Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

Paoli and Penn Hills with Pigeon Shoots in Between

I’ve written before about the presidential candidates trotting out their hunting bona fides to strut their stuff in rural primary states. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not immune to this quadrennial affliction, as they duke it out in Pennsylvania—a state which James Carville famously described as Paoli and Penn Hills with Alabama in between.

The Obama campaign has formed a “Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Obama Steering Committee” in Pennsylvania, stating in a white paper, “He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.” At a recent campaign stop, Clinton talked about her own experiences hunting as a girl, when she learned how to shoot “behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton.”

It’s odd that these candidates are swooning over such a diminishing constituency. But it’s also a reminder of the power of politically active interest groups. We will have greater political success when we organize our community of animal advocates into a cognizable voting bloc.

Pennsylvania has 920,000 hunters, second only to Texas in the nation. It has more hunters than the total number of soldiers in the U.S. Army, but still they represent only 9 percent of the state’s population. By contrast, 3.6 million Pennsylvanians, or 37 percent, participate in wildlife watching. Presumably, for every voter who stalks animals with a gun, four voters stalk animals with cameras and binoculars.

And the sportsmen of Pennsylvania, unlike their counterparts in other regions, have failed to clean up some of the most abusive practices in the country. The Keystone State is home to the last remaining live pigeon shoots—gruesome contests in which live birds are sprung from traps and shot at point-blank range for money and prizes.

At the shoots, three out of four birds are not killed immediately, but are wounded and left to suffer from their injuries. Some are collected by young children who stomp on them, cut off their heads with gardening shears, or throw them into barrels to suffocate. Even the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has called the events “cruel and moronic.”

Any presidential hopeful (perhaps with the exception of Mike Huckabee) would be horrified by such conduct. We need leaders who will inspire us to teach our children the values of kindness and mercy, not allow us to numb them with cruelty and indifference. Pennsylvania is now in the spotlight, and state lawmakers should take the opportunity to ban pigeon shoots and rid the state’s sportsmen of this black eye.

Kids see through the nonsense, and it’s adults who do strange and sometimes cruel things for political purposes. Children have a natural affinity for animals, and this was illustrated by a passage in Hillary Clinton’s book, "Living History." Again remembering her days at Lake Winola, she tells a hunting story:

I loved Chelsea’s growing assertiveness, though it wasn’t always convenient. Around Christmas, 1988, I went duck hunting with Dr. Frank Kumpuris, a distinguished surgeon and good friend of mine, who invited me to join him, his two doctor sons, Drew and Dean, and a few other buddies at their hunting cabin. I hadn’t shot much since my days at Lake Winola with my dad, but I thought it would be fun. That’s how I found myself standing hip deep in freezing water, waiting for dawn in eastern Arkansas. When the sun rose, the ducks flew overhead and I made a lucky shot, hitting a banded duck. When I got home, Chelsea was waiting for me, outraged to wake up and learn that I had left home before dawn to go “kill some poor little duck’s mommy or daddy.” My efforts at explaining were futile. She didn’t speak to me for a whole day.

My late mentor, Cleveland Amory, once commented in "TV Guide" about a film in which a hunter struggled on the edge of a cliff. Cleveland said he was rooting for the cliff. Reading about an argument between mother and daughter about “some poor little duck,” I found myself rooting for Chelsea.

Kucinich Staves Off Primary Challenge

Senator Hillary Clinton won Ohio and Texas last night, guaranteeing that the Democratic contest between her and Senator Barack Obama will remain unsettled for some time, at least until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.  But two other outcomes from last night have settled issues of great importance to animal advocates.

U.S. Rep.  Dennis Kucinich handily won the hard-fought Democratic primary in Ohio’s 10th Congressional District, earning more than 50 percent of the vote with the remainder split among four other challengers.  The Humane Society Legislative Fund had endorsed Kucinich, sent mail to voters in the district urging his reelection, and had boots on the ground advocating for him in Cleveland.

