We knew before the election that Donald Trump’s agricultural advisory committee included a long list of extraordinarily strident voices against animal welfare. Now, according to a leaked memo of talking points prepared for that group, we have a window into the possible agriculture policies of the incoming Trump administration. And we know that our movement must rally once again to defeat one of the most sweeping attacks on animal protection and food safety laws we’ve ever faced.
Photo courtesy of Greg Latza/For The HSUS
As the memo indicates, “The Trump administration will work with Congress to ensure that the Interstate Commerce Clause is enforced to keep individual states from dictating policy for food growers in the United States.”
That’s a thinly veiled reference to a discredited proposal from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that seeks to negate most state and local laws regarding the production or manufacture of agriculture products. It’s a radical federal overreach that would undermine the longstanding constitutional rights of states to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens and local businesses.
The King amendment takes aim at state laws such as California’s Proposition 2—approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2008—to ban extreme confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and veal calves in small crates and cages, as well as a law passed subsequently by a landslide margin in the state legislature, with the support of the egg industry, to require any shell eggs sold in California to comply with the requirements of Prop 2. Its effect would extend to the recently approved Question 3 in Massachusetts, banning the confinement of farm animals and the sale of eggs, pork, and veal from crates and cages, which passed two weeks ago with an astonishing 78 percent of the vote.
In short, the King amendment could nullify dozens of state laws dealing with intensive confinement of farm animals, bans on horse slaughter and the sale of horsemeat, bans on the sale of foie gras produced by force-feeding ducks and geese, bans on tail docking of dairy cows and processing downer livestock, bans on possession and commerce of shark fins and rhino horn, and potentially even bans on the sale of dog and cat meat. It could also preempt a wide range of state laws covering everything from child labor to dangerous pesticides to labeling of farm-raised fish.
Since then, the world has changed, and the idea of extreme confinement is on its way out, with more than 200 food retail companies pledging to cleanse their supply chains of products that come from these sorts of inhumane confinement systems. On the same day that Donald Trump was elected president, the landslide vote on Question 3—which passed in 362 of 365 cities and towns in the Commonwealth—put a closing argument and exclamation point on the changes we’ve seen in society.
But opposition to the King amendment is nothing new. As a Washington Post editorial noted when it slammed King’s loser of a proposal, “Mr. King’s reactionary amendment would precipitate a disaster. Not only would laws regarding animal cruelty be upended, but so would laws protecting the environment, workers’ rights and public health.” Newspapers ranging from the Des Moines Register to USA Today also criticized the effort.
During consideration of the Farm Bill in 2013, the King amendment was added by voice vote by the House Agriculture Committee and passed the full House. When the House and Senate negotiated the final package, we succeeded in nixing the language from the Farm Bill. A broad and diverse coalition of bipartisan lawmakers, public officials, law professors, and organizations—such as the County Executives of America, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Fraternal Order of Police, and National Sheriffs’ Association—weighed in and helped to stave off this destructive provision.
It’s ironic that politicians like King often say they are for states’ rights when they agree with what the states are doing, but when they don’t like the result, they are perfectly fine with federal mandates telling states what they can and cannot do.
We heard so much talk during this recent election season about reducing the role of big government and keeping Washington off the backs of local communities—yet the King amendment would impose the will of Washington on our states as a legislative fiat and eviscerate local decision making on animal issues and other issues as well.
It’s unclear, of course, whether the King-type proposal that’s referenced in the campaign memo would get a real push from the Trump administration, or whether it’s just a fringe suggestion by some radical element of the transition team that will be rejected by the president-elect and his advisors. But if this threat does emerge when the new Congress convenes in January, or in the run-up to the consideration of next Farm Bill in 2018, it’ll be necessary for our movement to again marshal our forces and fight such a devastatingly harmful policy. We did it before, and we must gear up to defeat a similar measure again.
Upending the predictions of pollsters and pundits and scoring a major upset, Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. This news of course dominates the election headlines now, and it’s left his followers euphoric and his critics crestfallen. It was not, however, the only race that will have an impact on animal protection. Many animal protection supporters were elected or reelected to Congress and state legislatures, and animal advocates had big wins with lopsided margins on key ballot measures in red states and blue states. Here’s what we know so far on how the 2016 election results will affect animals.
HSLF endorsed Hillary Clinton based on her record of supporting animal protection policies, and expressed concern about Donald Trump’s campaign surrounding itself with supporters of trophy hunting and factory farming who may have significant influence in a Trump administration. The rulemaking and enforcement actions by the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies will have an enormous impact on a wide range of animal issues, and we’ll be watching closely during the transition to see how these issues develop. We’ll also be redoubling our efforts across the board, and asking for your help in protecting existing rules and blocking hostile actions that could adversely affect animals.
We also know that the nation is deeply divided and very skeptical, perhaps even more so than in previous presidential elections, with the bitterness of the campaign and the candidates evenly splitting the popular vote. What’s clear from recent elections is that the pendulum swings back and forth between Democrats and Republicans running for national office. The party that wins today is likely to come out on the losing side in upcoming elections, if past patterns hold. Animal issues have made progress, and have had setbacks, during both Democratic and Republican administrations, and we will look for opportunities to work with the new administration on issues of concern.
With Republicans maintaining narrow majorities in both the House and Senate, we are fortunate to have many Republican lawmakers championing our cause in Congress, and will continue to maintain our bipartisan approach to animal protection. Overall, HSLF-endorsed candidates won twelve races and lost five in the U.S. Senate, for a 71 percent win rate so far, with two additional races still not determined. In the House, HSLF-backed contenders won 210 races and lost thirteen, for a 94 percent win rate, with a few remaining races still too close to call.
In the more competitive races, HSLF helped to reelect Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), the lead sponsor of the Prevent Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act to establish a federal anti-cruelty law, and he won by a 1.7 percent margin in a swing state. We welcome some new animal protection supporters to the U.S. Senate, including Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and look forward to working with them. We are awaiting the outcome of the New Hampshire race, where Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), the lead sponsor of both the Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act to protect pets in domestic violence and the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act to crack down on the abuse of show horses, is currently trailing by 716 votes, or 0.1 percent out of more than 700,000 cast. We are sorry to know that Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will not be in the 115th Congress, and we thank them for their strong support of animal protection over their years of public service.
