Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Hunting ethics require sportsmen to do their best to assure a quick kill, and make every possible effort to find wounded animals to spare them prolonged suffering. HuntingNet.com says a true hunter will “search for an arrow hit or bullet hit animal that is wounded for as long as possible.” Those who follow the NRA Hunter’s Code of Ethics pledge to “do my best to acquire those marksmanship and hunting skills, which insure clean, sportsmanlike kills.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty apparently had neither the skill nor the time to be a true hunter. He badly wounded a buck on Saturday at the Minnesota Governor’s Deer Opener, but rather than follow the blood trail, he followed the money trail to Iowa where he was headlining a Republican Party fundraiser. The owner of the land where Pawlenty’s group was hunting described the animal as “bleeding profusely” and searched for the deer all weekend, but turned up nothing.

 
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty failed to abide by basic hunting
values during his hunt this past weekend.

It’s surely a sign of reckless and unsportsmanlike behavior to leave an animal severely injured and hope that others might take on the responsibility to end the animal’s suffering. If Pawlenty wants to hunt animals, he should at least have the decency to abide by basic, centuries-old values. Hunters talk a good game about ethics and humane treatment, and they should be held to their own professed standards.

Pawlenty was the same governor, of course, who enacted legislation in 2004 to allow Minnesota’s first mourning dove hunting season in 58 years. Mourning doves don’t cause nuisance problems, aren’t overpopulated, and don’t make a viable food source—that’s why they were protected as songbirds for more than a half-century in Minnesota and are still protected in many northern and Midwestern states. When they’re shot for target practice, the small birds are riddled with lead shot and are of little value to hunters, so about 30 percent of those hit are left wounded and unretrieved—a fact apparently untroubling to the state’s chief executive hunter. 

When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket in the 2008 presidential campaign, she galvanized animal advocates against the aerial gunning of wolves and her retrograde wildlife management policies. If Pawlenty decides to launch a presidential bid for 2012, we’ll give his behavior the scrutiny it deserves.

Safeguarding Our Canine Heroes

On Veterans Day, we remember the dedicated men and women who have served our country. But we also shouldn’t forget man’s best friend, who serves faithfully alongside our troops, helping to safeguard military bases and activities, detect bombs and explosives before they inflict harm, and perform other lifesaving duties.

On Veterans Day, we should also honor our canine
heroes who serve faithfully alongside our troops.

The Humane Society of the United States and its global arm, Humane Society International, have just purchased special cooling vests and pads for military dogs serving in Afghanistan—where temperatures can reach 130 degrees Fahrenheit. Dogs don’t sweat like humans do, and the heat exhaustion has killed several dogs in Afghanistan this year. They also endure the problem of rancid pet food which spoils quickly in the heat.

Major Donna DeBonis, the 993rd Medical Detachment officer in charge of the veterinary treatment facility in Kandahar, reached out to HSUS and HSI to get much-needed help in combating heat exhaustion and making the working environment as safe as possible for military canines. The animal protection groups purchased the special vests and pads to cool down these hot dogs, and FedEx generously offered to ship them for free to Afghanistan.

The donated vests will help keep the dogs cool by absorbing excess heat from their bodies, allowing them to better regulate their own body temperature. The vests contain a place for inserts that, once charged in ice and water, can reach a temperature of 50 degrees, enabling the dogs to keep working safely for hours without the health risks associated from overheating. The pads will enable dog handlers to carry food with them and avoid spoilage, and will also serve as cool resting pads for dogs to lie on in the backs of vehicles during convoys and mounted patrols.

When I think of Lex, the German shepherd who was injured in a mortar attack in Fallujah, Iraq, and had to be pulled away whimpering from his slain human partner, Marine Corporal Dustin Jerome Lee, I know how important these dogs are to the military and to the men and women who work side-by-side with them. It’s only fitting that we can honor these canine heroes and celebrate the human-animal bond by doing better to safeguard them while they serve our country.

Return to Sender: Stamping Out Cockfighting Magazines

It’s been a year of one-two punches against the industry in our battle to knock out cockfighting. Two states—Arkansas and Kansas—passed laws to make cockfighting a felony, and other states enacted tougher penalties. HSUS and HSLF are on the march in the remaining states where cockfighting is still treated like a parking violation, and we have a bold agenda to pass felony laws in Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and other states in the nation's “cockfighting corridor.”