An ethical vegetarian, Rep. Kucinich has been one of the true leaders on animal protection issues in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is currently a co-sponsor of 16 animal protection measures in the 110th Congress, one of the highest numbers among all 435 members.  He led the effort in 2001 and 2002 to secure more funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act at puppy mills, research laboratories, zoos, circuses, and other facilities.  When animal issues are considered on the House floor, Rep. Kucinich can often be found speaking in favor of the animal protection position.  He is heavily favored to win the general election in the Democratic-leaning district, meaning a likely to return to Washington for a seventh term.

And while the Democratic presidential nomination is still undecided, the Republican picture has greater clarity. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee— whose views on animal protection were a throwback to a less enlightened era—withdrew from the race last night, after Senator John McCain clinched the Republican field. Huckabee was accused of thwarting an investigation into his teenage son’s alleged torture of a dog at a Boy Scout camp, he has pandered to the sport hunting lobby, and he has even talked about eating horse meat and frying squirrels in a popcorn popper. We still don’t know who will occupy the White House next January, but we can now be pretty sure that horses and squirrels won’t be on the menu in the presidential dining room.

Yes We Can—Stop Puppy Mills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunting for Votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beef Recall and Presidential Politics

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

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

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

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

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

Motor City Madness

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

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

Shakeup in the Chesapeake

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weigh In with HSLF's Online Straw Poll

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada have weighed in, but the race to the White House is still wide open for both Democrats and Republicans.  A number of states will be making their party nominations in the coming weeks, including more than 20 states on “Super Tuesday,” February 5th.

But you don’t have to wait to register your opinion.  The Humane Society Legislative Fund wants to know which presidential candidate you support.  Please visit hslf.org and vote in our online straw poll today.

I’ve been writing in this blog about where the presidential candidates stand on animal protection issues, and about the role that animal advocates can play in the presidential race.  The candidates need to hear from you that the humane treatment of animals is an important policy issue.  And we want to hear from you, too, so we know which candidate appeals the most to animal advocates.

Take our Straw Poll » Donate to our Victory for Animals in 2008 Campaign »

After you vote in our poll, please consider making a special donation to our “Victory for Animals in 2008” campaign.  In addition to helping us support our other programs, your contribution may be used to support humane candidates for state and federal office.

The presidential race is not the only election that matters for animals this year.  The Humane Society Legislative Fund will work to reelect leaders for the humane treatment of animals in Congress, and defeat candidates who are enemies of animal protection. 

We are also fighting to pass animal protection laws to stop puppy mills, horse slaughter, and other cruelties at the state and federal levels.  And we’re working to pass landmark ballot initiatives to stop cruel dog racing in Massachusetts and end the worst factory farming abuses in California.

Please help us continue our critical efforts to pass humane laws and elect humane lawmakers.  And please tell your friends who care about animals to vote in our online poll, so we can hear from them, too.

The Presidential Files: Hillary Clinton’s Experience on Animal Protection Issues

After winning the New Hampshire primary and Nevada caucuses, Sen. Hillary Clinton has largely made it a race between her and Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.  Like Obama, Clinton has been a strong supporter of animal protection issues, and has brought something unique to the debate over animal welfare in presidential politics.  She recently responded to a questionnaire from the Humane Society Legislative Fund, in which she outlined her experience on animal welfare policy as First Lady and then as U.S. Senator. 

In her questionnaire response, Clinton indicates her support for every major animal protection bill in Congress, and says she will work with executive agencies to implement humane policies and adequate funding and enforcement for animal welfare laws.  “I believe animal welfare is an important issue to Americans, and I would work to address these problems when I am President, as I have during my time in the Senate,” she wrote. “From preventing dog fighting to preventing horse slaughter to addressing global warming, I will work to ensure that these issues get the attention and support they deserve.”