On the House side, a number of strong animal protection supporters facing competitive races were reelected. Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), the lead sponsor of the Humane Cosmetics Act to phase out animal testing for cosmetics, won with 56.7 percent of the vote; Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), who helped defeat the overreaching King amendment and pass legislation to allow pets on trains, won with 52.4 percent; Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), a strong supporter of animal protection, won with 53.0 percent. We welcome a number of new animal protection supporters to the House, including Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who earned 54.5 percent of the vote and succeeds his brother Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, the outgoing co-chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus; Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who defeated incumbent Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), an opponent of modest animal welfare policies such as cracking down on animal fighting and protecting pets in disasters, by 3.3 percent; and Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev.), who defeated incumbent Rep. Cresent Hardy, a near-zero on animal issues, by 4 percent. HSLF was actively involved in all these races, and these are great outcomes for animal protection.
A number of elections for state houses and legislative seats across the country were important for animal advocates. The one that HSLF was most invested in was Missouri’s gubernatorial race, where we strongly urged voters to oppose Democratic candidate Chris Koster, one of the nation’s most anti-animal politicians. Koster worked to undermine Prop B, the landmark ballot measure to protect dogs in cruel puppy mills, and to repeal its core provisions before they even took effect. He stumped in favor of a “right to farm” amendment to the constitution that forbids the enacting of state rules to regulate agriculture and hands big agribusiness the opportunity to operate with no oversight. Koster’s biggest play against animals, however, was his attack on a California law that restricts the sale of eggs into the state that come from laying hens jammed in cages. HSLF ran radio ads on this career politician crusading against animals to curry favor with Big Ag, and Koster lost the race to Republican candidate and ex-Navy SEAL Eric Greitens who earned 51.3 percent of the vote.
The biggest successes for animal advocates last night came in a clean sweep of ballot measure campaigns in which HSLF, The HSUS, and our coalition partners had invested most heavily this election cycle. Massachusetts voters passed Question 3 in a landslide vote of 78 to 22 percent, banning the extreme confinement of farm animals in small cages where the animals are virtually immobilized for their entire lives and banning the sale of products that are not cage-free or crate-free. This is the fourth consecutive win on farm animal confinement issues since 2002, by larger margins each time, with voters approving anti-confinement measures in Florida (55 percent), Arizona (62 percent), California (63.5 percent), and now Massachusetts (78 percent). This sets the trajectory for more pressure upon the pork and egg industries to continue accelerating the transition to cage-free and crate-free housing systems, and complements the policies adopted by so many major food retailers. Massachusetts voters saw through the false claims and rhetoric of the factory farming industry about food costs, and sided with commonsense standards to protect farm animals and food safety.
In Oklahoma, animal advocates and family farmers are celebrating the defeat of State Question 777, with more than 60 percent of voters opposing the measure. Despite a multi-million dollar campaign by the Oklahoma Farm Bureau and other corporate factory farming interests, Oklahoma voters across rural, urban, and suburban areas of the state saw through the measure and rejected this power grab. State Question 777 was referred to the ballot by politicians seeking to amend the state constitution with a so-called “right to farm.” It would have protected corporate interests and foreign-owned big agribusiness at the expense of Oklahoma’s family farmers, land, and animals, and prevented local communities from passing laws to protect clean water and public health. The measure was so broadly worded that it could have prevented future restrictions on any “agricultural” practice, including puppy mills, horse slaughter, and raising gamefowl for cockfighting. The crushing defeat sends a strong signal to corporate agriculture that no industry is above the law or should have special rights.
By another overwhelming majority of 70 to 30, Oregon voters issued a powerful statement for the protection of the world’s endangered animals by passing Measure 100, to stop endangered wildlife trafficking in Oregon. The measure shuts down the local market for products like elephant ivory, rhino horn, and sea turtle shells, and follows similar action taken by voters in Washington and California lawmakers to ensure that the states don’t provide safe harbor to traffickers and profiteers. The new law will ban the trafficking of 12 types of animals most targeted by wildlife traffickers: whales, sea turtles, elephants, rhinos, lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, sharks, rays, and pangolins, and impose felony-level fines on anyone caught buying or selling the parts or products from those creatures.
While HSLF and The HSUS were most actively involved in Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Oregon, there were other measures we supported or were watching closely. California voters approved Proposition 67, by a vote of 52 to 48 percent, to protect the state’s ban on plastic grocery bags, which wash into our rivers, lakes, streams, and ocean, where they are ingested by or entangle sea turtles, otters, seals, fish, and birds. We supported the measure, as did SeaWorld and others, because sea birds and marine animals often mistake bags for food, fill their stomachs with plastics, and die of starvation. Unfortunately, Coloradans approved Amendment 71, which will make it more difficult to pass future constitutional amendments, including those on animal issues, and Montanans rejected I-177, a grassroots effort to restrict trapping on public lands.
Our strong success on ballot measure campaigns illustrates that no matter what the challenges are with representative government, when we bring animal issues directly to the people, most of the time they side with animal protection and voters strongly support common-sense animal welfare reforms. We must take the long-term view as a movement. Our nation is in the business of democracy, and it's endured for 240 years. Our resiliency is part of what makes our nation great. Thank you for doing your part to contribute to democratic decision-making and getting out the vote for animals. Now it’s time for governing, driving reforms, and working to make our world a truly humane society.
It’s been a wild and unprecedented election season, and all votes will be cast by late tomorrow. So much is at stake for the future direction of our country, and that includes the fate of animals.
The nation’s eyes are mostly focused on the presidential race, and the Humane Society Legislative Fund is backing Hillary Clinton as the best candidate for animal protection. She built a strong and consistent record on animal welfare as a U.S. Senator and as Secretary of State, and she has pledged to take on wildlife trafficking, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other animal issues as President. Her positions on animal protection have animal advocates spreading the word that #ImWithPurr.