South Carolina still has one of the weakest anti-cockfighting statutes, but this week, 21 people in the Palmetto State were indicted for violating the federal animal fighting law, which HSUS and HSLF have worked to upgrade repeatedly in recent years. The crackdown on the state’s cockfighting rings couldn’t come soon enough: At one fight, an undercover officer witnessed a 13-year-old boy checking to see if a rooster was still able to fight, and later the animal was killed by swinging it against a tree.

Until recently, Amazon.com and the U.S. Postal Service were 
supporting the sale of illegal cockfighting magazines, such as 
“The Feathered Warrior” and “Gamecock.”

There was another major milestone this week when HSUS settled longstanding litigation with the U.S. Postal Service and Amazon.com over their complicity in the distribution of illegal animal fighting paraphernalia. The case against Amazon started back in 2005, when HSUS informed the giant online retailer that its sale of the notorious cockfighting magazines “The Feathered Warrior” and “Gamecock” violated federal law.

These publications weren’t about cockfighting culture and commentary, but were published for the purpose of peddling cockfighting weapons, fighting birds, and other illegal contraband. Cockfighters could mail-order birds from special bloodlines, as well as the drugs pumped into birds to heighten aggression, and the razor-sharp knives strapped to the birds’ legs to cause the bloodletting. Even though more than 90 percent of the ads in 11 issues of the magazines essentially contained solicitations to commit a crime, Amazon refused to stop selling them. HSUS sued Amazon and included “The Feathered Warrior” and “Gamecock” as co-defendants.

Amazon, however, wasn’t alone in providing comfort to the cockfighting magazines, as the publications found an unlikely ally in the U.S. Postal Service. The Post Office was not only serving as the primary delivery service for these illegal publications, but was actually giving these criminals a special discount rate usually reserved for public interest organizations and nonprofit charities. As a result, HSUS also sued the Postal Service as a companion case to the action against Amazon.

When Congress passed the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act in 2007, it made interstate dogfighting and cockfighting activities a federal felony, but also added a newly upgraded provision that “prohibits the websites and the magazines where fighting animals are advertised for sale.” This provided a new tool to urge the Postal Service and Amazon to halt mailing what were essentially mail-order catalogs for illegal cockfighting weapons and fighting birds. At first they still refused to budge, but now, after two long years of litigation, the battle is finally over.

The first big break came last year, when HSUS settled with “Gamecock” and the publisher agreed to remove ads that explicitly promoted cockfighting from its pages and stopped selling the magazines on Amazon. One down, one to go.

Then this summer, the final issue of “The Feathered Warrior” rolled off the presses as the publisher shut down operations for good. It seems that the combined effect of the enhanced federal animal fighting law, stronger state penalties, and litigation against cockfighters had made the buying and selling of cockfighting paraphernalia untenable as a business model.

Next, a third magazine called “Grit & Steel” announced it was going out of business. “Grit & Steel” had not been included in the HSUS lawsuit because its publisher had removed the ads for fighting birds and cockfighting implements. Still, its demise signaled that the cockfighting industry has retreated far enough into its dark corner that it simply can no longer sustain these magazines.

Finally, and only after HSUS won a favorable decision in federal court, the Postal Service got on the bandwagon and announced it will stop delivering magazines containing ads for fighting birds or animal fighting implements. With the Postal Service and Amazon both reforming their ways, two cockfighting magazines closing up shop and a third changing its format, we have gone a long way toward shutting down the illicit trade in fighting birds and weapons.

The fight to stamp out animal fighting marches on, though, and with renewed vigor. Cockfighters will no longer get their contraband delivered through the mail, but the HSUS and HSLF will not rest until holdout cockfighters in every state are delivered nothing but long felony prison sentences.

First Ladies of Compassion

The fur trade is a global challenge for the animal protection movement, with baby harp seals clubbed in Canada, raccoon dogs skinned alive in China, and designers and manufacturers selling garments across international borders. That’s why I was so pleased to see two of the international community’s most stylish and glamorous women tell the world unequivocally that their closets are fur-free.

France's First Lady,
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy

According to Stephanie Green and Elizabeth Glover of The Washington Times, France’s First Lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy—a former supermodel—says she doesn’t wear, buy or own fur, or accept fur pieces from designers who lend her clothes for public appearances, even when the garments are only trimmed with a small amount of fur. And here in the U.S., Michelle Obama’s deputy press secretary confirmed that the First Lady doesn’t wear fur.