In her seven years in the U.S. Senate, Clinton has been a consistent supporter of animal protection, scoring 100 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 108th Congress, and 100+ for the 109th Congress.  She is currently a co-sponsor of legislation dealing with horse slaughter and animal fighting, and she previously co-sponsored legislation to stop the processing of “downer” livestock and to crack down on abusive puppy mills where dogs are cruelly confined and treated like production machines.  She has also signed letters requesting more funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to step up enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal animal fighting law.

One thing that stands out about Clinton’s record is that she has taken a leadership role in efforts to stop the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals.  The same drugs used to treat illness in people are often used in massive quantities on factory farms—not because the animals are sick, but in order to build up immunity so more animals can be crammed together in overcrowded, stressful, unsanitary conditions.  Because these drugs are pumped into the food we eat, they lose their effectiveness when they’re needed most.

Clinton spearheaded efforts in Congress to study the effects of certain antibiotics in animal feeds and to prohibit the USDA from buying chickens for the federal school lunch program that have been injected with cipro-like antibiotics called fluoroquinolones.  Her successful efforts on the antibiotic issue have helped people and animals, and have informed her outlook on the broader issues related to the production of animals on industrial factory farms. “I also believe it is good that there is a growing market for food that is produced with better living conditions for animals,” she wrote.

In advance of the Iowa caucuses, Clinton was criticized by small farmers for selecting Joy Philippi, an industrial hog farm operator and past president of the National Pork Producers Council, as her co-chair of “Rural Americans for Hillary.”  Philippi’s industry trade group had lobbied against some environmental standards for factory farms, and had fought against modest animal welfare reforms such as banning two-foot-wide gestation crates for breeding pigs.  Given Clinton’s leadership on factory farming issues and her call for local control over where Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) can be located, selecting the face of corporate agriculture to represent her campaign seemed like an incongruous choice. But this one possible misstep shouldn’t negate Clinton’s positive actions in fighting industrial factory farms, and her support for the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act is a tremendously important statement. 

When she served as First Lady, Clinton wrote a book, “Dear Socks, Dear Buddy,” featuring many of the letters that children had sent to the First Pets, and gave the proceeds to the National Park Foundation.  It was a dual indicator of the importance of celebrating animals in our culture: our fascination with the pets who share our homes, and with the wild animals who share our environment.  Clinton’s other famous book from that era, “It Takes a Village,” was based on the African proverb that it takes an entire community to raise a child.  But it could easily be applied to animal protection, too.  It takes all of us working together to create a more humane world for people and animals.

Progress for Animals on the Campaign Trail

I've been asking animal advocates to raise the question of animal protection when they see candidates stumping on the campaign trail, and I was thrilled today to see that a supporter from Nevada took the issue to heart. 

At an event for Barack Obama in Las Vegas today, a woman asked the candidate for his position on animal rights. Her question made the news and I hope it encourages other candidates to make statements on animal welfare and prompts other voters across the country to put this important issue on the political radar screen.

Because one person took the time to ask a question, Obama commented on the importance of animal protection and his support for specific policy reforms such as legislation to ban horse slaughter for human consumption.  "I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," he said. "And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." 

While some presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee are talking about their personal preference for eating horse meat, other candidates are now talking about protecting horses from the cruel slaughter industry.  But if no one asks the questions, they won't have a word to say about animal protection.

Editor's Note: While the Associated Press story reports that Obama "has been endorsed repeatedly by the Humane Society," the Humane Society Legislative Fund has not yet made any endorsement in the presidential race, and The Humane Society of the United States does not endorse political candidates.

Doolittle and His Clone Do Little for Animals

U.S. Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) announced Thursday that he would retire rather than face reelection, under a cloud of investigation by the Justice Department for his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  I say good riddance.  Doolittle was one of the worst members of Congress on animal protection issues.  He was the only member of California’s delegation to oppose legislation last year to crack down on dogfighting and cockfighting, and he also voted last year to allow the killing of wild horses for food and the killing of polar bears for trophies.