Donald Trump, in contrast, represents perhaps the greatest threat ever to animal protection policymaking at the federal level. His campaign surrogates and the names being floated as possible Trump cabinet picks for the very agencies that oversee such policies include the most ardent anti-animal voices in the country. Advocates for puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and trophy hunting of rare species such as leopards and elephants would be at the steering wheel of a Trump administration. The choice is clear, and that’s why HSLF has been running TV ads in swing states informing voters that Donald Trump is a threat to mainstream humane values.
In Congress, 34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats are up for election, and dozens of those races are competitive. In Wisconsin’s hotly contested U.S. Senate race, incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson has opposed animal protection reforms and worked to weaken the Endangered Species Act; he is the sponsor of a bill to delist wolves in the Great Lakes region, seeking to reverse a federal court ruling and to subvert further judicial review of that case. HSLF is supporting Russ Feingold, who has a strong record of advocating for wildlife conservation and the protection of pets, and is airing TV ads to support his candidacy.
There are a number of important state races around the country. In Missouri, HSLF is urging voters to oppose Attorney General Chris Koster in his bid for Governor against ex-Navy SEAL Eric Greitens. Koster worked to undermine Prop B, the landmark ballot measure to protect dogs in cruel puppy mills, and to repeal its core provisions before they even took effect. He stumped in favor of a “right to farm” amendment to the constitution that forbids the enacting of state rules to regulate agriculture and hands big agribusiness the opportunity to operate with no oversight. Koster’s biggest play against animals, however, was his attack on a California law that restricts the sale of eggs into the state that come from laying hens jammed in cages. Listen to HSLF’s radio ad on this career politician crusading against animals to curry favor with Big Ag. We are also working in favor of Russ Carnahan and against Mike Parson in the Lt. Governor’s race. Carnahan is as good on animal issues as Parson is bad; Parson led the effort to repeal Prop B and to pass the “right to farm” measure, and he’s in the pocket of Indiana millionaire Forrest Lucas, who has donated lavishly to keep Parson’s political career afloat.
HSLF is involved in dozens of races at the federal and state level, and we urge you to consult our roster of endorsements and our Humane Scorecard to guide your voting.
In a number of states, voters will decide not only on candidates to represent them but also on critical animal protection ballot measures:
In Massachusetts, a “Yes” vote on Question 3 would phase out the extreme confinement of veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in small crates and cages where they are virtually immobilized for their entire lives, and will ban the sale of products that come from these confinement systems.
In Oregon, a “Yes” on Measure 100 will help save endangered sea turtles, elephants, rhinos, and other wild animals threatened with cruel poaching and extinction, by shutting down the destructive wildlife trade.
In Oklahoma, animal advocates are urging a “No” on State Question 777, a measure to protect corporate factory farms and big agribusiness at the expense of Oklahoma’s family farmers, land, and animals, which could prevent future restrictions on extreme factory farming practices, and even puppy mills, horse slaughter, and cockfighting.
In California, a “Yes” on Proposition 67 will protect the state’s ban on plastic grocery bags, which wash into rivers, lakes, streams, and the Pacific ocean, where they are ingested by or entangle sea turtles, otters, seals, fish, and birds.
In Montana, a “Yes” vote on I-177 would restrict the use of cruel traps and snares on public lands.
In Colorado, Amendment 71 would make it more difficult for citizens to have a say on future constitutional ballot measures, including those dealing with animal protection. A measure to ban cruel steel-jawed leghold traps passed in Colorado in 1996, but would have failed under the onerous new standards imposed by Amendment 71. We are urging Coloradans to vote “No.”
No matter where you live, please visit our election site to find candidates HSLF has chosen to endorse for federal and state races based on their records or positions on animal welfare issues. Animals only win when humane candidates and issues do. Tomorrow is the day to get out the vote for animals.
As HSLF executive vice president Wayne Pacelle writes in the Tallahassee Democrat, tomorrow’s election is about the values we hold dear in society. That includes the value of humane treatment toward all creatures, and protecting animals from cruelty, suffering, neglect, and abuse. If you haven’t voted early, or mailed in your ballot, please make your voice heard tomorrow on Election Day.
We are fortunate that so many officials across the political spectrum share our basic concern for the welfare of animals, but we should not take it for granted, either. Visit HSLF’s election site for more information.
Election crucial to fate of animals
In the maelstrom that is the election, let’s remember that the 2016 election is ultimately about the values we hold dear in our society. Important things, treasured things, life and death things. The future of our children. The health of our environment. The safety of our communities. The security of our nation. Even the interests of the largest non-voting constituency in the nation.
Nothing less than the fate of untold billions of animals—endangered species, pets, farm animals and others—hangs in the balance this time around.
Decades of incremental, bipartisan, consensus progress around the humane consideration of animals are up for grabs. Do we continue our forward motion toward a more compassionate world? Or do we retreat into a darker past where animals can be exploited in any fashion thought to bring short-term profit or even wicked pleasure?
Globe-trotting trophy hunters, factory farming titans, puppy mill apologists, advocates for horse slaughter, those seeking to eliminate the protective space of our nation’s parks and refuges—these are just some of the backward-looking people aligned with the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. That cast includes Trump’s own sons—who prowl the world with that 19th-century eye to slay big and majestic creatures who they line up in their gunsights for trophies and bragging rights.
As a leader within the animal protection movement, I bring a non-partisan approach to elections, wanting all people of good intention to embrace the universal value that cruelty to animals is wrong.
Among its many harms, staying home sends a message that one does not care about making the lives of animals bearable, never mind great.
So together we have a choice this election. Candidate Hillary Clinton has a long and unmistakable record of defending animals against cruelty. She was a leader for animals as a U.S. senator. In this campaign, she framed the issue as plainly as can be: The way our society treats animals is a reflection of our humanity.
