Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

Polar Bears Listed as Threatened, but Still on Thin Ice

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced yesterday that the polar bear would be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, ending months of speculation over the fate of this proposed listing. But the fate of the polar bear remains uncertain, as we don’t know whether the threatened status will have any impact on oil and gas drilling in the polar bear’s habitat, or what federal policies and action plans will be undertaken to help these beleaguered creatures recover.

We do know that the polar bear is the first species to be granted protection under the Endangered Species Act due to the effects of global warming, and this potential lifeline can’t come soon enough. Their habitat is shrinking and ice floes are vanishing. Scientists report that the bears’ body weights are declining and they are having trouble hunting for food. Anyone who saw the “Planet Earth” series on BBC or Discovery Channel, and watched a starving polar bear curl up to die because he couldn’t kill a walrus, knows exactly what these animals are facing.

One benefit for polar bears which will take place immediately, however, is that wealthy American trophy hunters will no longer be allowed to import sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 originally barred such imports—just as it still prohibits the import of parts from whales, dolphins, seals, and other marine mammals. But in 1994, trophy hunting groups led by Safari Club International punched a loophole through the law, opening the American border to more than 800 heads and hides of polar bears that have been imported since that time.

The United States does not allow sport hunting of polar bears in Alaska, so trophy hunters skirt the spirit of American conservation law by killing polar bears abroad. The Safari Club International gives out a “Bears of the World” hunting achievement award to individuals who shoot four of the eight species of bears in the world, and that awards program drives competitive killing of polar bears. Most of the trophy hunters who chase these animals in the Arctic in a head-hunting exercise are Americans, because they know they can bring the spoils of the hunt home with them for the purposes of self-aggrandizement and bragging rights.

Congress has been working to restore the longstanding ban on polar bear imports, and The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund have aggressively fought for passage of the Polar Bear Protection Act, H.R. 2327 and S. 1406, introduced by Representatives Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), and Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and Jack Reed (D-R.I.). Last year, thanks to Senator Reed’s leadership, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved legislation to stop the Department of Interior from issuing polar bear trophy import permits. Unfortunately, the House rejected a similar provision, and the language was not included in the final Omnibus Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2008.

The threatened listing for polar bears achieves the same policy goal we have been seeking on trophy imports, but this victory for bears may be temporary. If the species recovers, there will still be a gaping loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act that allows polar bear imports to resume. And the Safari Club has already fired a shot across the bow signaling its desire to “to reinstate the ability to import trophies” under federal law.

The trophy hunters may claim there is some conservation or economic value in killing polar bears, but their logic is Orwellian at best. You can’t save the polar bears by killing them. This is high-priced commercial hunting, and when an American trophy hunter spends $30,000 or more to shoot a polar bear, the hefty fees prompt over-exploitation of already vulnerable populations of bears. In 2005, the Nunavut territory of Canada increased hunting quotas by 29 percent, despite concerns expressed by polar bear researchers that the increase in take could be harmful to the population.

Moreover, we have seen no evidence that money charged for polar bear hunting permits is essential to local communities or wildlife conservation. An August 2005 article in the Nunatsiaq News, a Nunavut newspaper, concluded that “most of the spoils never reach Inuit hands, and when they do, those earnings vary substantially from community to community.” The funds are pocketed by commercial outfitters, and spent on transportation, hunting gear, and other incidentals—not spent on conservation.

The bears are in trouble. They are the 21st Century’s canaries in the mineshaft. Shooting them for a living room trophy mount as they struggle to survive in a rapidly changing environment is just selfish and wrong.  The excessive commercial killing of polar bears is only one cause of mortality in the larger constellation of threats they are facing, but it's one course correction we can make right now.

The threatened listing for polar bears makes it even more urgent that we do everything we can to ensure their survival.  While we wrestle with the larger problems of global warming and habitat protection, now is the time to tell your members of Congress to pass the Polar Bear Protection Act, and make sure the door to trophy imports does not swing open in the future.

NRA is the Poacher's Best Friend

When the NRA walks the halls of the U.S. Congress these days, it may stand for “No Rational Argument.”

Last year, the group tried to use some of its political capital to block legislation toughening the federal penalties for illegal dogfighting and cockfighting. The NRA simply didn’t like the fact that The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund supported the bill, so it chose to align itself with Michael Vick rather than the law enforcement officials who arrested him for financing a dogfighting ring. The legislation it tried to stymie passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly, and was signed into law by President Bush.

Now, in an instant replay worthy of Michael Vick’s highlight reel, the NRA is trying to shoot down legislation that would stop the illegal poaching of bears. First dogfighters and cockfighters, and now poachers. We already know that group defends canned hunters and captive pigeon shooters. What other animal cruelty enthusiasts will the group defend next?

The Bear Protection Act, H.R. 5534, introduced by U.S. Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and John Campbell (R-Calif.), would bar the interstate commerce in bear bile and gall bladders. These internal organs are sought by poachers for sale on the lucrative black market for Asian medicines, and even non-medicinal items like aphrodisiacs and hemorrhoid creams.

Poaching is a cruel and wasteful epidemic. Game wardens report finding bear carcasses in the woods with nothing removed but the gall bladder. For every bear legally killed by a hunter in North America, some estimates indicate that at least one other bear is illegally poached by a criminal.

Thirty-four states already ban the sale of bear parts—including major bear hunting states like Alaska—because hunters and wildlife managers long ago decided that wildlife should be used as a public resource, not for private commercial gain. But the patchwork of state regulations makes the enforcement of anti-poaching laws difficult, as the organs from a bear poached in one state could be sold legally in another. And a gall bladder from a black bear looks identical to one from a polar bear or Asiatic bear. There’s no way to tell at the point of sale whether the bear was killed legally or illegally, or whether the bear’s population was endangered or thriving.

The Bear Protection Act would crack down on poaching by establishing a national policy on the sale of bear viscera. It doesn’t have any impact on lawful bear hunting—only bear poaching—but the NRA is actively fighting the legislation. The group has rattled its saber over the bill, and has already strong-armed a couple of its allies—Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Mary Fallin (R-Okla.)—into withdrawing their co-sponsorship.