Unfortunately, he’s trying to handpick his successor, and this guy is a real piece of work.   He’s former Republican state Sen. Rico Oller, and Doolittle has already endorsed him.  Oller served for eight years (1996-2004) in the California legislature, and he opposed more than twenty animal protection bills.  As a state Assemblyman and then a Senator, here are just some of the animal welfare measures that Rico Oller voted against:

• SB 732 to strengthen penalties for illegal cockfighting (8/19/03)
• AB 670 to permit employees of child or adult protective services agencies to report animal abuse or neglect (6/24/02)
• AB 161 to protect dogs in puppy mills (8/27/01)
• AB 2474 to require the addition of a bittering agent in sweet-tasting antifreeze to prevent the poisoning of children and pets (8/27/02)
• SB 769 to set standards for the care of guard dogs (9/6/01)
• AB 1336 to require pet stores to give customers information on veterinary care and spaying and neutering (6/28/02)
• AB 1659 to ban the use of carbon monoxide for killing dogs and cats  (8/17/98)
• SB 1645 to require that predator and “nuisance” trappers be licensed and regulated and that they not be allowed to sell the fur from the animals they kill (8/26/02)
• AB 2479 to require that animals in live markets be held under humane conditions and not dismembered or cut open while still alive (8/25/00)

Rico Oller consistently opposed common sense legislation that was not only widely supported by Californians, but also by his fellow legislators.  In many cases, he was just one of a handful of legislators who opposed measures to toughen laws against animal abusers—a fact that underscores his extreme views.   

He is a trophy hunter who uses radio-collared dogs to track bears, chase them into trees, and then shoot the frightened creatures off a tree branch at point-blank range.  When it comes to animals, Oller has his own set of ethics problems: There’s talk that he has even poached a bear. 

Oller ran for an open seat in Congress in 2004 and failed.  Californians now have another chance to re-examine his record—including his terrible behavior toward animals in his public service and his personal life. 

Speak Out for Animals this Primary Season

New Hampshire’s somewhat surprising presidential primary results Tuesday—with Hillary Clinton and John McCain emerging as victors—have thrown the races wide open.

On the Republican side, it’s still anybody’s ballgame.  Any one of four or five candidates can emerge and secure the nomination, including Mike Huckabee, who has the worst record on animal protection. 

In advance of last night’s outcome, the pundits were suggesting that the Democratic race looked like it would go to Barack Obama.  But Clinton’s upset win has recalibrated that equation.  John Edwards is also still in the race, and cannot entirely be counted out. 

Now, there’s no doubt that races for each party’s nomination will be competitive for several more weeks, almost certainly through “Super Tuesday” on February 5, when more than 20 states hold contests.

Animal protection advocates should take advantage of this opportunity, and query the candidates on their stands on animal issues.  You should call their campaign offices in the states and ask where they stand if they have not already staked out positions.  Let them know that the humane treatment of animals is an important policy issue.  You can inject animal protection into the presidential debate, and let the candidates and the media know it’s important to voters of all political stripes.

The Washington Post reported that on Monday, the day before New Hampshire’s primary, a voter at the Nashua Rotary Club asked Mitt Romney what he would do as president to combat the overpopulation of pets.  He didn’t have much of a substantive answer, but it was probably the first time he thought about animal issues on the campaign trail.

Hearing from voters who care about animal protection will send the message that it’s not just good policy, but also good politics.

Party Victors in Iowa a Study in Contrasts

Iowa's presidential party caucus results last night gave a boost to Barack Obama, a dedicated supporter of animal protection at the state and federal levels, and Mike Huckabee, the worst of the candidates on animal issues.

Riding a huge margin of victory among young voters, Obama has established himself as the new frontrunner in the Democratic race for president. He bested John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both of whom also have strong animal protection records.  One thing seems assured: the Democratic nominee is going to be a supporter of the humane treatment of animals.

The Republican race was not as close, with Huckabee surging past the entire field and winning Iowa in a bit of a rout.  For animal advocates, it’s bad news indeed, since Huckabee has an unmistakably clear record of hostility to animal protection.