Indeed. America is great because of its humanity, its heart. America is great because of its enduring faith in itself and in better tomorrows.
Animals have a magic place in our journey. For the blind, the elderly, the war wounded, the ill, the bedridden, the lonely, animals aren’t just companions, they are sometimes the only warm presence to hold on to, and we are grateful. Millions and millions of us rejoice at the sight of animals in the wild. Consumers have been heard in the marketplace, and food purveyors are reducing the cruelties of intensive confinement agriculture. Entrepreneurs are in hot pursuit of innovations that will reduce animal suffering and strengthen our economy at the same time.
America is great not because of what divides us, but because of what holds us together across the divides. Our compassion for the least among us is one of those undergirding values. We owe them an hour and our wise vote on Tuesday.
One of the core objectives we have at the HSLF is to make it simple and efficient for voters to determine how federal lawmakers have sided on crucial animal protection legislation across a range of issues. With the end of the 114th Congress approaching, HSLF has posted a preview version of the 2016 Humane Scorecard, so you can see how your U.S. senators and U.S. representative have performed so far in this Congress on animal protection issues. If they’ve done well, please thank them; if they have room for improvement, please let them know you’re paying attention, and that there is still time for them to do better before the final scorecard is wrapped up at the end of the year. You can also share information with your family and friends about how their elected officials have voted in relation to animal protection.
In this preliminary report, we hold lawmakers accountable on key votes including, on the positive side, to reduce or eliminate the testing of tens of thousands of chemicals on animals, and on the negative side, to substantially weaken the Endangered Species Act and strip federal protections from wolves and other imperiled species, to allow the imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies and the most extreme methods of trophy hunting and trapping wild animals, and to prevent agencies from issuing or updating regulations that protect animals. We also evaluate their support for adequate funding to enforce federal animal welfare laws and their co-sponsorship of priority bills to protect pets, horses, animals in laboratory experiments, and more. We provide extra credit for legislators who took the lead on one or more animal protection issues.
Already in the few weeks since we notified offices about which bills would count on the scorecard, we’ve seen a jump in the co-sponsor numbers for these key bills, and with your help we can keep the momentum going. A bill to protect survivors of domestic violence and their pets has 209 co-sponsors in the House and 32 in the Senate; a bill to prevent animal cruelty and torture on federal property and in interstate commerce has 244 co-sponsors in the House and 36 in the Senate; the bill to crack down on the cruel practice of horse soring has 266 co-sponsors in the House and 50 in the Senate; the horse slaughter bill has 198 co-sponsors in the House and 31 in the Senate; and the bill to phase out cosmetic testing on live animals has 162 co-sponsors in the House.
Building the number of co-sponsors on a bill is an important way to show that there is a critical mass of bipartisan support for the policy, warranting floor consideration, and to help push the legislation over the finish line.
Please check the scorecard charts and call your two U.S. senators and your U.S. representative today. Thank each of them for their support of the bills that they’re already co-sponsoring and urge them to join on any of the animal protection bills being counted on the 2016 Humane Scorecard that they’re not yet co-sponsoring. This preview will be updated online periodically throughout the fall, and legislators will have until the end of the 114th Congress to receive credit on the final version of our 2016 Humane Scorecard that will be printed in January. And please do share the scorecard with others, and let them know about our important work together.
You can look up your federal legislators here, and then call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be connected to each of your legislators. Here are the animal protection bills that will count on the scorecard and we hope will gather additional co-sponsors before year’s end:
Pets and Domestic Violence — S. 1559 and H.R. 1258, the Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act. Introduced by Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Reps. Katherine Clarke, D-Mass., and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., this bill will make it harder for abusers to prey on their battered partners and their pets by allowing pets to be protected across state lines when restraining orders are issued in domestic violence and stalking cases; and authorizing grant money so that domestic violence shelters can accommodate pets (currently, only 3 percent of these shelters allow pets) or help arrange for pet shelter. This legislation will help an estimated one-third of domestic violence survivors escape from an abusive partner—these are people who delay their decision to leave a violent situation out of fear for their pets’ safety. Violence toward humans is closely related to animal cruelty; up to 84 percent of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners abused or killed their family pet.
Animal Cruelty — S. 1831 and H.R. 2293, the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act. Introduced by Sens. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Reps. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, Ted Deutch, D-Fla., Tom Marino, R-Pa., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., this bill will strengthen the federal animal crush video law enacted in 2010 (which banned the creation, sale, and distribution of obscene videos that show the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, or impaling of live animals) to prohibit those same extreme acts of animal cruelty when they occur in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether a video is produced. All 50 states have felony penalties for malicious cruelty to animals. This legislation would complement the states’ anti-cruelty laws in the same way that the federal animal fighting statute complements state animal fighting laws, providing an additional tool to be employed when extreme animal cruelty occurs on federal property or otherwise in interstate commerce (e.g., in the puppy mill trade or wildlife trafficking).
Jennifer Kunz/The HSUS
Horse Soring — S. 1121 and H.R. 3268, the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act. Introduced by Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Mark Warner, D-Va., and Reps. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., David Jolly, R-Fla., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., this bill will amend existing federal law to better crack down on the cruel practice of “soring,” in which unscrupulous trainers deliberately inflict pain on the hooves and legs of Tennessee walking horses and certain other breeds with caustic chemicals, heavy chains, sharp objects, and other gruesome techniques to force them to perform an unnaturally high-stepping gait and gain unfair competitive advantage at horse shows. This legislation would amend the Horse Protection Act of 1970 to end the failed system of industry self-policing, ban the use of devices associated with soring, strengthen penalties, and make illegal the actual soring of a horse—all without any additional taxpayer burden.
Horse Slaughter — S. 1214 and H.R. 1942, the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act. Introduced by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Reps. Frank Guinta, R-N.H., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., and Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., this bill would protect horses and consumers by prohibiting the transport and export of U.S. horses to slaughter for human consumption. American horses are not raised for food and are routinely given numerous drugs over their lifetimes that can be toxic to humans if ingested. Kill buyers round up horses from random sources, and these companion animals or working animals are shipped for long distances and are often seriously injured or killed in transit. At the slaughter plant, the methods used to kill horses rarely result in quick, painless deaths. This predatory industry doesn’t “euthanize” old, sick horses. Young and healthy horses are purchased, often by buyers misrepresenting their intentions, and killed to sell the meat to Europe and Japan.
