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.)

• Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.)

• Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)

• Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.)

• Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.)

I hope you will use the Humane Scorecard as a guide, and communicate with your lawmakers about their grades for 2012. If they scored high marks, please thank them for their support of animal protection. If they did poorly, please tell them you’re watching and you expect they’ll attempt to do better in 2013. Let all your federal legislators know that you and other constituents care about the humane treatment of animals, and want to see common-sense policies enacted to protect these creatures from cruelty and abuse and to foster decency and mercy in our dealings with all types of animals.

NRA is All Muzzle and No Bullet

A few days after the election, an excerpt from this Washington Post editorial on the waning power of the NRA caught my eye:

Examination by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence of spending by the National Rifle Association in the 2012 elections showed that, of the $11.8 million spent to defeat President Obama and $3.4 million across six key Senate races—88 percent of its federal independent expenditures—the gun lobby could claim no victories; all of its candidates lost. This evidence that the association’s ability to influence elections may be exaggerated should stiffen the spines of Mr. Obama and congressional leaders to take on this important issue—before another person touched by gun violence has to stand up in court to offer words about the horrors of loss.

In fact, when you look at all of the NRA’s endorsed federal candidates, the gun lobby won only 45 percent of Senate races and 83.6 percent of House races. Compare that to congressional candidates endorsed by the Humane Society Legislative Fund, who won 83.3 percent of Senate races and 92 percent of House races. There is some overlap as both groups tend to endorse large numbers of incumbents, and not all the races were competitive—but it’s the third election cycle in a row, regardless of whether there were gains by Democrats or Republicans, in which the pro-animal endorsement muzzled the pro-gun endorsement.

The most important comparison, perhaps, lies in the 34 races where the NRA and HSLF went head-to-head and endorsed opposing candidates. Both groups generally throw their weight behind candidates who are viable, so these were all competitive contests, and some were decided by very narrow margins. Of these races, HSLF won 27 and NRA won only seven—meaning HSLF was the victor 79.4 percent of the time to the NRA’s 20.6 percent. In four out of every five races, the HSLF candidate edged out the NRA candidate.

HSLF went seven for nine in the head-to-head Senate match-ups, winning in Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin—some of which would typically be considered strong NRA states where the group spent collectively more than $2.3 million on independent expenditures—for an HSLF win rate of 77.8 percent. And on the House side, HSLF won 20 contests and the NRA five, for an HSLF win rate of 80 percent. The winners included strong animal protection supporters like Reps. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., and Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., returning Reps. Dan Maffei, D-N.Y., and Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., and a leading animal advocate from the Arizona state legislature, Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., each of whom the NRA spent thousands of dollars trying to defeat.

The fact that the NRA spent millions of dollars on elections without much to show for it, and continues to trail behind HSLF on election outcomes, demonstrates that the NRA’s political influence is not only overstated, but is evaporating. Lawmakers who continue to fear the gun group and romanticize its political prowess have simply favored mythology over effectiveness. This isn’t a revelation for us, because we’ve faced off against the NRA in statewide ballot initiatives, and have typically prevailed, even in some of the biggest hunting states in the country, on practices such as hounding and baiting of bears and cougars, steel-jawed leghold traps, and mourning dove hunting, and on blocking the NRA’s attempts to prevent future ballot measures on wildlife protection.

Lawmakers haven’t yet caught up to the voters, and this has been on full display in the Senate lately as both Democrats and Republicans have been falling all over themselves to pass an NRA grab bag—the so-called “Sportsmen’s Act,” S. 3525, to allow imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies, prevent restrictions on toxic lead ammunition, and usher in other anti-wildlife policies. Fortunately, the bill hit a roadblock last night when it failed to get 60 votes on a procedural motion; it will likely be back in the lame-duck session. 

The NRA continues to push extreme policies like polar bear trophy hunting and poisoning our environment with toxic lead, and to oppose common-sense restrictions on inhumane and unsporting practices such as canned hunts, baiting and hounding of bears, aerial gunning of wolves, and even poaching. The group puts its loyalists in a political box, and it seems that lawmakers who demonstrate their fealty to the NRA rarely even benefit in the end. This election cycle is one more example of the NRA’s message having limited appeal to core ideologues, while HSLF’s message of protecting animals from cruelty and abuse has a universal reach with mainstream constituencies, including swing voters who will be critical to both parties in tough races.