Why would the NRA defend the interests of poachers, when it has so many other policy issues to worry about? It doesn’t make much sense, unless the group has some members who are not satisfied with conventional bear trophies and bearskin rugs, and instead want to mount a bear’s gall bladder over the mantle.

In an online poll of NRA members last week, 60 percent said the most important policy issue was expanding right-to-carry permits, 26 percent favored opposing semi-automatic bans, and only 14 percent wanted the organization to focus on hunting issues. My guess is that only a handful of NRA members would ask the organization to prioritize the protection of poachers.

Fortunately, there are more reasonable hunting groups that support law enforcement and oppose poaching. The American Hunters and Shooters Association, for example, has endorsed the Bear Protection Act, and the group’s president, Ray Schoenke, testified in Congress in favor of the anti-poaching legislation.

By defending the most abominable practices, the NRA might just shoot itself in the foot. When the group paves the way for poachers, it is certainly using its political capital and adding to a record of disrepute.  Maybe members of Congress will end up seeking alternative voices to defend their Second Amendment interests—not the interests of criminals.

Whether you are a hunter or an animal advocate, contact your members of Congress today and ask them to support the Bear Protection Act. Don’t let the NRA get away with protecting poachers.

Crippled Cows Need Protection at Every Step of their Journey

The Humane Society of the United States yesterday released the next wave of its groundbreaking investigation into rampant mistreatment of sick and crippled cows. Last time, the downed animals were tormented and processed at a California slaughter plant for the National School Lunch Program. But now, there is evidence that animals are too weak to stand up or walk at earlier points in the process: the livestock auctions and half-way stops between farm and slaughter. 

Since the Hallmark/Westland case broke in January, there have been eight congressional hearings on downed animals and food safety issues, more than 150 million pounds of meat recalled, and two new bills introduced to address the abuses. Now, congressional reaction once again has been swift in response to the problems found at livestock auctions in Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Texas. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer urging the agency to conduct an industry-wide investigation into the animal cruelty at auctions and stockyards. “This is further evidence that oversight to ensure the humane treatment of animals destined for our food supply is inadequate,” she said. “Food animals should never be subject to the kind of horrible acts as witnessed in these videos and reported by concerned citizens.” Sen. Feinstein previously introduced legislation to provide more meaningful penalties for facilities that slaughter downed animals.

The chairwoman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., also weighed in strongly. “Given the continued revelations about the abuse of downer cows—this time in our livestock auctions and stockyards—it is clear that this is a systemic problem. Unfortunately, preventing animal cruelty, and preventing animals at greater risk for food-borne illnesses from entering the food supply, does not appear to be a USDA priority.” Rep. DeLauro is the author of the Food Safety Recall Information Act, which would further address the problems highlighted by the downed animal investigation and beef recall.

And the co-author of the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act, Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., called for further protections for farm animals. “The humane treatment of animals speaks to our nation’s core values, and this cruelty reflects poorly on our country as a whole,” he said. “Our government can have a tremendous impact in encouraging improved treatment of animals by requiring producers to meet basic federal animal welfare requirements.”

The Humane Society Legislative Fund is grateful to these legislative leaders for speaking out. In fact, it’s not the first time lawmakers have asked USDA to look into this very problem. In the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress directed the USDA to investigate the question of downed animals at livestock auctions and markets—including the scope of problems, the causes, and the resulting cruel treatment of animals—and to follow up with “regulations to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory livestock by stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.”

Now that Congress is wrapping up another Farm Bill six years later, further action is needed to address these cruelties that have come to light. While the USDA has a presence at slaughter plants, no one is watching or taking responsibility for the animals at auctions before they are sent to slaughter. These animals fall into regulatory limbo, and we need to do better as a country to protect animal welfare and food safety.

Hunting Industry Group Sets its Sights on Pets

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance takes aim at animals when they’re most vulnerable. Polar bears in the Arctic, as their ice floes are vanishing, body weights are declining, and populations are dwindling. Mourning doves in states where they’ve been protected for decades as backyard songbirds, still nursing their young during September target practice. Endangered antelope stocked in fenced pens for captive trophy hunts, where they have neither the opportunity nor the inclination to escape.

But now this Ohio-based trade association for weapons manufacturers has stooped to a new low.  By firing with its blunderbuss, the group is going to wind up with dogs and cats in its trophy case—just when these abandoned pets need our help the most.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has declared that your community should not join hands to help hundreds, maybe thousands, of pets impacted by the foreclosure crisis. Moreover, a kind-hearted business that saw fit to try and assist has to be blackballed to drive home the point.

You think I’m kidding?

What we have here, friends, is a brand-new Boone and Crockett record in the department of loony thinking.

The facts are that The Humane Society of the United States, after hearing of the increasing needs from animal shelters and rescue group volunteers around the nation, started an emergency fund to help the animal victims of housing foreclosures. What do dogs and cats know about investment bubbles anyway?

Specifically, the fund is designed to help animal shelters and rescue groups from coast to coast that are feeling the worsening pressure of more abandoned pets. Understanding the nature of this tragedy, many businesses and kind-hearted individuals have reached into their wallets to assist. The HSUS is acting as a clearing house for these funds.

In the Midwest, the Meijer chain of regional stores agreed to chip in up to $5,000—$1 for each customer who entered the company’s pet photo contest on its website. Thank you, Meijer.

Then this fringe group claiming to represent hunters enters the picture. Because The HSUS and Humane Society Legislative Fund oppose such things as shooting captive, hand-fed animals in fenced enclosures for guaranteed trophies, the sportsmen’s alliance finds itself opposing anything that The HSUS and HSLF support. Even to the extreme. Even to the point of dooming dogs and cats to suffer.

How do these people sleep at night, you might wonder.

Sadly, Meijer succumbed to the extremism of this demand. No more will the company help shelters in this crisis.