Animal Testing for Cosmetics—H.R. 2858, the Humane Cosmetics Act. Introduced by Reps. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., Don Beyer, D-Va., Joe Heck, R-Nev., and Tony Cárdenas, D-Calif., this bill would phase out the testing of cosmetics on live animals and the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics in the U.S. While most manufacturers no longer test finished products on animals, some animal tests are still conducted on rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, and mice for assessing ingredients. Animals have substances forced down their throats, dripped in their eyes, or smeared onto their skin, usually without pain relief. These tests are not predictive of the human experience so their results are unreliable for consumer safety. There are many alternative methods to ensure that products are safe for human use. More than 1.7 billion consumers live in countries that have banned cosmetics testing on animals and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals. H.R. 2858 will help the U.S. remain competitive in the global market and create a key incentive for cosmetics to be tested here with cutting-edge technologies that are more humane, faster to perform, and less costly to industry than animal testing.
Votes matter. Records matter. Until animal advocates weight these records when they go to the polling stations or fill-out their mail ballots, we won’t see the gains we all desperately want. Use this incredible tool to inform your voting behavior. It just takes a minute to find your two U.S. senators and your U.S. representative and see how they’ve performed on the issues that have emerged in 2015 and 2016.
At the Humane Society Legislative Fund, we know that solving many of the systemic problems facing animals today depends on passing animal protection legislation at the federal level. But, in order to do that, it is critical that we elect humane-minded candidates to office. Without legislative allies and advocates, it will be ever harder to secure a square deal for companion animals, phase out the use of animals in research, testing, and education, improve welfare standards for farm animals, expand protections for wildlife, put a stop to animal cruelty, end the slaughter of horses for human consumption overseas, or crack down on the rampant and abusive practice of horse “soring”—to name a few worthwhile goals we all share.
With the general election less than a month away, now is the time to get political for animals. That’s why HSLF is today launching a new endorsement site, featuring our list of candidates for office that we favor based solely on their stands and records on animal protection issues. This is the first such resource of its kind for supporters of animal protection nationwide, and on the site you’ll be able to easily search by state or office to see the names of individuals HSLF has endorsed.
As a friend of HSLF, you already know about our annual Humane Scorecard, which rates legislators based on their records in office. Our endorsement site is intended to serve as an easy and informative supplemental resource to find out more about the candidates running to represent you in Congress. Whether they’re longtime legislators or individuals new to politics, our site features candidate-specific information on the issue you care most about: animal protection.
In addition to the endorsements in congressional races around the country, HSLF has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, and launched a campaign informing voters that a Trump administration could be one of the worst ever for animals.
This is a particularly critical election for animals, so it’s important that we turn out to the polls to support those who have expressed a willingness to join in the fight. Right now, we have a number of important bills pending in Congress, including:
The Humane Cosmetics Act to phase out the testing of cosmetics on live animals and the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics;
The Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act to protect the human and animal victims of domestic violence and support the work of battered women’s shelters to accommodate pets;
The Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act to strengthen the federal law against the “soring” of show horses—using caustic chemicals and other painful substances to injure the horses’ hooves and legs to induce a high-stepping gait;
The bills that don’t get over the finish line in the final days of Congress will have to be reintroduced next year—and we need to build our ranks of humane advocates and champions who will fight for these reforms. So, please, take a look at our site and find out which humane candidate is running in your area. If you haven’t registered to vote, you can easily do so by going here. And, in case you missed it, read our recently-issued endorsement for the presidential race.
Remember, you hold the power to make sure humane candidates get into Congress and stay there. To that end, we hope you’ll find our new site helpful, and share it with friends and family who care about animal protection.
When voters go to the polls this November, they won’t only be making critical decisions about who represents them in the White House, Congress and state and local offices. In a number of states, the people will vote on the humane treatment of animals—deciding whether to adopt policies on factory farming, wildlife trafficking, and other animal protection issues.
Photo courtesy of Greg Latza/For The HSUS
Since the early 1990s, The Humane Society of the United States and allied organizations have been involved in about 50 statewide ballot contests, and voters have sided with animals about 70 percent of the time. They’ve banned cockfighting in three of the last states where it remained legal (Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma), set humane treatment standards for dogs in the largest puppy mill state (Missouri), stopped extreme confinement of animals on factory farms (Arizona, California, and Florida), and adopted new policies to restrict greyhound racing; horse slaughter; body-gripping traps and poisons; trophy hunting of bears, cougars, and wolves, and more. When politicians in the state legislatures have been held captive by special interests—such as big agribusiness, the trophy hunting lobby, or even organized cockfighting groups—animal advocates have petitioned to put these questions directly to the people.
This year in Massachusetts, voters will decide on Question 3, which would phase out the extreme confinement of veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in small crates and cages where they are virtually immobilized for their entire lives, and will remove inhumane and unsafe products from the Massachusetts marketplace. Backed by the MSPCA, Animal Rescue League of Boston, Zoo New England, and hundreds of Massachusetts veterinarians and family farmers, more than 170,000 Massachusetts voters signed petitions to place Question 3 on the ballot. Question 3 adds momentum to what’s already occurring in the marketplace, with McDonald’s, Walmart and 200 other major food retail brands pledging to change their procurement practices and source only cage-free eggs and meats.
In Oregon, voters will weigh in on Measure 100, which will help save endangered sea turtles, elephants, rhinos and other wild animals threatened with cruel poaching and extinction. Every day close to 100 elephants are brutally killed in Africa, their tusks hacked off to supply the black market for ivory trinkets. Poachers poison watering holes with cyanide, killing hundreds of elephants at once. Organized criminal gangs and armed rebels use military weapons to kill wildlife for the multi-billion dollar illegal wildlife trade. Measure 100 will ensure that Oregon does not provide a market for endangered species products resulting from wildlife poaching and trafficking. If passed, Oregon will join California, Washington, Hawaii, and other states in shutting down local markets for those who seek to profit from this destructive wildlife trade.