Wayne Pacelle wrote earlier this year about the important tone set by incoming First Ladies when it comes to fur apparel. And we were extremely pleased on Inauguration Day—cold and wintry here in Washington, but charged with excitement—that Michelle Obama chose not to wear fur. Her inaugural gown, in fact, was designed by Jason Wu, who later canceled his own plans for launching a fur collection this fall. 

First Lady, Michelle Obama

With the many warm and fashionable alternatives available, designers, retailers, and people in the public eye are making the right choices, and setting the right example for others. BCBG Max Azria, Calvin Klein, Ed Hardy, Foot Locker, JC Penney, Overstock.com, and Tommy Hilfiger have stopped selling fur recently after discussions with HSUS. Others like Andrew Marc, Donna Karan, Michael Kors, Rocawear, and Sean John have pledged to stop using raccoon dog fur, curbing the cruel killing of animals resembling wild dogs.

Until all corporations do the right thing, we need stronger laws like the Truth in Fur Labeling Act so consumers can be sure that the "faux fur" jacket on the store rack is not actually mislabeled, or falsely advertised animal fur. Surely consumers deserve the right to make informed purchasing decisions. And we need more role models like Michelle Obama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, who send an important message to the world: Compassion is their fashion.

Europe Votes to Save Seals

An historic vote this morning in the European Parliament will have ripple effects for animals on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. All 27 member nations of the European Union will soon ban the import and sale of seal fur, drying up the market for Canada’s annual hunt of baby seals—the largest commercial slaughter of marine mammals in the world.

© Nigel Barker

Just weeks ago, the world’s most beautiful nursery on the ice floes of Canada’s Atlantic coast was stained red and turned into a killing field. Tens of thousands of seal pups—some just 12 days old—were clubbed and skinned for their fur pelts, before they could even take their first swim. The Humane Society of the United States and its global affiliate, Humane Society International, have been working worldwide to end this massive global form of cruelty, and have been leading the fight from Ottawa to Brussels to Strasbourg.

Russia banned its own seal hunt this year, with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin calling it “such a bloody hunt” and saying “it is clear that it should have been banned a long time ago.” Canada has increasingly become isolated in the world community for allowing this horrible spectacle to continue.

Humane advocates often bemoan the fact that the U.S. lags behind Europe when it comes to animal protection laws. The European Union began phasing out steel-jawed leghold traps, veal crates for calves, gestation crates for pigs, and battery cages for hens, all before those policy reforms began to take root here. But today, the European Parliament finally achieved something that the U.S. did 37 years ago.

The U.S. Congress passed and President Richard Nixon signed the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, barring any trade in the parts of whales, dolphins, seals, and other marine mammals. Seal fur has been banned in the U.S. for more than three decades, although it has remained popular in Europe and is even used by top fashion designers in Copenhagen and Milan.

Now, with Europe joining the U.S., there will be little market left for Canadian fishermen to peddle their seal pelts. As last year’s seal hunt brought in only $7 million in landed value and less than $11 million in global exports, and the European share is estimated at $6.6 million, the implications for the future of the seal hunt are enormous. Indeed, just the promise of an EU ban was enough to drive the prices for seal fur down to $15 per skin this year—a decline of 86 percent since 2006.

The U.S. did its part decades ago, but can still do more to make sure the seal hunt is relegated to Canada’s history books. Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have introduced a resolution, S. Res. 84, urging the Canadian government to end its commercial seal hunt. It’s similar to a measure passed by the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress, led by the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), former Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).

Ask your two U.S. senators to support this important resolution, and join the world community in speaking out against this cruelty. The writing is on the wall, and this is the year to make history for seals.

Deal Dogs a Winning Hand

It’s a consensus position that dogfighting is abusive and unacceptable, and an important part of our work at The HSUS and HSLF involves strengthening the state and federal laws to combat this practice. But it’s not enough just to wrestle down the cruelty and put people in jail when it occurs—we also need to reach out to young people and make sure they don’t get lured into the world of dogfighting in the first place.

In 2006, The HSUS launched an innovative grassroots program to target dogfighting in urban neighborhoods of Chicago. Our ambassadors talk to young men at risk for getting involved in this crime, and interrupt dogfights in progress on the streets. We give them alternatives to dogfighting, such as pit bull training classes that showcase pit bulls as friends, not fighters. We improve the lives of the young men who learn to celebrate the human-animal bond, and we improve the welfare of dogs through vaccinations, doghouse giveaways, and other community events.