As Wayne Pacelle wrote in his blog today, “Let’s not let them get away with this.” People of conscience can teach the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance a lesson, by donating to support The HSUS’s Foreclosure Pets Fund, and also donating to support HSLF's work to pass animal protection laws in Congress and in state legislatures.

Whether you are a hunter, or a wildlife watcher, or a pet lover, or a solid citizen down the block, you can join us in deploring the tunnel vision of an industry trade group that cannot lift its eyes high enough to see the real target. This is not a fight about hunting. This is a matter of kindness in a crisis, yes or no? The housing mess is claiming animal victims. Do you care?

The truth of the political landscape is that The HSUS and HSLF frequently partner with hunters, and sensible hunting groups, when our interests converge. And this occurs more often than some people recognize—on legislation to ban Internet hunting and captive hunts, to restore the prohibition on importing polar bear trophies, to protect habitat from development, to fight the effects of global warming that will threaten all wildlife, and to crack down on poaching by barring the commerce in bear bile and gall bladders.

Many hunters recognize that they are part of an evolving society. As their numbers diminish, their standing in our culture can only be jeopardized by the absurd, mindless radicalism expressed by the so-called sportsmen’s alliance.

This murky group claims, in its mission statement, to be seeking “public support” for “stewardship” in the name of “heritage.”

Those are big words. Too bad they are spoken by people with such small thoughts.

Next time the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance defends the worst abuses of the hunting industry—practices that many rank-and-file hunters agree are inhumane and unacceptable—remember that this is the group that wanted to abandon the dog and cat victims of foreclosure to suffer.

To them, let me recall the grand challenge posed by Winston Churchill long ago: You do your worst and we’ll do our best.

A Perfect Storm for Farm Animals

It’s been an exciting week for farm animal protection in America. On Sunday, more than one thousand animal advocates in 43 states gathered at our Party Animals events around the country to rally for laws to protect animals from the worst abuses of industrial factory farming. I participated in a nationwide conference call with partygoers to talk about the Humane Society Legislative Fund’s work to promote farm animal welfare, and I was joined on the call by the fantastic U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is a stalwart advocate for animals in Congress. She is the chairwoman of the important House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and has been one of the leading voices for passing the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act, the Food Safety Recall Information Act, and other important policy reforms.

Congresswoman DeLauro spoke eloquently about the “perfect storm” surrounding The Humane Society of the United States’ recent investigation into the slaughter of crippled cows, and how it “crystallized the inhumane treatment of animals, the violation of the downer cow policy and downer cows becoming part of the food chain, and the potential for tainted beef making its way into the school lunch program.” She urged listeners to join the National Call-In Day for Downed Animals this Thursday. “Make your voices heard. Make this issue a national priority,” she implored. “My colleagues in the Congress listen to what their constituents say. You have to make sure that they hear you.”

Also joining us on the call was “Brian,” the HSUS undercover investigator who worked for six weeks at the slaughter plant and exposed the horrific practices that led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history. His voice was disguised to protect his identity, and it was a riveting and dramatic moment, straight out of “60 Minutes.” Brian told a story about his last day of work at the plant, when he saw a pregnant cow who literally gave birth on her way to slaughter. Despite her attempts to care for her calf, she was separated from her newborn and slaughtered. Brian had captured so many terrible images, and he knew it was time to show the world.

But it’s not just downer cows getting attention. The Party Animals events and the nationwide call to action came just days after national news on scientific innovations that may some day allow meat to be grown in laboratories, potentially reducing the suffering of billions of farm animals, environmental pollution, and public health impacts. "The New York Times" took the opportunity to comment in an editorial on the current state of factory farming in America, and the paper of record held no punches:

We are disgusted by the conventional meat industry in this country, which raises animals—especially chicken and pigs—in inhumane confinement systems that cause significant environmental damage. There is every reason to change the way meat is produced, to make it more ethical, more humane…Ensure the least possible cruelty to animals, by all means, and raise them in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound.

And that’s not all the news that’s fit to print. This morning, at a press conference in Washington, D.C., the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production released a path-breaking report after two and a half years of studying the problems of factory farming. The commission is made up of prominent individuals such as former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Colorado State University professor Bernie Rollin, and University of Tennessee Veterinary School Dean Michael Blackwell.  Among the commission’s findings are that factory farms jeopardize animal welfare, public health, food safety, and the quality of life in rural communities. They have issued a series of recommendations, including an end to the use of gestation crates for pigs, veal crates for calves, and battery cages for egg-laying hens.

The commission report will surely lead to policy initiatives to change laws for farm animals and change the way agribusiness operates in this country, and your Humane Society Legislative Fund will be on the front lines. In fact, several efforts are already underway which are directly in line with the commission’s recommendations, including the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act on the state’s November general election ballot. Californians will have the opportunity to end one of the worst abuses in industrial factory farming—confining animals in tiny crates and cages so small they don’t even have enough room to turn around and stretch their limbs for nearly their entire lives. 

Tethering veal calves by the neck, forcing pigs to squeeze inside tight metal bars, cramming five or six birds into a wire cage the size of the front page of “The New York Times”—it’s not just animal advocates who say these practices are cruel and unacceptable. It’s time for the perfect storm surrounding farm animal welfare to result in meaningful social change for these creatures.

State Lawmakers Horsing Around

When legislators want to duck an issue, they often say it’s outside their jurisdiction. Federal lawmakers tell you to deal with the states, and their state counterparts tell you to deal with the feds.

But when it serves their ideological interests, lawmakers will try to grab, rather than pass, the hot potato. State Rep. Dave Sigdestad, a Democrat in South Dakota, has advanced a proposal in the National Conference of State Legislatures that would urge the U.S. Congress to oppose legislation banning horse slaughter. The resolution will be considered when the NCSL meets in Washington, D.C. this week.

The proposed resolution repeats the fatuous claim that slaughtering tens of thousands of horses each year actually helps them. The horse slaughter industry has been trying to sell this bogus idea with a straight face: If horses weren’t killed they would be cruelly abused or abandoned. Yeah, right—isn't that like destroying the village to save it? Horse owners are not going to turn into would-be Michael Vicks because they can no longer make a buck selling horses for meat. There are plenty of other legal, responsible options, such as resale to new owners, placement at equine rescues or sanctuaries, or humane euthanasia.