Huckabee attempted to intervene and block an investigation into the facts surrounding his son allegedly torturing and killing a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp.  As governor of Arkansas, he failed to toughen the state’s lax animal cruelty laws and he exhibited unyielding fealty to the sport hunting lobby and the agribusiness industry. 

TMZ reported yesterday that Huckabee’s favorite dish is horse meat—even though 70 percent of Americans oppose killing horses for their meat.  Conservative icon Ronald Reagan rode a horse—he never ate one.  Huckabee is the greatest threat to animal protection we’ve seen in the race to the White House in recent times.

The Presidential Files: Discussing the Donkeys

In advance of the Iowa caucuses—the first official event of the 2008 election season—I've been introducing you to the candidates from both sides of the political spectrum. Yesterday I provided a round-up of where the Republican presidential candidates stand on animal issues, and today it’s time to summarize the Democrats.  It’s a tougher task, because there are not as many clear distinctions.  All of the Democratic contenders have been friends of animal welfare, and have received high marks year after year on the Humane Scorecard.  I’ve attempted to highlight some of the things that stand out. 

Joe Biden: In the current session of Congress, Sen. Biden is a co-sponsor of  measures to stop horse slaughter, upgrade the penalties for animal fighting, ban the possession of fighting dogs and attendance at a dogfight, and call on Canada to stop its annual massacre of baby harp seals.  He has consistently voted for animal protection during his career, and he led the fight with Sen. Barbara Boxer to ban the netting of dolphins by commercial tuna fishermen.  He was the lead author of a bill in the 107th Congress to prohibit trophy hunting of captive exotic mammals in fenced enclosures, and he successfully passed the bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hillary Rodham Clinton: In the current session of Congress, Sen. Clinton is a co-sponsor of legislation dealing with horse slaughter and animal fighting, and she previously co-sponsored legislation to stop the processing of “downer” livestock and to 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 in overcrowded, stressful, unsanitary conditions on factory farms.  She had a perfect 100 percent score on the Humane Scorecard in the 108th and 109th Congresses.

Chris Dodd: In the current session of Congress, Sen. Dodd is a co-sponsor of measures to stop Class B dealers from trafficking in random-source pets for research, end horse slaughter, upgrade the penalties for animal fighting, and call on Canada to stop its annual massacre of baby harp seals. He has consistently voted for animal protection during his career, and can always be counted on by animal advocates.

John Edwards: A leader on the issue of factory farming, Sen. Edwards has called for a moratorium on the construction or expansion of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  His campaign has released a positive statement on animal welfare, and you can read more about his record in my longer entry, “John Edwards on Animals and Rural America.”

Dennis Kucinich: An ethical vegetarian, Rep. Kucinich has been one of the true leaders on animal protection issues in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is currently a co-sponsor of 14 animal protection measures in the 110th Congress, one of the highest numbers among all 435 members.  He led the effort in 2001 and 2002 to secure more funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act at puppy mills, research laboratories, zoos, circuses, and other facilities.  When animal issues are considered on the House floor, Rep. Kucinich can often be found speaking in favor of the animal protection position.  In November, he hosted an online forum to discuss animal issues.

Barack Obama: In the current session of Congress, Sen. Obama is a co-sponsor of measures to stop horse slaughter, upgrade the penalties for animal fighting, and crack down on dogfighting.  He has had a strong record for animals in both the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate. Read more about his responses to the Humane Society Legislative Fund’s questionnaire in my longer entry, “Barack Obama and the Dog-acity of Hope.”

Bill Richardson: New Mexico banned cockfighting in 2007 thanks to Gov. Richardson’s leadership, and the chief executive signed numerous animal protection bills into law and issued a comprehensive animal welfare package for the state.  Read more in my longer entry, “Bill Richardson’s Animal Magnetism in the Land of Enchantment.”