The program has been so successful in Chicago, that we’re expanding it to Atlanta and Los Angeles. And I’ll be attending a very special Hollywood event on May 9th for the official kickoff of The HSUS’s “End Dogfighting in Los Angeles” campaign. This elegant evening, dubbed “Casino Royale: Playing for Change,” is co-sponsored by PokerStars, and will feature casino games, a celebrity poker tournament, gourmet food, a martini and wine bar, and a silent auction. Tickets start at $350 each and include chips to all casino games.

A number of celebrities will join us at the casino event, including Corey Feldman, Jorja Fox, Matt Grant, Bill Maher, Charlotte Ross, Hal Sparks, and Michael Vartan. And a special celebrity poker tournament will feature PokerStars pro Greg Raymer, who won an historic $5 million prize in the 2004 World Series of Poker; actor Vince Van Patten, the King of the Hollywood Home Game and host of the World Poker Tour; and actress Shannon Elizabeth, the winner of multiple tournaments.

There are a few seats left at the table, and you can bid online for a chance to play with these poker paladins. It’s a unique opportunity to go head-to-head with five celebrity poker players and four other winning bidders. The tournament winner will be eligible for a prize package valued at $15,000—and can choose a PokerStars Caribbean Adventure or a seat at the Las Vegas World Series of Poker.

Dogfighting not only claims the lives of tens of thousands of dogs each year, but also brings violence and drug trafficking to our communities, and ruins the lives of young men who start down this dead-end path. Make a sure bet and help us provide a more positive environment for people and dogs, in Los Angeles and in all communities impacted by this crime. Join me at “Casino Royale: Playing for Change” on May 9th, and go all in for animals.

Boots on the Ground for Animals

As everyone knows, money talks. Whether an animal welfare law will be effective often turns on whether it gets adequately funded. And that spending is vital even when it comes in the worst economic times since the Great Depression. Our fortunes are intertwined with those of animals, and proper enforcement not only helps these creatures but also helps to improve food safety, public health, disaster preparedness, and other social concerns.

Thanks to the leadership of Congressmen Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a strong bipartisan group of 135 representatives—nearly one-third of the U.S. House—has submitted a letter to the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee requesting funds to improve enforcement of key animal welfare laws in Fiscal Year 2010. These funds are critically needed to implement and enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the Animal Welfare Act, the federal animal fighting law, 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.

Now, Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are leading a parallel effort in the U.S. Senate. Please urge your two senators to co-sign the Senate animal welfare funding group letter being circulated by Senators Levin and Vitter, or make their own individual requests, before the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee’s deadline of May 8th. Click here to find your two U.S. senators and their phone numbers.

This is just the latest installment in a multiyear effort. The HSUS and HSLF have 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 ten years, we’ve succeeded in boosting the annual funding for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act by 135% (a cumulative total of $71 million in new dollars to the program). Today, there are 111 USDA inspectors, compared to about 60 inspectors during the 1990s, to help ensure basic humane treatment at thousands of puppy mills, research laboratories, zoos, circuses, and other facilities.

If your U.S. representative signed the House funding letter, please take a moment to call and express thanks. It's important to give positive feedback to those who take action on behalf of animals. You can reach your representative through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, or click here to look up the office phone number. And please be sure to ask your two U.S. senators to sign onto the Senate letter before May 8th.

Thanks to your work, Congress can put more boots on the ground to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. It’s an investment in the animals’ future—and our own.

 

An Ounce of Python Prevention

“Swamp Things,” a fascinating article by Burkhard Bilger in the April 20 issue of The New Yorker, describes how the exotic pet industry has helped transform the state of Florida into “a biological cesspool of introduced life.” As fads of exotic birds, reptiles, and primates have come and gone, nonnative species have established themselves in the wild—transported by hurricanes or deliberately set loose by their owners. As Bilger explains:

On a single tree you could conceivably find plants and animals from six continents, including parrots from South America, mynah birds and Old World climbing ferns from Asia, vervet monkeys from Africa, ladybird beetles from Australia, and feral cats from Europe, via Africa and Asia…The state’s ecology is a kind of urban legend come true—the old alligator-flushed-down-the-toilet story repeated a thousand times with a thousand species.