Election Wrap-Up: Mixed Results for Animals, Hope on the Horizon

Last night’s election returns ushered in some important changes for our country, but with the existing political alignment largely retained—and, in this case, with some new names and faces and with more Democrats in each chamber of Congress. The big story was, naturally, that the American public re-elected President Obama, and we congratulate him and look forward to working with his administration to build on his animal protection record. A number of pending regulatory actions are in the pipeline on puppy mills, downer veal calves, chimpanzees in research, and other animal protection issues, and we hope to get these over the finish line soon and to jumpstart other issues in the next four years. But the election again showed the continuing partisan divisions in the country, and that division is a reminder that HSLF must, more than ever, remain committed to a bipartisan approach to drive forward an animal protection agenda and to figure out ways to conduct the business of the country without causing abuse and harm to animals.

U.S. Senate

Senate candidates endorsed by HSLF won 15 of 18 state contests, for an 83.3 percent win rate. We helped to elect strong supporters of animal protection from the House to open Senate seats in competitive states—including Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc. (with 51.4 percent of the vote), Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. (51 percent), and Chris Murphy, D-Conn. (55 percent)—who will grow the ranks of animal advocates in the Senate. We also helped to re-elect some of our leading champions on animal protection bills—including Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Ben Cardin, D-Md., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Bob Menendez, D-N.J., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.—all of whom will be coming back for another term. The alternatives in some of those races would have been hostile to animal protection issues, including former Gov. Tommy Thompson, R-Wisc., who campaigned with hunting enthusiast and NRA board member Ted Nugent, and Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fla., who has opposed most animal welfare bills. 

We lost a leader for animal protection in the Senate with the defeat of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and we thank him for his strong support of animal welfare issues during his time in office; we expect the winner of that seat, Elizabeth Warren, to be a supporter of animal protection. We also were unsuccessful in Arizona and Nevada, with Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., defeating Dr. Richard Carmona, and Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., defeating Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., in competitive races. We will reach out to the winners of those contests as well as to other Senate victors in states where HSLF had not made any endorsement, and look forward to working with them in the 113th Congress.

U.S. House

House candidates backed by HSLF appear poised to win in 166 of 180 congressional districts, for a 92 percent win rate. With aggressive direct mail, phone banking, and grassroots outreach, we helped lawmakers from both sides of the aisle win re-election in very competitive seats—including Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. (with 56.6 percent of the vote), Michael Grimm, R-N.Y. (52.8 percent), Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. (54.1 percent), Gary Miller, R-Calif. (55.3 percent), Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo. (53.3 percent), and John Tierney, D-Mass. (winning with a plurality of 48.3 percent, by just 3,650 votes). A number of former House members, backed by HSLF, are coming back to Congress—including Dan Maffei, D-N.Y., Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., and Dina Titus, D-Nev.—all of whom had outstanding records on animal protection when they previously served, and we are pleased to have them back in office. And some state legislative champions of animal protection, such as Assemblywoman Grace Meng, D-N.Y., who sponsored a bill in New York to ban the trade in shark fins, will be new members of the 113th Congress.

One race still appears too close to call, but HSLF-backed candidate Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who was the leading animal advocate in the Arizona Legislature, is currently ahead of her opponent by about 2,100 votes. We lost several House members who were strong supporters of animal protection and were in highly competitive races—including Reps. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., Howard Berman, D-Calif., Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., Bob Dold, R-Ill., Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., and Betty Sutton, D-Ohio—and we thank them for their public service and their strong leadership on the humane treatment of animals. We have strong expectations that the winners of those races, with the exception of Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, will be advocates for our cause.