It’s especially ironic because state lawmakers have largely been responsible for shuttering the last remaining horse slaughter plants. The Illinois legislature banned horse slaughter last year, and the state’s single slaughter plant, Cavel International, sued to overturn the law by claiming that only the federal government, not the states, could act to ban horse slaughter. The court rejected that argument and upheld the right of the state of Illinois to pass its own laws.

Another federal court upheld a similar state law in Texas, and Lone Star lawmakers defeated an attempt to repeal that prohibition. And Rep. Sigdestad’s own state of South Dakota flatly rejected a bill this year that would have opened a new horse slaughter plant with a $1 million loan from state taxpayers.

If they don’t want horse slaughter in Texas or South Dakota, where could they possibly want it? Not anywhere in the U.S., as there is not a single operating horse slaughter plant in the country. Arizona, California, Oklahoma, and other states have laws dealing with horse slaughter. Americans don’t eat horse meat, and don’t very much like our horses butchered so their flesh can be consumed as a delicacy in Europe and Asia.

Federal lawmakers have done their part, too, and have voted time and time again to cut funding for inspections at horse slaughter plants. They need to finish the job by passing the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, S. 311 and H.R. 503, which would prevent horse slaughter plants from reopening in the U.S. and would also stop the flow of horses to slaughter in Canada and Mexico where the transport distances are grueling and the slaughter methods cruel and clumsy.   

Absent the federal export ban, the states cannot ensure their own horses are not shuttled thousands of miles to grisly deaths in foreign plants. The NCSL resolution would undercut the efforts of state legislatures, at the behest of their citizens, to protect horses from this grim and painful end.

State and federal legislators should join together in getting the horse slaughter ban over the finish line, not turn back the clock on the progress that has been made for horses in both arenas. Contact your own state legislators and tell them that if they are attending the NCSL meeting, they should slaughter this wrongheaded resolution.

Protecting Our Closest Living Relatives

Christine Kenneally recently penned a thought-provoking "Washington Post" column about how alike people and animals are in so many ways. Chimpanzees are perhaps the most striking example, as our closest living relatives understand and construct sentences and favor different tools for hammering and fishing. As Kenneally wrote, “chimpanzees make sense of the world in many of the same ways we do. The implication is indisputable: Humans are not unique.”

Because of these similarities, it’s especially troubling that about 1,200 chimpanzees are still used in U.S. laboratories. These highly intelligent and social creatures got a boost in Congress yesterday when a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced H.R. 5852, the Great Ape Protection Act, to end invasive research on all chimps and to retire those who are federally owned to permanent sanctuary. The bill was introduced by U.S. Representatives Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), and Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), along with Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Tom Allen (D-Maine), John Campbell (R-Calif.), and Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) as original cosponsors.

The U.S. remains the largest user of chimpanzees in biomedical research, as England, Sweden, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Austria, and Japan have all banned or limited their use. Some chimps have been languishing in labs for more than 40 years, confined in steel cages for most of their lives and enduring sometimes painful and distressing experimental procedures. It costs U.S. taxpayers $20 million to $25 million each year—money that many in the scientific community believe could be allocated to more effective research. More than 300 scientists, physicians, and educators have joined The Humane Society of the United States’ Chimps Deserve Better campaign and the New England Anti-Vivisection Society's Project R&R: Release and Restitution for Chimpanzees in U.S. Laboratories in calling for an end to invasive experiments on chimps.

The number of chimps in research has declined steadily over recent years, as the animals have proven to be ineffective models and innovations in alternatives have emerged. In 2000, Congress passed the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (CHIMP) Act which established a national sanctuary system for those chimpanzees who have provided long service in laboratories. The law was upgraded in 2007, thanks to the work of U.S. Representative Jim McCrery (R-La.) and U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.), to ensure that these animals could not be removed from sanctuaries and placed back into research. 

Many former lab chimps now live out their lives at outstanding animal sanctuaries such as Chimp Haven, Save the Chimps, the Fauna Foundation, and the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch. Groups like Animal Protection of New Mexico and In Defense of Animals are working to get remaining chimps to sanctuaries, such as the 288 currently housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility on the Holloman Air Force Base. The National Institutes of Health confiscated these chimps from the bankrupt Coulston Foundation and handed them over to Charles River Laboratories, which received a ten-year contract and more than $4 million per year to maintain the colony. Charles River is under fire from the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office after the recent deaths of two chimps and near-death of a third.

But it shouldn’t just fall on the shoulders of private groups to clean up the mess caused by the research industry, or law enforcement officials to prosecute the worst abuses. Congress must play its part, too, and recognize it’s time for a national public policy to protect our closest living relatives. Just as lawmakers passed the CHIMP Act in 2000 to give sanctuary to chimps, they should now finish the job and allow the remaining chimps to be released from labs to live out their lives free from harm.

Protection Orders Help All Family Members

Last week on Long Island, the law stood up for a duck named Circles. As far as I know, it was a first time that waterfowl rated such attention at the courthouse.

We can be delighted for the duck. And we can be thankful for our own sake. Increasingly, our society recognizes that cruelty extracts a terrible toll not just on the likes of Circles and other creatures, but on us humans too.

In this case a man was charged under New York’s felony animal cruelty law for shooting the duck with a pellet gun in a neighbor’s backyard. Circles has recovered from a bullet wound to her voice box, and a judge ordered the man to stay away from the bird.

Circles may have been a path-finding case insofar as wings and feathers go, but court orders protecting pets from harm are becoming more common. Recognizing the connection between animal cruelty and family violence, state lawmakers and law enforcement agencies around the country are rallying to provide greater safeguards for the whole of the family, animals too.

When pets are abused, it’s a warning siren about other potential violence in a household. One way for abusers to torment spouses, lovers, neighbors and others is to target pets. We all know there are few bonds deeper than those between a person and a companion animal—which makes the pet a prime target in the grisly cycle of suffering.