There have been well-known cases of exotic species that should never have been introduced in the U.S.—whether they are the zebra mussels, the snakehead fish, or the Gambian rats that caused the 2003 multistate monkeypox outbreak. But the biggest problem for Florida is the new population of Burmese pythons living in the Everglades. These former “pets” can grow more than 20 feet long, weigh 200 pounds, and swallow an entire leopard.

Such ecological invasions can be prevented by a new bill being considered in Congress. The House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife today held a hearing on H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Introduced by Subcommittee Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), a great friend to animals, the bill would set up a process for evaluating exotic wildlife species to determine whether they should be allowed or prohibited for importation and interstate commerce. The legislation is endorsed by The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists, and a number of other conservation and animal protection groups.

Some pet industry groups are yelping and howling over the proposal, claiming it will end all pet ownership. We hear this rhetoric all the time from our opponents who can’t defend inhumane practices on their merits, so they concoct some “slippery slope” justifications—they say that curbing abuses at puppy mills will end all dog breeding, that phasing out confinement of farm animals in crates and cages will end all agriculture, that toughening the anti-cockfighting laws will eliminate the right to own roosters. But they’re barking up the wrong tree.

First, the bill is aimed at exotic wildlife, not domestic household pets. It includes a specific exemption for cats, dogs, rabbits, goldfish, and horses. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is allowed to add more exempted species as it sees fit. The HSUS and HSLF are specifically requesting that hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, and ferrets be added to the exempted list.

Second, the legislation wouldn’t ban any species immediately upon passage. It allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start a process, based on scientific information with public input, to determine whether an exotic wildlife species is harmful or not. During that process, which will take three years, there would be no restrictions on trade. If a species is then determined to be harmful, it would be added to the prohibited list.

Third, the bill grandfathers in any current exotic pets. So if a wildlife species is determined to be harmful and banned in the future, it would halt imports and interstate trade from that point forward. People who already own those animals would not have them taken away.

As Chairwoman Bordallo said, this morning’s hearing “should be seen as a starting point for a very important discussion. How can we proactively manage the influx of invasive species and reduce the economic and environmental costs associated with their establishment in the wild, but also be sensitive to legitimate concerns regarding the species that would be affected and realistic about the practicalities of implementation.”

The fact is, this is a common-sense reform that takes a proactive approach. Hundreds of millions of wild animals are arriving in the U.S. at an alarming pace through Miami, Los Angeles, and other points of entry. By the time invasive species establish themselves here, it’s often too late to do anything about the problems—and attempts at doing so, even while tilting at windmills, are costly and inhumane. Preventing wild animals from entering this country in the first place, if they are determined to be dangerous, is better for the environment, the economy, public health, and animal welfare.

Contact your members of Congress and ask them to support H.R. 669. Tell them when it comes to nonnative wildlife, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Giving Rare Species a Place on Our Planet

One of the quiddities of the U.S. Congress is that it’s slow by design. Bills have to make it through both the House and the Senate, via committee process and floor action in both chambers. That’s why more than 10,000 bills are introduced in a two-year congressional session, and only 4 to 5 percent actually become law.

There were several important wildlife protection measures that passed the House during the 110th Congress, but then stalled in the Senate. Those bills were reintroduced at the very start of the 111th Congress for quick action, and two of them—the Captive Primate Safety Act and the Shark Conservation Act—passed the House again earlier this year. The House is scheduled to vote on two more bills today that are considered unfinished business from last time around—a pair of important bipartisan policies that would help protect rare species of mammals and birds around the world.

H.R. 411, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act—introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), John Tanner (D-Tenn.), Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), and Ed Royce (R-Calif.)—will provide financial resources for conservation programs to protect rare dog and cat species outside North America. A Senate version of the bill, S. 529, was introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). Species such as jaguars, clouded leopards, and African wild dogs are declining drastically due to habitat loss, poaching, disease, and human-wildlife conflict. This conservation funding will be a critical lifeline for rare dogs and cats ranging from the Ethiopian wolf to the Iberian lynx.

H.R. 388, the Crane Conservation Act—introduced by Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.)—will do the same for imperiled crane populations both here at home and across the globe. A Senate version of the bill, S. 197, was introduced by Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, victims of pesticide, power lines, human encroachment, and even wars. Eleven of 15 species are at risk of extinction, and the North American whooping crane is the rarest of all cranes.

As Congresswoman Baldwin said, “Wisconsin has been a world leader in protecting this endangered family of birds. With federal support, the work done at the International Crane Foundation in Baraboo can inspire and instruct conservationists at home and abroad in their efforts to protect this magnificent species.”