In Oklahoma, family farmers and animal advocates are opposing State Question 777, a measure referred to the ballot by politicians to amend the state constitution with a so-called “right to farm.” It would protect corporate interests and foreign-owned big agribusiness at the expense of Oklahoma’s family farmers, land, and animals. The measure is so broadly worded that it could prevent future restrictions on any “agricultural” practice, including puppy mills, horse slaughter, and raising gamefowl for cockfighting. Even the president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau said the language is flawed, and “I wish that language weren’t in there.”
Those aren’t the only states where voters will see ballot issues related to animals. Californians will vote on Proposition 67, to protect the state’s ban on plastic grocery bags, which wash into our rivers, lakes, streams, and ocean, where they are ingested by or entangle sea turtles, otters, seals, fish, and birds. Some ocean animals mistake bags for food, fill their stomachs with plastics, and die of starvation. Montanans will vote on I-777, which would restrict the use of cruel traps and snares on public lands. In Colorado, Amendment 71 would make it more difficult for citizens to have a say on future constitutional ballot measures, including those dealing with animal protection. The HSUS and HSLF favor the California and Montana measures, but strongly opposes the Colorado measure as an attack on citizen voting.
When you enter the voting booth or send in your mail ballot this November, make sure you don’t stop after the candidate races. Continue down the ballot and review the issues at stake, and you could have a role in promoting the humane treatment of animals and protecting these creatures from cruelty and suffering, and preserving your rights to participate in democratic decision-making in future elections.
The Humane Society Legislative Fund today announces its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President, and the launch of a new ad campaign to inform voters that a Donald Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere. In our view, Trump represents the greatest threat ever to federal policy-making and implementation of animal protection laws, and we are taking the unusual step of wading actively into a presidential campaign.
HSLF has members who are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and supports lawmakers and candidates from all over the political spectrum. We evaluate candidates based on a single, non-partisan criterion—their support for animal protection—and do not default to one party or the other.
The next president will have an enormous impact over animal protection in this country for the next four to eight years, and the stakes are high with policy decisions overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Institutes of Health, and other executive agencies. When you consider the potential for advancing animal welfare reforms at the federal level, or rolling back the recent gains and rulemaking actions, there could not be a greater contrast among the White House hopefuls. One ticket has a clear, compelling record of support for animal protection, while the other has assembled a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries. The names that Trump’s campaign has floated for engagement on Interior and Agriculture department issues are a “who’s who” of zealous anti-animal welfare activists.
We’ve all seen the gruesome photographs of Trump’s adult sons documenting their trophy kills, which include a leopard, Cape buffalo, waterbuck, and other exotic creatures. Donald Jr. even holds up the tail of an African elephant he’s apparently shot. Both African elephants and leopards are listed as “threatened” with extinction under the provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. That means that the Trump sons use their fortunes and vacation time to travel the world amassing the heads and hides of the rarest and most majestic animals on earth—a pastime more on par with the type of killing done by Walter Palmer (the wealthy dentist who shot Cecil the lion) than it is with rank-and-file sportsmen or conservationists.
Troublingly, Donald Jr. has even been floated as a possible Interior Secretary. Both sons at the very least would be Trump’s top advisors and strategists on trophy hunting issues. The risk of having a globe-trotting trophy hunter at or near the helm at Interior, or having the ear of the President, should be a terrifying prospect for any animal advocate. The administration is responsible not only for policies involving hundreds of millions of acres of federal lands, but also wildlife law enforcement, international treaties on trade and conservation, and import policies for wild animal parts and trophies.
It’s not just family members floated for cabinet posts. Politico reported that oil tycoon Forrest Lucas is a “front-runner” to be Interior Secretary, in addition to serving as a member of Trump’s agriculture advisory committee. Lucas is the money man behind the so-called Protect the Harvest, a front group devoted to fighting animal welfare organizations at every turn, on everything. A peevish advocate for trophy hunting, puppy mills, and big agribusiness, Lucas has never met a case of animal exploitation he wouldn’t defend. He personally financed an attack on Proposition B in Missouri—one of the animal welfare movement’s most important ballot measures, designed to impose humane breeding standards for dogs and crack down on puppy mills.
Lucas and his group also opposed efforts to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty against dogs, cats, and horses; promote the spaying and neutering of pets; and provide adequate shelter for dogs to protect them from the elements. He formed a super PAC specifically to defeat animal advocates.
Recent reports suggest that Iowa factory farming mogul Bruce Rastetter may be Trump’s leading candidate for Secretary of Agriculture. Rastetter has made a fortune off the kind of industrial agricultural practices that family farmers and animal advocates have fought for decades, and was connected to Trump through New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who vetoed a state ban on cruel pig gestation crates in a sop to Iowa’s pork industry. Considering Rastetter’s brother is CEO of a company that builds gestation crates, we have good reason to be concerned about the potential for crony capitalist dealings in a Trump administration.
Other agriculture advisors to Trump include: Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and former Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, both of whom signed onto the federal lawsuit to invalidate California’s law restricting the sale of eggs from barren battery cages; former Iowa state Rep. Annette Sweeney, who along with Branstad ushered the nation’s first “ag-gag” bill into law to punish whistleblowers and shield agribusiness from public scrutiny; Texas state agriculture commissioner Sid Miller, who called Meatless Mondays “treasonous”; Oklahoma state Sen. Eddie Fields, author of the bill overturning the state’s 50-year ban on horse slaughter for human consumption; Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, who signed that horse slaughter bill into law; and Missouri state Sen. Brian Munzlinger, who sponsored bills to weaken the voter-approved standards for puppy mills and deregulate canned hunts. Trump is surrounding himself with the leading anti-animal advocates in the United States, and at this stage, it appears many of them will not only have a front row seat in the Trump administration, but they’ll be at the steering wheel as a Trump administration examines food and agriculture and wildlife policy issues.