In a national survey of battered women's shelters, 85 percent reported cases of just such attacks on the pets of women seeking refuge. Imagine the countless numbers of other women who never reach out for help because they fear what might happen to their animals if they did. As it is, almost half of abused women say they delay leaving a dangerous domestic situation because their partners might harm or kill the family pet.

In 2006, Maine became the first state to recognize the significance of this relationship between people and animals. Today, court orders can be written to extend protections not just to a woman and her family, but also to pets.

In the last two years, nine other states—California, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, New York, Tennessee, and Vermont—have followed suit by passing laws allowing pet protection orders. Thirteen more—Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin—have already considered bills on the subject in 2008.

We’ve all heard of the canary in the mineshaft. Now we can add the duck in the backyard. Our pets don’t ask for the duty, but they can serve us as early warning systems. When our laws protect them, we are all better off.

Future Investment Will Go a Long Way for Animals

The slaughter of sick and crippled cows, Oprah’s exposé on puppy mills, a tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo, research laboratories ignoring compliance requirements, the routine soring of horses in violation of the Horse Protection Act. Over the past few months, these high-profile events have illustrated one common theme—laws and regulations to protect animals are only as good as their enforcement.

For years, The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund have worked in Congress to boost funding levels to implement and enforce key animal welfare laws. This year, we rallied the support of a strong bipartisan group of 46 Senators and 143 Representatives—nearly half the Senate and a third of the House—to request funds needed to improve enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the federal law to combat dogfighting and cockfighting, and programs to help prepare for the needs of animals in disasters and to address the shortage of veterinarians in rural and inner-city areas and public health practice.

Thanks to the leadership of Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittees heard from nearly 200 lawmakers who signed group letters or made their own individual requests for animal welfare funding. You can read the Senate and House letters, and see if your legislators are on the list of members who joined this important effort.

This is just the latest installment in a multi-year effort. We’ve been steadily building the enforcement budgets for these laws, recognizing that laws on the books won’t do animals much good if they’re not enforced. For example, over the past nine years, we’ve succeeded in boosting the annual funding for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act by 123% (a cumulative total of $59 million in new dollars to the program). Today, there are 105 USDA inspectors, compared to about 60 inspectors during the 1990s, to help ensure basic humane treatment at thousands of zoos, circuses, puppy mills, research laboratories, and other facilities.

If your elected officials are standing up for the enforcement of animal protection laws, please thank them for their help. This investment of critical resources will go a long way to help animals in the future.

Trust in Me

The recent mortgage crisis has taken its toll not only on homeowners, but also on their pets. Animal protection groups and lawmakers are pitching in to help, and media outlets such as USA Today and CNN are reporting on the plight of four-legged foreclosure victims.

The news has caused me to think about responsible pet ownership, and preparedness in general. When we bring a companion animal into our family, we make a lifelong commitment to provide for that animal's care. Pets can be costly, as reported recently by the New York Times, and we should only bring them into our lives if we know we can handle the cost of pet food, veterinary care, and other needs. If we are forced to move or our financial circumstances change, we should do all in our power to keep these family members safe with us.

That lifetime commitment of responsible care should even extend beyond us. People often assume they will outlive their pets, but we must prepare for the unexpected and be sure to provide for our pets' future in case we are the ones to pass away first. If we just leave it to chance without proper planning, our pets might end up being relinquished to an animal shelter, abandoned, or euthanized, rather than with a trusted friend or relative. By planning for your pet's future, you not only can help your own dog or cat, but also can help to relieve society's burden of caring for and sheltering millions of homeless animals.

More and more pet owners are making provisions for longterm animal care in their estate planning, and more and more attorneys and tax advisors are offering this service to give their clients the peace of mind that their pets will be cared for. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that recognize pet trusts, which are funds specifically set aside to pay for your pet's care after you are gone.

It's important that we have a national policy, too. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) have introduced H.R. 2491, the Charitable Remainder Pet Trust Act, which would allow the establishment of pet trusts under the federal tax code. It's a sensible policy that will help people and pets and will encourage responsible planning. Ask your members of Congress to support the Charitable Remainder Pet Trust Act to give these four-legged family members the vital safety net they need.

Oh Canada...How Could You?

Today, Canadian fishermen on the Atlantic coast set out on their annual ritual of killing hundreds of thousands of baby seals for their fur pelts. One of the world’s most beautiful nurseries—as vulnerable seal pups, just weeks old, emerge on the ice floes—will be stained red in the world’s largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals.

What’s worse, the Canadian government delayed granting permits for humane groups and journalists to be present on the ice bearing witness and reporting on the carnage. It was a cruelty cover-up, and effectively barred any observation on the opening day of the hunt. They don’t want the world to see the images with their own eyes—to know what’s happening behind the Ice Curtain. 

Last summer, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution—led by the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)—calling on the government of Canada to end its commercial seal hunt. A similar measure has been introduced in the Senate—by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)—and now has 13 cosponsors. 

It’s time for the Senate to join the House in condemning Canada’s cruelty. As the blood flows on the ice floes today, ask your Senators to speak out.

And the Cockers' Red Glare

An article by Winston Ross in the web edition of Newsweek reports on the trend of increased lawmaking and law enforcement actions to crack down on the cruel and bloody sport of cockfighting. Because state and federal legislators have upgraded the laws to root out this criminal enterprise, and because police and prosecutors around the country are aggressively enforcing those laws, the so-called “cockers” are waging a futile war to repair their public image. Ross quotes the mantra of the website Gamerooster.com: “No sport can be higher than the class of people that support it. Do your part to popularize cocking.”

It’s no surprise, then, that the cockfighters are trying to hitch their wagon to the heroes of American history. As I wrote last week, a resolution in the Hawaii state legislature imploring the United Nations to commemorate cockfighting as a “global sport” opines that “even the American Founding Fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson recognized the value of cockfighting, as participants in that sport.”