The Presidential Files: Evaluating the Elephants

With the Iowa caucuses tomorrow, and the New Hampshire primaries next week, I want to provide an overview of the Republican presidential candidates. I’ve already commented on Mike Huckabee’s terrible approach to animal cruelty issues and pandering to the sport hunting lobby, and Ron Paul’s philosophical opposition to even the most modest animal welfare policies in Congress. Here’s what we know about the other presidential hopefuls in the party of the elephants:

Rudy Giuliani: As mayor, Giuliani did not have as many opportunities to take a position on animal issues as those who served as governor or a member of Congress, but he did take some proactive measures in America's largest city.  In 2000, he proposed and signed a bill to promote the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats and open an animal shelter in each borough in order to help curb New York's pet overpopulation.  He is the first Republican candidate to release a public statement on animal issues, which is reproduced here in its entirety: "Animals play an important part in the lives of many Americans.  We should all work to reduce animal suffering by advocating for sensible public policies, investigating animal cruelty and strongly enforcing the laws that are already on the books. I will continue to support efforts to educate the public about animal issues, and work with corporations to develop animal-friendly policies."

Duncan Hunter: In the U.S. House of Representatives, Hunter’s record has been relatively poor but he’s been a supporter on some issues. He has earned scores ranging from zero to 42 percent on the Humane Scorecard over the years, having backed a few animal protection proposals, including those to stop animal fighting, horse slaughter, and the processing of “downer” livestock. He has been leading the fight to continue the trophy hunting of deer and elk on Santa Rosa Island, in a controversial battle over whether the animals will be exterminated from the island or allowed to remain in a canned hunt—either way a bad outcome for the animals.

John McCain: In the U.S. Senate, McCain has been a strong supporter of numerous animal welfare issues, earning scores of up to 75 percent on the Humane Scorecard. He has voted for and co-sponsored legislation to stop horse slaughter, and voted to eliminate a $2 million subsidy for the mink industry. He has co-sponsored bills to stop the interstate shipment of birds for cockfighting and to stop the poaching of bears by ending the trade in their gall bladders and other viscera. He took an anti-animal position by supporting an amendment to the California Desert Protection Act which would have allowed sport hunting in the Mojave National Park. Senator McCain has been a leader in the effort to stop global warming, and he opposes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is home to many wildlife species.

Mitt Romney: Romney attracted the ire of animal advocates when they learned that during a 1983 vacation, he put the family’s Irish setter, Seamus, in a carrier and strapped him to the roof rack of the station wagon. When the terrified dog urinated and defecated during the twelve-hour drive, Romney pulled over, hosed down the dog, and continued the voyage from Boston to Ontario. As chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney also came under fire from animal protection groups for allowing a rodeo exhibition that included calf roping. His term as governor didn't exactly inspire confidence in his judgment on animal issues, either.  He appointed a raft of animal-unfriendly people to the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board.  He did, however, leave the governor's mansion on a high note by signing a bill passed in 2006 to strengthen the Massachusetts animal fighting law and prevent a convicted animal abuser from getting the animal back. 

Fred Thompson: Thompson rarely supported animal protection issues in the U.S. Senate, but his highest score was 50 percent on the Humane Scorecard. On the positive side, he voted to eliminate a $2 million subsidy for the mink industry. On the negative side, he voted to continue spending tax dollars to allow the use of two particularly inhumane traps—steel-jawed leghold traps and wire neck snares—for commercial and recreational trapping on National Wildlife Refuges. And he opposed an amendment to protect dolphins from drowning in tuna fishing nets.

The Presidential Files: Barack Obama and the Dog-acity of Hope

Democratic Senator Barack Obama's 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," is a story about his dogged optimism in the future. But it's his other work of writing—this one in response to a Humane Society Legislative Fund questionnaire—that has given dogs and other animals hope in this country. 

At this time, three other presidential candidates—John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson—have issued campaign statements telling voters where they stand on animal welfare. Obama's statement is a welcome addition, and it is an indicator of the growing importance of humane issues in presidential politics. We hope the other presidential candidates will let voters know where they stand on animal issues, too. 