One of the top priorities for HSLF was the race between Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Christie Vilsack in Iowa’s newly drawn 4th Congressional District. King has been one of the leading opponents of animal protection in Congress, and he survived his race last night, defeating Vilsack by a vote of 53.2 to 44.6 percent. HSLF ran TV ads in the district, letting voters know about King’s voting record on animal fighting, pets in disasters, and other animal protection bills. Although King won, the race became much more competitive than it had originally been, and animal issues became part of the discourse in rural western Iowa. Four of the five major newspapers in the district opposed King in their endorsements, and voters—about half of whom are represented by King for the first time due to redistricting—are now aware of his record on animal protection and will hopefully hold him accountable on future votes. Animal issues are being discussed even in the most rural, conservative parts of the country, and HSLF does not shy away from taking on these tough fights.

State Races

HSLF made endorsements only in select state races, where the candidates were especially strong animal advocates and leaders for our cause. We are pleased to report that former Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., backed by HSLF, has the lead in Washington’s gubernatorial race, and Kathleen Kane, with a strong record on prosecuting animal cruelty cases, has won the attorney general’s post in Pennsylvania. State Rep. John Maher, R-Pa., lost his bid for auditor general, but we look forward to continuing to work with him in the legislature as the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the Keystone State.

Other longtime animal advocates in state legislatures were victorious, with help from HSLF, including Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Wash., who has led the effort to retain voter-approved prohibitions on bear baiting, cougar hounding, and steel-jawed leghold traps; Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Calif., who led California’s effort to ban the trade in shark fins; and Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Calif., who authored a bill to prevent landlords from forcing tenants to de-claw cats and de-bark dogs, and helped pass California’s ban on hound hunting of bears and bobcats as chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. A chief opponent of animal protection, Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Colo., who had introduced a bill to allow sport hunting of bears during the spring when mother bears are nursing dependent cubs, was defeated by 768 votes, thanks to the work of animal advocates.

Ballot Measures

As I wrote last night, North Dakota voters rejected Measure 5, but they did not reject the idea that there must be a felony animal cruelty law in the state. It’s largely a settled matter due to this ballot initiative campaign, and the opponents of the measure have pledged to pass legislation in 2013 to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty. We consider that a win for animals, and will work hard to make sure it happens next year. California voters approved Prop 30, by a vote of 54 to 46 percent, which protects future funding for law enforcement, including animal protection and anti-poaching laws.

You can see the full list of HSLF-endorsed candidates and outcomes in our Voter Guide. All in all, while the results were mixed for animals in races across the country, and some contests have yet to be decided, we have great hope and optimism that the cause of animal protection will continue to make gains in Congress, in state legislatures, and with regulatory agencies. Animal protection issues are being discussed as part of the political discourse like never before, and voters in every corner of our country—red states and blue states—are becoming aware of the challenges facing animals and the steps needed to protect them and prevent large-scale cruelty and abuse. Thank you to everyone who voted, volunteered, and got the word out for humane candidates across the country—your efforts continue to make a difference.

Building a Consensus on Animal Cruelty in North Dakota

There is disappointing news from North Dakota tonight, as Measure 5 appears to be going down to defeat. The opponents of this measure, mostly ranching and farming trade associations, were able to cast doubt among voters and tell them the proposed felony animal cruelty law was written by “outside” groups, as if the language morphs into something different depending on who backs it. Would any reasonable person expect anything but that HSLF and The HSUS would back an upgrade of the anti-cruelty law? 

But the good news is that supporters and opponents agreed that North Dakota needs a felony cruelty statute, and Measure 5 was the catalyst for that discussion. Even the newspaper editorials opposing Measure 5—parroting our opponents—said the legislature must enact a strong and comprehensive law and make North Dakota the 49th state with felony-level penalties for malicious animal cruelty.

The North Dakota Legislature has failed for years to strengthen North Dakota’s weak anti-cruelty law, and last year even voted down a bill to study the issue. Now there’s an emerging consensus on the subject, and we hope it’s just a matter of time before the worst acts of cruelty are penalized with more than just a slap on the wrist. This issue is now on the public agenda because of the Measure 5 campaign, and the work of the dedicated North Dakota volunteers who gathered signatures and drove the public discussion on the need to protect animals in the state.

Even in one of the most rural, agriculture-oriented states in the country, like North Dakota, animal protection issues are now part of the public discourse. We may have lost the short-term vote, but animal advocates are gaining long-term ground by planting the seeds of reform and building a network of advocates and supporters who are fighting for this cause.