They’d have us believe that cockfighting was as important to the fledgling nation as the Declaration of Independence—as if Mount Vernon and Monticello preceded Michael Vick’s Bad Newz Kennels as the hotbeds of Virginia animal fighting. But it’s wishful thinking at best, and simply doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny. It’s time to set the record straight.

Several years ago, Eric Sakach of The HSUS set out in search of documents and records regarding the oft-repeated claims that four American presidents—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln—were cockfighting enthusiasts. After consulting several historical sources, here’s what we know:

John P. Riley, historian for the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, indicated that he was aware of only two references to cockfighting among Washington’s many writings, diaries, and correspondence. “By the numerous references in his diaries and letters to foxhunting, card playing and attending the theatre, we know that these were some of Washington’s favorite amusements,” Riley wrote. “The two references to cockfighting in his voluminous writings and the absence of documentation or physical evidence of any cockpit at Mount Vernon leads me to believe that it was not an entertainment in which he participated in any great way.”

The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation’s director of research, Lucia C. Stanton, noted that “we have found nothing in the documentary record to indicate that Jefferson either attended cockfights or raised fighting cocks. His interest in raising poultry was evidently just for culinary purposes.” She added, “I am confident that if Jefferson had had any interest in cockfighting I would have come across some reference to it in my twenty-five years of working with his documentary archive. Our former Director spent over thirty years studying Jefferson and also found no references to cockfighting.”

Regarding Andrew Jackson, the Ladies’ Hermitage Association located only one reference in his papers putting him on the scene of a cockfight near Nashville in 1809. Sharon Macpherson, the deputy director of research, noted that “cockfighting became one of the issues in the campaign of 1828. The anti-Jackson forces published a number of broadsides attacking his character and trotting out all the fights, canings, stabbings, duels and other unsavory events of Jackson’s past.” They apparently accused him of being a cockfighter, too, and a letter in Jackson’s own handwriting denied the charge: “It is a positive falshood that Genl Jackson has been either at a cockfight or sports of a similar nature for the last thirteen years.”

The Illinois State Historical Library reports that cockfighting occurred in Lincoln’s home village of New Salem, but there is no evidence that Lincoln was involved in any way. Thomas F. Schwartz, curator of the Henry Horner Lincoln Collection, observed, “His love for animals is well documented and it seems unlikely that Lincoln would endorse cock fighting. In his autobiography, Lincoln indicates that he gave up hunting after shooting a turkey.” Schwartz further refuted the notion that Lincoln earned the nickname “Honest Abe” from judging cockfights, pointing out that Lincoln’s moniker came from his dealings as a storekeeper and his fairness in judging horse races.

Although it’s harder to prove inaction than action—that eighteenth and nineteenth century leaders did not routinely participate in cockfighting—there is evidence that they also actively sought to root out the cruelty. In the colonial era, cockfighting was under pressure thanks to a combination of Puritan, Calvinist, and Quaker influences, and then the notion that such frivolous games detracted from the seriousness of the Revolutionary War effort. The First Continental Congress passed legislation in 1774 to “discountenance and discourage every species of extravagance and dissipation, especially all horse-racing, and all kinds of games, cock fighting, exhibitions of shows, plays, and other expensive diversions and entertainments.”

Over the centuries, horse racing and theatre came back into popular and political acceptance, but cockfighting never did. Most states formalized the prohibitions against staged fights in the 1800’s, yet there were a number of states where cockfighting was not criminalized.  The practice had its devotees and an industry developed, but the public always remained dubious and when citizens had a chance to outlaw the practice, they've always done so.

The founding fathers, it seems, had it right: Cockfighting had no place in the United States then, just as it has no place in the United States now. Whether the First Congress or the 110th, passing laws is the way to make cockfighting history. 

Poaching Under the Gun

Last week, the Associated Press and other news outlets reported that a park ranger was arrested for masterminding the illegal massacre of endangered mountain gorillas in Virunga National Park in eastern Congo.  Only about 700 mountain gorillas remain in the wild, and most of them are in the conflict-ridden Virunga range which straddles Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda. The ranger apparently orchestrated the slayings to deter and demoralize environmentalists who are working to preserve the gorilla’s rainforest habitat.

The political motivation for assassinating these rare creatures was nefarious in the extreme, but the photo accompanying the news story—showing four dead mountain gorillas tied to makeshift stretchers—was even more haunting. It’s a stark reminder of the many perils that wild animals face, whether here or abroad, and whether their species are imperiled or abundant.

Globally, the illegal killing and smuggling of wildlife is taking an astonishing toll. A few years ago, 25 tons of live turtles were exported from Sumatra to China every week.  That’s just one species from one country to another, and it gives you some idea of what is happening worldwide. From the killing of sharks for their fins, to the killing of elephants for their ivory tusks, to the killing of bears for their gall bladders, the cruelty for profit knows no boundaries.

Here in the U.S., some estimates indicate that for every wild animal legally killed by a sport hunter—tens of millions each year—another animal is illegally killed by a poacher. With strained budgets for law enforcement and countless acres of open land difficult to monitor, many poachers get away with their crimes and only a handful are brought to justice. The Humane Society of the United States and its Wildlife Land Trust are working with hunting groups and state wildlife agencies to take a bite out of poaching, offering rewards for tips on illegal activity and publicizing hotlines and websites for reporting poachers.

The Humane Society Legislative Fund is urging Congress to take action on an important anti-poaching bill, too. Last week, the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 5534, the Bear Protection Act, introduced by Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and John Campbell (R-Calif.). The bill would bar the interstate and foreign commerce in the internal organs of bears, and would deter poachers from killing these creatures for the lucrative black market in bear bile, gall bladders, and other viscera.

One principle of modern wildlife management is that wild animals are a public resource, and should not be killed for private commercial gain. That’s why market hunting ended in the early twentieth century, and why state wildlife agencies established hunting seasons, bag limits, and other checks on excessive practices. A bear’s gall bladder is not sought after for sport or trophy, but only to make a buck by selling it for Asian apothecaries and aphrodisiacs. And the gall bladder of a black bear looks identical to that of a more vulnerable polar bear or Asiatic bear, so there’s no telling what species the organs came from.