While Trump has advocates for trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, and horse slaughter on his side, Hillary Clinton has a strong record of taking a stand against many of these issues. She published an animal welfare statement on her campaign website, noting that “[t]he way our society treats animals is a reflection of our humanity.” Clinton highlights the humane issues she plans to tackle as President, as well as her strong record on animal protection in the U.S. Senate and as Secretary of State. She pledges to crack down on abuses such as wildlife trafficking, puppy mills, and horse slaughter, and to support a federal anti-cruelty statute and more humane treatment of farm animals.
During her eight years in the U.S. Senate, Clinton was a strong and consistent supporter of animal protection policies, earning a 100 percent score on the Humane Scorecard in the 108th Congress, a perfect 100+ score in the 109th, and an 83 in the 110th. She co-sponsored legislation dealing with horse slaughter and animal fighting, as well as bills to stop the processing of “downer” livestock and crack down on abusive puppy mills where dogs are treated like production machines. She led efforts in the 108th and 109th Congresses to stop the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals, which allow them to be crammed into overcrowded, stressful, and unsanitary factory farms. As a Senator, Clinton also signed letters requesting more funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to step up enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and the federal animal fighting law. During the 2008 campaign, she voiced concern over the slaughter of sick and injured cows whose meat was channeled into the national school lunch program. As Secretary of State, Clinton led international efforts to crack down on wildlife trafficking.
She continued her leadership on animal protection later through the Clinton Foundation, and helped to launch a major campaign to fight the illegal ivory trade and poaching of elephants. It’s telling that the Clintons saw animal protection as part of the larger landscape for charitable work and important enough to be included among their philanthropy. Trump is a billionaire but does not seem to have much in the way of charitable instincts at all. He says he’s given millions to charity, but the Washington Post reported that Trump made only one charitable gift between 2008 and May 2016, totaling less than $10,000; and used funds from the Donald J. Trump Foundation to buy a six-foot-tall portrait of himself and to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit business. By contrast, Bill and Hillary Clinton personally gave just under $15 million during roughly that same period (2007 to 2014), or around 10% of their total income. That doesn’t account for the Clinton Foundation, which has raised over $2 billion for global health and wellness, economic development and climate change reduction efforts (and more) around the world.
While the Clintons have owned pets much of their adult lives, it appears that Donald Trump never has. If elected, Trump would be the first president since Harry Truman without a pet in the White House. It’s hardly unusual for pets in our lives to humanize us, and to bring into sharper focus the importance of national policies to help animals. The Clintons seem to have long felt the pull of animals, while the Trumps have not, with two Trump sons being better known for killing animals as a recreational pursuit. Donald Trump has even called for the Food and Drug Administration to stop regulating pet food—not long after thousands of dogs and cats were sickened or died from consuming contaminated pet food and treats. It’s hard to imagine that he empathizes with the two-thirds of American households who have beloved pets as part of their families.
When HSLF evaluates the presidential contenders, it’s important to look at their running mates, too. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine is currently a co-sponsor of the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act to strengthen the federal law against the “soring” of show horses—using caustic chemicals and other painful substances to injure the horses’ hooves and legs to induce a high-stepping gait. When he previously served as Governor of Virginia, he was attentive to animal issues, and signed legislation strengthening laws against animal fighting, restricting the operation of puppy mills, requiring a bittering agent in antifreeze to prevent poisoning of animals, and maintaining a ban on the use of gas chambers for animal euthanasia.
Americans who care about protecting wildlife, combating large-scale cruelties like animal fighting and puppy mills, securing humane treatment of animals in agriculture, and addressing other challenges that face animals in our nation, must become active over the next few weeks to elect a president who shares our values. Please sign our pledge, and spread the word that voters who care about the humane treatment of animals—whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents—should vote for Hillary Clinton for President.
HSLF is a nonpartisan organization that evaluates candidates based only on a single criterion: where they stand on animal welfare. HSLF does not judge candidates based on party affiliation or any other issue.
Paid for by Humane Society Legislative Fund and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. HSLF, 1255 23rd Street, NW, Suite 455, Washington, DC 20037.
We already knew that Donald Trump would be bad news for wildlife—he’s got two sons who travel the globe to slay rare wildlife, and the elder son has indicated he wants to serve as Secretary of the Interior. But now we know that his Secretary of Agriculture—also a critical post for animal welfare—could be murder on other animals.
Photo courtesy of Greg Latza/For The HSUS
Donald Trump’s newly-announced Agricultural Advisory Committee is a veritable rogues gallery of anti-animal crusaders. The group boasts a wealthy funder of an anti-animal super PAC, politicians who sponsored state “ag-gag” measures and opposed the most modest animal welfare bills, and leaders of the factory farming industry. It’s an unmistakable signal from the Trump campaign that he will be an opponent of animal welfare—a show of overt hostility toward the cause of animal protection that raises serious concerns for the humane movement about a potential Trump administration.
One member of the committee is Forrest Lucas, the money man behind the so-called Protect the Harvest, a front group devoted to fighting animal welfare organizations at every turn, on everything. A peevish advocate of trophy hunting, puppy mills, and big agribusiness, Lucas has never met a case of animal exploitation he wouldn’t defend. He and his group opposed efforts to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty against dogs, cats, and horses; set standards for the care of dogs in large-scale commercial puppy mills; and even promote the spaying and neutering of pets, and provide adequate shelter for dogs to protect them from the elements. He put hundreds of thousands of dollars into fighting an anti-puppy mill ballot measure in Missouri, he formed a super PAC specifically to defeat animal advocates, and started a film company to produce fictional dramas on animal issues with an ideological bent. He may be the leading anti-animal advocate in the United States, and he’s got a front row seat in the Trump administration.