In his questionnaire response, Obama pledges support for nearly every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and he says he will work with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make their policies more humane. He writes of the important role animals play in our lives, as companions in our homes, as wildlife in their own environments, and as service animals working with law enforcement and assisting persons with disabilities.

©HSLF

Obama also comments on the broader links between animal cruelty and violence in society: "I've repeatedly voted to increase penalties for animal cruelty and violence and, importantly, to require psychological counseling for those who engage in this behavior as part of the punishment. In addition to being unacceptable in its own stead, violence towards animals is linked with violent behavior in general, especially domestic violence, and we need to acknowledge this connection and work to treat it. Strong penalties are important and I support them, but we know that incarceration alone can't solve all our problems. As president, I'd continue to make sure that we treat animal cruelty like the serious crime it is and address its connection to broader patterns of violence."

In his eight years as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted for at least a dozen animal protection laws that came up during that time. He supported measures, among others, to allow the creation of pet trusts to provide for the long-term care of companion animals; to upgrade the penalties for cruelty to animals; to require psychological counseling for people who abuse animals; to require that veterinarians report suspected acts of cruelty and animal fighting; and to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption—which was significant because, at the time, Illinois was one of only two states (with Texas) where horse slaughter plants operated. 

After being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama has continued his record of support for animal protection laws. He voted to end the federal funding of horse slaughter in 2005, and he is currently a co-sponsor of new legislation to stop horse slaughter and the export of horses for human consumption. He co-sponsored legislation which was enacted this May to upgrade the federal penalties for dogfighting and cockfighting, and he is a co-sponsor of new legislation to ban the possession of fighting dogs and being a spectator at a dogfight. He signed a letter requesting increased funds for the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and the federal animal fighting law, and he also sent a letter to the National Zoo expressing his concern for the care of Toni the elephant. 

Senator Obama scored 20 percent on the 2005 Humane Scorecard because he voted to end horse slaughter, but at the time, had not yet co-sponsored bills dealing with animal fighting, puppy mills, or downer livestock, or signed the enforcement funding letter. His score improved to 60 percent on the 2006 Humane Scorecard, as he signed onto the animal fighting bill and the funding letter. For 2007, Obama will receive credit on the scorecard for co-sponsoring the animal fighting and horse slaughter legislation, but he has not yet co-sponsored major animal welfare bills such as the Pet Safety and Protection Act. 

While Obama has said that he supports the rights of hunters and sportsmen, he has not gone out of his way to stress the point, and has not—as some other candidates have—dressed up in camo and gunned down animals with the television cameras in tow. Obama's personal interactions with animals, in fact, appear to be much more humane. He has joined the fight against puppy mills, and will appear in a new book by my friend Jana Kohl about her rescued dog, Baby, who survived a decade in a puppy mill.

And Obama has said that "as a condition for letting me run for President, my daughters Malia and Sasha extracted a promise from Michelle and I that they could get a dog after the election, win or lose. So they're heavily invested in this campaign, if only for it to be over so we can get our dog."

Now that's a photo op I'd like to see. 

The Presidential Files: Bill Richardson's Animal Magnetism in the Land of Enchantment

When animal advocates survey the field of presidential candidates, there is a lot of parity among those who have served in Congress. Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, John McCain, and Barack Obama have all been supporters of animal welfare. But when you look at the three candidates who have served as governors, only one chief executive has advanced the cause of animal welfare in his home state in a meaningful way. 

Mike Huckabee impeded animal welfare in Arkansas, and even attempted to impede an investigation into an act of cruelty allegedly committed by his son. (Yesterday, Huckabee traipsed around an Iowa corn field and shot a pheasant in his continuing efforts to pander to the NRA and the sport hunting lobby.) Mitt Romney doesn't have Huckabee's terrible record, but he was no friend to animals in Massachusetts, even though his state has one of the highest percentages of animal advocates in the country. But in New Mexico, Bill Richardson has managed to implement path-breaking reforms and exhibit real leadership on humane issues.