Many hunters rightly support strict policies to curtail poaching and conserve wildlife resources from illegal trade. Ray Schoenke, president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, was among the supporters testifying in favor of the Bear Protection Act, and he wrote a blog on Daily Kos about the subcommittee hearing. Schoenke—a lifelong hunter and former Washington Redskins player—was attacked by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) for supposedly not being enough of a hunter. It’s ironic that Young would take such a position and squabble over an anti-poaching bill, since Alaska is one of the 34 states that already ban the commercial sale of bear parts.

The Bear Protection Act has passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in previous Congresses, but has always been blocked in the House by the likes of Don Young and former Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). With new leadership of the House Natural Resources Committee, it’s time to pass this anti-poaching policy and protect bears from illegal killing—a goal shared by animal advocates and hunters alike.

'Aloha' Should Mean 'Goodbye' to Cockfighting

As the 2008 Summer Olympics approach in Beijing, it’s hard to imagine that cockfighting will ever be up there with gymnastics and swimming. But one state lawmaker is imploring the United Nations to “officially commemorate cockfighting as a global sport.” Hawaii Rep. Rida Cabanilla (D-42nd) has introduced two resolutions, HR 153 and HCR 180, which wax poetic on the Founding Fathers’ supposed affinity for fighting cocks, and the valiant cockfighters of present day who are “unwilling to lose or forget that tradition.”

Cabanilla, of course, is swimming against the tide. Even before the Michael Vick dogfighting scandal jolted the American conscience, there had been a steady and methodical upgrading of our nation’s laws to combat animal fighting. Dogfighting and cockfighting are now banned nationwide, with dogfighting punished as a felony in all 50 states and cockfighting a felony in 37. What’s more, it’s now a federal felony to move animals across state or national borders for the purpose of fighting, or to traffic in cockfighting weapons.

In Hawaii, cockfighting has been banned since 1884, during the reign of King David Kalakaua. But the law is plainly out of date. Indeed, Hawaii has one of the weakest anti-cockfighting laws in the U.S., providing only misdemeanor punishment, a maximum $2,000 fine and one year in prison. There are no sanctions against possessing fighting birds and weapons, or for attending cockfights.

Sen. Will Espero (D-20th) is rightly working to put teeth into Hawaii’s feeble law, and has introduced SB 2552 to make cockfighting a felony. Rep. John Mizuno (D-30th) and Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland (D-13th) have introduced another pair of bills, HB 2476 and SB 2133, to strengthen the anti-dogfighting statute. This collection of anti-crime and anti-cruelty bills would bring us one step closer to eradicating the dogfighitng and cockfighting industries in Hawaii, and—unlike Cabanilla’s proposal—that’s a goal that cannot be achieved too soon.

It’s likely that Cabanilla’s entreaty to the UN will just fizzle and die. According to State Net’s Capitol Journal, “This isn’t Rep. Cabanilla’s first venture into controversial legislative waters. A few years back she proposed a bill that would have forced teachers to be weighed every six months, with sanctions against those deemed to be too heavy. That one didn’t go anywhere either.”

The last time someone in Hawaii tried to make cockfighting a “global sport,” in fact, he was arrested at the Honolulu airport. Joseph Marty Toralba returned last month from an international cockfighting derby in the Philippines, and tried to smuggle 263 long knives—three-inch, razor-sharp, steel blades that are strapped to the birds’ legs—in his luggage. He didn’t win the gold medal, but he did earn the honor of being the first person indicted under the new federal law barring interstate or foreign transport of cockfighting weapons.

At the time of the arrest, U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo said, “A cockfight…pits two fighting birds against each other in order for them to effectively duel to the death. We must act, and we will act whenever we find this type of illegal activity.” Now that’s a message worthy of being broadcast worldwide—that we have zero tolerance for staged animal fights, at home or abroad.

Trumped Up Charges—And a Feckless Act

Generally speaking, state governors are making great strides in 2008.  Idaho Governor Butch Otter and Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal made their states the 49th and 50th with felony penalties for dogfighting. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed a bill making it a felony to be a spectator at a dogfight. And Virginia Governor Tim Kaine enacted bills making cockfighting a felony and prohibiting the use of gas chambers at animal shelters.

But yesterday, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire took a major step backwards for animals.  She approved House Bill 2438, backed by trophy hunters and opposed by animal advocates, expanding the use of dogs to hunt cougars. She took a position at odds with scientific wildlife management, humane treatment of animals, and the will of Washington citizens.

In 1996, Washington voters approved Initiative 655 with a landslide 63% to 37% vote, putting an end to the baiting of bears and the hound hunting of bears, cougars, bobcats, and lynx. The electorate weighed the practices of chasing animals with packs of radio-collared dogs and shooting them from tree branches, and gunning down animals with their heads buried in piles of rotting meat and jelly doughnuts, and saw them for what they were: unsporting, inhumane, and unnecessary. 

Over the last decade, trophy hunting groups have tried again and again to repeal I-655, and they’ve succeeded in chipping away at some of the law's core provisions with trumped up charges against cougars.A few years ago lawmakers approved a four-year pilot project restoring the hound hunting of cougars in five counties. The bill signed by Governor Gregoire yesterday extends that project for three more years, and what’s worse, expands it statewide. 

A seven-year pilot project spread across the state is no longer much of a test study—it’s all but a blanket repeal of the ban on hunting cougars with dogs.  If the legislature simply keeps appeasing the handful of trophy hunters and extending the project year after year, it’s little different than hound hunting of cougars in perpetuity.

While the governor defended the bill as a way to protect public safety and livestock, it’s a solution in search of a problem. Existing law already allows for the removal of individual cougars to protect animals, private property, or public safety—far more precise and effective than indiscriminate hound hunting of random animals. Hound hunting focuses state resources on scattershot killing at the expense of conflict resolution methods that actually work.