Our opponents said during this campaign they plan to enact a strong and comprehensive felony cruelty statute to protect all animals in 2013. We plan to hold them accountable on that pledge, and they will find our coalition ready to help. If they fail to pass a felony cruelty bill, however, we should expect to see another ballot measure in 2014, and the voters will know how hollow their promises were. These issues are ascendant, even in tough states, and are not going away.

Election Day Humane Voter Guide

If you’re ready for the election to be over, you’re not alone. After months of campaigning, TV ads, and robo-calls, tomorrow is the day when the vast majority of voters cast their ballots on the presidential, congressional, state and local races around the country.

Before heading to the polls, I hope you’ll check out the Humane Society Legislative Fund’s Voter Guide for a list of endorsed candidates and election recommendations in your state.

Animal advocates need to know who is standing up for their interests, and which candidates are friends of animal protection. HSLF is a nonpartisan organization, and endorses Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who have demonstrated a record of commitment to protecting animals from cruelty and abuse. Our full slate of endorsements reflects that nonpartisan approach.

By clicking on the map, you’ll find a list of humane candidates who are supported by HSLF in critical races for U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, as well as some state and local races where champions of animal protection are running for office, and ballot measures that impact animals.

No matter whom you vote for, please get out and vote. You can find your polling place and other election information at Vote411.org. Your participation in the process can have a direct impact on the future of animal protection and other issues that you care about.

Lawmakers’ Opposition to Disaster Relief Leaves People and Pets Out in the Cold

As the nation continues to reel from the effect of Hurricane Sandy, and some areas begin their slow and difficult recovery, it’s a reminder of just how important it was for Congress to pass the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act in 2006, which now requires disaster plans to include pets and service animals. The legislation came in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the Gulf Coast, after so many people stayed behind and put themselves and first responders at risk because there were no plans to care for pets.

Enactment of this law showed the bipartisan work of lawmakers at their very best: The bill was championed by the late Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, with Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., with former Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.—and they got a major assist from then-Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ranking Member Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., among others. The House passed the bill by a landslide vote of 349 to 24, and the Senate passed it unanimously. President George W. Bush signed it into law, saying that if he could take one thing while evacuating during a disaster, he would take his dog, Barney.

About two-thirds of American households have pets. A Zogby International poll after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast found that 61 percent of pet owners will not evacuate if they cannot bring their pets with them. When people may lose their home, their job, their school, their place of worship, and be separated from loved ones, just knowing that their pet is safe can be an emotional comfort and help get them through a time of crisis.

Because there is now an official federal policy in place on pets in disasters, responding agencies are better prepared to assist families that include pets and service animals in a time of crisis. More emergency shelters allow people to bring their pets when they evacuate disaster-stricken areas, or have separate accommodations set up for temporarily housing pets. The response to Hurricane Sandy took pets and service animals into account, which made the human relief effort more effective, since people were less likely to stay behind and put themselves in danger. In the years following Katrina, residents have benefited from having a federal policy on pets and service animals in disasters.

Seeing how much the law has helped so many thousands of Americans over the last six years makes it even more puzzling that two dozen rogue lawmakers voted against it, putting the worst possible light on Congress. Some of those House members are no longer serving in office, but others are facing competitive election battles next week—such as Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, running in Iowa’s new 4th Congressional District, and Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., running for the open U.S. Senate seat in Arizona. Flake’s opponent, Dr. Richard Carmona, a former U.S. Surgeon General, was very outspoken, in his public service career, in considering the needs of pets in disaster planning.

HSLF ran TV ads on King’s voting record on animal protection issues, and radio ads on Flake’s record, pointing out their opposition to including pets in disaster plans. With Hurricane Sandy on the minds of voters this week, they will surely see that politicians like King and Flake are out of touch with mainstream American values. These lawmakers failed to recognize that caring for pets and service animals in disasters is a necessary component of any successful response, given the close bond that people have with their animals.

If you live in Arizona, or in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District, please share these graphics (Flake and King) on Facebook and urge your friends, family, and neighbors to oppose Jeff Flake for Senate and Steve King for Congress.