At the end of 2006, Gov. Richardson announced a precedent-setting animal protection package for the state. The ten-point plan included a multi-million dollar expenditure for animal protection projects, such as animal shelter improvements, spay/neuter and adoption programs, sanctuaries for neglected horses, a wildlife law center, and humane education in public schools. The comprehensive proposal is a model for what other states should seek to achieve, and if it can be done in New Mexico—one of the poorest and least populated states in the country—there is no excuse for others not to follow suit. During Richardson's tenure, he has provided more than ten million dollars for wildlife conservation, animal shelters, animal control, spay/neuter projects, cruelty investigations, and other animal welfare programs.

Richardson followed the animal protection package by diving into a hotly contested legislative debate. He publicly advocated for a ban on cockfighting, and this year New Mexico became the 49th state to outlaw the practice (quickly followed by Louisiana, which became 50th). Some people argue that it was too little too late, and the state should have acted much sooner—after all, 35 states banned cockfighting before New Mexico even joined the union in 1912. But animal advocates had been fighting this battle for two decades in New Mexico, and it was only when Gov. Richardson entered the fray with his active support and his considerable lobbying abilities that the ban was actually achieved.

The governor also reacted strongly this year when a high school student's science fair project—under the guidance of the University of New Mexico—involved the cruel treatment of animals.  Mice were forced to swim until nearly drowning, hung by their tails with adhesive tape, and electrically shocked, all to measure hopelessness and depression. Richardson called for a full investigation and urged laboratory animal reforms at research universities. Among other animal protection bills that passed under Richardson's watch, New Mexico enacted Scooby's Law to require the addition of a bittering agent in antifreeze to prevent the poisoning of children and pets and the Animal Sheltering Services Act to set standards for the practice of euthanasia at shelters.For the governor's work to protect animals, he received a 2007 Milagro Award from Animal Protection of New Mexico. 

Of course, very few candidates are perfect on animal issues. The governor created the New Mexico Rodeo Council in 2005 and since then has allocated hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote rodeo and construct new facilities. The Associated Press reported this summer that Richardson considers himself a "recreational hunter," and the governor's office provided a photo of an exotic oryx he shot in 2005 at a captive hunting ranch. Like a few other candidates, Richardson is promoting his hunting bona fides and bragging about his prowess as a sportsman. We wish the presidential hopefuls would go to the Animal Rescue League of Iowa and adopt a dog or cat to show their compassion, instead. 

On balance, Bill Richardson has moved the needle forward for animals in the Land of Enchantment. He has set a new standard for action on animal protection issues by a sitting governor, despite lapses on important issues like hunting and rodeo.

The Presidential Files: Ron Paul and Michael Vick

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is on fire.  He broke records last week for raising more than $6 million online in a 24-hour period.  What was once a fringe campaign is now hiring more staff and opening more offices.  I suspect that some animal advocates have gravitated toward Paul because of his anti-war, populist rhetoric.

But they may not know about his terrible record in Congress—driven by an attitude that the federal government (and perhaps local or state government, too) should not play a role in protecting animals from cruelty.  Rep. Paul is one of only 31 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted against every single animal protection measure that came up for a vote in 2007.  He voted in March to keep the federal penalties weak for dogfighting and cockfighting, providing some great pocket protection for would-be Michael Vicks.  He voted in April against restoring the decades-old protections for wild horses and burros, instead opting to allow these majestic creatures to be sold for commercial slaughter. And he voted in June to allow wealthy American trophy hunters to shoot polar bears in the Arctic and bring their heads and hides back home.  It doesn’t get much worse than that, and only 30 other lawmakers—the bottom 7 percent of Congress, you might say—have matched Ron Paul’s opposition to animal welfare in 2007.

It hasn’t always been this way for Ron Paul.