The Multinational Species Conservation Fund already includes grant programs to help imperiled species—including Asian and African elephants, great apes, marine turtles, rhinoceroses, tigers, and neotropical migratory birds. Now, two separate accounts would be added to the fund specifically to assist cranes and rare dogs and cats.

Some reforms are so evident that there really is not a debate in society about the right course of action. Who could possibly think that Cape hunting dogs or black crowned cranes do not deserve a place on our planet, or jaguars or snow leopards for that matter? We hope today that the House approves these measures, and that Senate action follows swiftly. These are major advances in the waiting, and I extend our thanks to Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), and Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) and Ranking Member Henry Brown (R-S.C.), who have made passage of these measures a priority when the species need our help the most.

 

Writing Off Fido and Fluffy

Ben Stein has some advice on how to get through the worst economic times since the Great Depression: Get a dog.

Now thanks to a California lawmaker, adopting a dog might be not only good for your morale, but also good for your pocketbook. In an effort to help animal shelters across the state that are teeming with near-record numbers of relinquished pets, Assemblyman Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) has introduced Assembly Bill 233. The legislation would allow California taxpayers to write off up to $100 of the cost of adopting an animal from a municipal, county, or nonprofit animal shelter or qualified rescue organization. It would become effective January 1, 2010 and last for five years.

While the tax break cannot address all that ails our homeless pets and the agencies looking out for their interests, it is a relatively inexpensive and efficient way to send a strong message to California taxpayers: that never before has their compassion been more critical to improving the chances for animals who have done nothing wrong other than prove too expensive for their downtrodden owners. AB 233 asks Californians to help out, and by promoting the benefits—to the animals and to the government and charitable sectors—of adopting dogs and cats, the deduction would increase the ability of municipal and charitable animal protection organizations to continue their life-saving work.

How can the state of California—already burdened with a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall—afford to forego the estimated $1 million per year this tax deduction would cost? The question is how can the state afford not to.

According to The HSUS’s chief economist, Jennifer Fearing, who is working to pass the bill in Sacramento, the ultimate fiscal impact of AB 233 will be driven by the extent to which Californians respond to the call to help, and the more they respond, the more positive the impact will be on local government and nonprofit sheltering costs (lower), their revenue (higher), stimulating consumer spending (more), and saving animal lives (more). Rather than distributing additional government funds to all animal shelters, a tax deduction puts the power in the taxpayers’ hands—and to the extent they choose to adopt, they will be rewarded (however modestly) by the state for doing so.

Making pet adoption fees tax-deductible will have a positive impact on the outcomes for pets who land in shelters. It is a recognized principle of tax policy that an income tax deduction for charitable donations promotes charitable behavior—often in excess of what may be expected given the actual dollar value associated with the deduction. As such, even though the dollar amount per taxpayer granted by AB 233 is small, its impact for the animals involved could be significant. Government sends a strong signal to citizens and the mere fact that an expenditure is deemed deductible increases public awareness of the behavior and of the “right” choice.

In addition to the potential for reduced local government costs associated with increased adoption rates and lower animal holding, we must also consider the tremendous economic impact of pet ownership. To the extent that AB 233 promotes pet adoptions among taxpayers who would otherwise not become pet owners, the bill could yield significant economic returns in the form of stimulated spending.

The average pet owner annually spends $1,425 per dog and $990 per cat. To stimulate as much economic activity as the estimated cost of AB 233’s tax expenditure, the new deduction would only have to prompt 4,141 new pet adoptions over five years—or 828 more per year. This is an increase of less than one-half of one percent in the number of animals adopted statewide in 2007—and certainly a modest estimate of this deduction’s impact on behavior. 

Additionally, fees paid for pet adoptions go directly back to the municipality, further offsetting the costs of animal care and control. With approximately 800,000 California animals entering city and county shelters each year, with an annual cost of more than $100 million spent to house animals who ultimately are euthanized, AB 233 presents an opportunity to increase revenue to offset these significant annual local expenditures—saving tax dollars and saving animal lives.

These are tough times indeed, but by allowing a tax write-off for Fido and Fluffy, we will help ensure that they won’t be written off at the shelters. Adopting a pet can be good for the economy and good for taxpayers—but most importantly, it’s good for your soul. Many trends start in California—let’s hope that Assemblyman Smyth’s foresighted policy initiative becomes one that spreads to other states.