This comes at a time when the Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates that cougar populations may be in jeopardy, writing in its report to the legislature that “cougar density in the 5-county area appears to be low compared to other populations in the West and further declines may impact the population stability of cougars.”  And Washington State University researchers working on the project say that it’s exacerbating, not mitigating, cougar conflicts:  “Our management actions are achieving the exact reverse of what is desired. It’s the shift in the age structure that results in the increased complaints. It’s just disastrous. The heavy hunting that we’re doing in Washington State is causing increased human-cougar conflicts. The putative solution is causing the problem.”

It strains credulity that the state would even contemplate expanding a project that has been a complete failure. The department says that data collected from other counties won’t be useful for the study, so not only does the hound hunting of cougars have no practical value, but it doesn’t even have any research value, either.

When Gregoire ran for election in 2004 against Republican Dino Rossi, she had the support of animal advocates in the state, who rallied for her and pounded the pavement on her behalf.  On election night it appeared that Rossi had won, but after three recounts, Gregoire emerged as the victor by just 129 votes.

Nearly two-thirds of Washington voters approved I-655, providing a much greater mandate for protecting cougars than they provided for Gregoire’s role as chief executive. She has now substituted her judgment for the judgment of the voters, and when her name is on the ballot again this year, the people just might remember.

Time to Ban Dangerous Poisons

The USDA’s misnamed “Wildlife Services” agency killed 1.6 million animals in 2006—including 41 kit foxes, 287 wolves, 346 mountain lions, more than 2,500 bobcats, and more than 87,000 coyotes. It’s a fleecing of American taxpayers as the federal government continues to spend millions of dollars each year on this subsidy to private ranchers, and it’s especially at odds with the political climate of cutting government waste. 

Because the ranchers know that government agents will come to their property for free and kill predators with traps and poisons, or even shoot them from aircraft, there is no incentive to solve wildlife conflicts humanely. In many cases, the money spent to conduct the killing even exceeds the ranchers’ financial losses in predation of livestock.

While all of this government-sponsored lethal predator control is wasteful, two of the methods of killing are particularly cruel and indiscriminate. Federal agents use a deadly poison called Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate/monofluoroacetate), which is tasteless, colorless, and odorless, with no antidote. The EPA banned it in 1972, but then re-approved it in 1985 for use in “Livestock Protection Collars”—devices that are filled with the poison and placed around the necks of sheep, designed to burst when punctured by a predator. Each collar contains enough poison to kill six human adults. Once exposed, animals who ingest Compound 1080 endure painful, violent convulsions for hours as they slowly succumb to the effects of the poison.

The other deadly device is the M-44, or sodium cyanide capsule, also called a “cyanide gun,” “cyanide trap,” or “coyote getter.”  It’s a spring-activated ejector that lures animals with bait, and delivers a deadly dose of poison when an animal tugs on it. A spring ejects the sodium cyanide into the animal’s mouth and face, and the cyanide combines with water in the animal’s mouth to produce poisonous cyanide gas. Within a few minutes of swallowing cyanide salts, a victim experiences "burning in the throat" and "hunger for air" usually followed by a brief outcry or scream, difficult, painful breathing, and violent convulsions before finally losing consciousness.  The devices are like landmines, triggered not only by target predators but by any animal who sets them off, including endangered species and family pets.

The mere presence and stockpiling of these extremely dangerous poisons poses a threat not only to animals, but also to people. The FBI has listed both Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide as “super poisons” that are “highly toxic pesticides judged most likely to be used by terrorists or for malicious intent,” and the U.S. Air Force has identified Compound 1080 as a likely biological warfare agent.

Fortunately, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has introduced H.R. 4775, the Compound 1080 and M-44 Elimination Act, to ban the use of these two poisons and prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Please ask your U.S. Representative to support this common-sense and long overdue measure.

How Did Members of Congress Score on Animal Protection in 2007?

The Humane Society Legislative Fund today posted its 2007 Humane Scorecard, and you can read it here. The scorecard, which is published annually, provides the records of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives on major animal welfare policies. This most recent report card covers the first session of the 110th Congress.

The Humane Scorecard provides an easy way for constituents to assess how their federal lawmakers acted on animal protection issues, and it helps chart the progress of our public policy work on behalf of animals.  Animal protection is more than ever being treated like the serious moral issue it is on Capitol Hill, and lawmakers are debating policies that have enormous implications for animals.

Last year, Congress passed measures dealing with animal fighting, chimpanzee sanctuaries, pet food safety, the Canadian seal hunt, and a war dog memorial.  Appropriators provided record levels of funding for the enforcement of animal welfare laws and support for alternatives to animal testing, cut spending for horse slaughter and trophy hunting, and directed agencies to take action on de-clawing of cats and humane slaughter of poultry. Many issues are still to be settled in 2008, including the Farm Bill, which includes animal welfare provisions dealing with dogfighting, puppy imports, and experimentation on pets.

The 2007 report scores lawmakers on their floor votes on legislation to crack down on animal fighting, protect wild horses and burros from slaughter, and stop the imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies; their co-sponsorship of key bills such as those to stop horse slaughter, require the labeling of fur-trimmed apparel, and end the use of random source dogs and cats (including stolen pets) in research; and their signing of a letter requesting funding for enforcement of animal welfare laws. Members who led as prime sponsors of animal protection legislation receive extra credit.

We hope you’ll study this scorecard and use it as a tool to ensure that your legislators represent your interests in Washington, D.C. Let legislators know that you’re watching and you appreciate their support for pro-animal legislation; or if they haven’t done enough, let them know you’d like to see them do more. Here are some of my favorite highlights from the 2007 Humane Scorecard:

• A bipartisan group of 31 Senators and 100 Representatives covering 38 states led as prime sponsors of pro-animal legislation and/or scored a perfect 100—nearly one third of the Senate and one quarter of the House.
• The average Senate score was a 43, with Senate Democrats averaging 60, and Senate Republicans averaging 24.
• The average House score was a 53, with House Democrats averaging 71, and House Republicans averaging 33.
• Seventeen Senators scored 100 or 100+ (13 Democrats, 4 Republicans).
• Thirty-one Senators scored zero (7 Democrats, 24 Republicans).
• Eighty-three Re