Former Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman is also among the names announced by the campaign, and he brings a track record as one of the nation’s most ardent anti-animal welfare governors. Heineman vetoed a bill to stop the trophy hunting of mountain lions—even though the state legislature had acted on the killing of these inedible wild cats. He’s also been a horrid demagogue in defending factory farming, saying that he was going to “kick HSUS’s ass” out of the state and unapologetically defending battery cages and gestation crates.
Then there’s Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, the first governor in the United States to sign an ag-gag measure into law. Designed to shield agribusiness interests from public scrutiny by punishing whistleblowers, ag-gag bills give factory farmers unbridled and unchecked power over worker safety, public health, and animal welfare.
Also on Trump’s council is former Iowa state Rep. Annette Sweeney, the lawmaker who conceived of and originally introduced this troubling affront to free speech. Branstad and Heineman both signed on to the federal lawsuit to invalidate California’s law restricting the sale of eggs from barren battery cages—fortunately, they lost that lawsuit in court.
Recent reports suggest that Iowa factory farming mogul Bruce Rastetter may be Trump’s leading candidate for Secretary of Agriculture, so his inclusion on the council is unsurprising. Rastetter has made a fortune off the kind of industrial agricultural practices that family farmers and animal advocates have fought for decades, and was connected to Trump through New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who had vetoed a state ban on cruel pig gestation crates in a sop to Iowa’s pork industry. Considering the fact Rastetter’s brother is CEO of a company that builds gestation crates, we have good reason to be concerned about the potential for crony capitalist dealings in a Trump administration.
Also included in this gathering of the biggest anti-animal welfare names is Texas state agriculture commissioner Sid Miller, who called Meatless Mondays “treasonous.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture enforces the federal laws on humane slaughter, animal fighting, horse soring, and animal care at thousands of puppy mills, research laboratories, circuses, roadside zoos, and other facilities. Over the last few years, the agency has taken steps to prevent the slaughter of downer cows and veal calves; fortify the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act; ban imports of puppies from foreign puppy mills and require licensing and inspection of Internet puppy sellers; improve disaster planning for animals; and restrict public contact and exhibition of tiger cubs.
Just imagine a concentration of anti-animal hardliners in the next administration unwinding so much of that progress, repealing dozens of Obama administration rulemaking actions for animals, and giving the keys of the USDA to the most vitriolic, extreme voices in animal welfare. It’s a frightening thought, and animal advocates should be asking this question in the months ahead: Would a Trump administration oppose humane-minded reforms and side with fringe interests over the values of mainstream Americans when it comes to animal welfare rules and enforcement? Given the membership of this council, he’s charted a path directly to that goal.
Donald Trump’s sons reportedly took a break from their roles as their father’s surrogates in the hotly contested presidential election last week to pursue their most favored leisure activity: killing wild animals in far off places for their heads and hides, including the rarest species in the world.
Photo by Vanessa Mignon
It wasn’t their first time out, as Donald Jr. and Eric Trump have made no secret of their predilection for trophy hunting, and Donald Jr. especially has been organizing outreach to sportsmen for the campaign. The brothers were chastised by the media for a series of gruesome photographs documenting their kills, which included a leopard, Cape buffalo, waterbuck, and other exotic creatures. Donald. Jr. even held up the tail of an African elephant he’d killed.
It’s unclear what species are in their crosshairs on this latest hunting trip. Bloomberg reported that the Trumps’ hunting party was headed to Yukon, while an Instagram post by Donald Jr. was geotagged “Yellowknife Airport” in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Whatever the exact details of the excursion, these are areas that offer all kinds of guided trophy hunts of grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, Dall sheep, caribou, and other creatures. It’s the kind of place wealthy Safari Club International members might go in search of some awards for the record book, such as the “North American 29,” the “Predators of the World,” or the “Bears of the World.”
When animal activists interrupted a Hillary Clinton rally last week in Las Vegas as an attention-getting action—even though there was no specific grievance against her—Clinton responded nimbly, noting, “Apparently these people are here to protest Trump because Trump and his kids have killed a lot of animals.” That’s an image that could hurt Trump with mainstream voters, especially independents and Republican women. The lifestyle the Trump sons are living—spending tens of thousands hopscotching the planet to amass heads and hides of the rarest and most majestic animals on earth—is more on par with the type of killing done by Walter Palmer (the wealthy dentist who shot Cecil the lion) than it is with rank-and-file sportsmen or conservationists.
In defense of their recreational pursuits, the Trumps and their lot trot out the same tired arguments about hunting and conservation that trophy hunters have been employing for decades. But times have changed, and nations all around the world are beginning to understand the economic value of keeping animals in the wild rather than offering them up to the highest bidders for shooting and stuffing.
In 1977, Kenya banned sport hunting to preserve ecotourism. In 2012, Costa Rica did the same, followed by Botswana in 2014. These decisions are well-founded in economic analysis. A 2012 impact study of nine African countries found that ecotourism brought in 56 times more money than trophy hunting. A congressional report released this year found little evidence that the money spent by trophy hunters is actually being used for conservation, mostly due to government corruption, lax enforcement, a lack of transparency, and poorly managed wildlife programs.
After all, Cecil was a famous lion in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park where he lived with his family—a pride of female lions and their cubs. His magnificent, awe-inspiring presence was enjoyed by thousands of visitors. His death was enjoyed by only one person. But what is the value of living Cecils—whether they are lions, elephants, rhinos, leopards, or any of the other animals sought by big-game hunters—as compared to the value of dead specimens? An American dentist paid $55,000 to shoot Cecil, but it’s estimated that a living Cecil would have generated nearly $1 million in tourism over his lifetime.
This isn’t about picking on the family of a presidential candidate. The candidate has these two men at the center of communications and strategy for the campaign. They are his surrogates, meeting with officials of the NRA, Safari Club International, and other trophy hunting interests. In the wake of Cecil’s killing, a nationwide survey by HBO Real Sports/Marist Poll showed that 86 percent of Americans disapprove of big-game hunting. The Trumps should pay attention to these figures when they return from the hunting trail to the campaign trail.