Animals & Politics

Crying Wolf

MLive.com, which reports for eight newspapers across Michigan, has released the first stories in a jarring investigative series on how state politicians used exaggerated or completely fabricated tales of wolf incidents to justify stripping away legal protection for wolves and opening a trophy hunting season on the state’s small population of wolves. It shows government at its worst, using half-truths, falsehoods, and distortion to make policy decisions, and trying to cover up the mistakes by denying Michigan voters the opportunity to weigh in on the issue.

When Upper Peninsula lawmakers pushed Congress in 2011 to remove wolves from protected status under the Endangered Species Act, the state legislature passed a resolution stating, “Wolves appeared multiple times in the backyard of a daycare center shortly after the children were allowed outside to play. Federal agents disposed of three wolves in that backyard because of the potential danger to the children.”

As MLive reported, however, “there were no children in the backyard. There was a single wolf, not three. No wolves were shot there, on that day or any day….It is the story of how Michigan lawmakers embraced an account that never happened, and it is the story of how they sent it to Congress for consideration—opening the door for a hunt.”

It’s not the only time state officials have wildly exaggerated the facts about wolves. MLive noted:

Adam Bump, the state’s fur bearer specialist, allows he misspoke when he gave an interview to Michigan Radio that was broadcast in May.

“You have wolves showing up in backyards, wolves showing up on porches, wolves staring at people through their sliding glass door while they're pounding on it exhibiting no fear,” Bump told the NPR affiliate.

That did not happen, he concedes.

When it comes to wolf predation of livestock, the alleged rationale for a wolf hunt, that justification quickly unravels. From the same report by MLive:

And while attacks on livestock are cited as a reason to reduce wolf numbers, records show one farmer accounted for more cattle killed and injured than all other farmers in the years the DNR reviewed.

The farmer left dead cattle in the field for days, if not longer, a violation of the law and a smorgasbord that attracts wolves. He was given an electric fence by the state. The fence disappeared. He was also given three “guard mules.”

Two died. The other had to be removed in January because it was in such poor condition.

In wolf circles, those problems are known. Lesser known is that they persist. Wildlife officers again in May found dead cattle on his farm, MLive learned under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Visiting reporters in October also saw a months-old cow carcass in an open barn.

The fact is, Michigan legislators lobbied the federal government to take away wolves' protection under the Endangered Species Act, as a prelude to their own legislative action to execute a state wolf hunting program. Specifically, once those pesky federal protections were out of the way, they passed a state bill during the lame-duck session to make the wolf a game species, again using exaggerated numbers about wolf depredation from one farm with reckless management practices. When Michigan voters collected more than 250,000 signatures to correct this mistake and place the wolf hunting law on the statewide ballot, the legislature passed a second law to give the power to the unelected, politically appointed Natural Resources Commission, making an end run around the voters since the commission’s decisions are not subject to any voter referendum.

There are only 658 wolves in Michigan, down from 687 just two years ago. When there are legitimate conflicts, it’s already legal to kill wolves that are threatening livestock or public safety. There’s no reason to shoot wolves at random in a trophy hunting season—especially as nearly all of the alleged reasons that have been put forth have proven to be false. Independent wolf experts, those not working for the state, argue that a wolf hunt is ill-conceived.

Given the shocking findings of this investigative report, Michigan officials should call off the first wolf hunting season which is scheduled to begin on November 15, and give the state’s voters the opportunity to decide on this issue next November. It’s time to stop trusting the scare tactics, myths, and downright fiction about wolves, and start trusting the voters. Visit KeepWolvesProtected.com to find out how you can help.

How Have Your Lawmakers Scored So Far?

As we close in on the final couple months of 2013, HSLF is posting a preview of our 2013 Humane Scorecard. I hope you will check it out and see how your U.S. senators and U.S. representative have performed so far this year on animal protection issues. If they did well, please thank them; if they have room for improvement, please let them know you’re paying attention and there is still time for them to do better before the final scorecard is wrapped up at the end of the year.

In this preliminary report, we evaluate lawmakers’ performance on animal protection issues by scoring a number of key votes, but also their support for adequate funding for the enforcement of animal welfare laws, and their cosponsorship of priority bills. We provided extra credit for legislators who took the lead on an animal protection issue, or who signed a letter opposing the dangerous King amendment in the Farm Bill, because that radical and overreaching provision is such an urgent threat. Building the number of cosponsors on a bill is an important way to show that there is a critical mass of bipartisan support for the policy, and help push the legislation over the finish line. Already in the last few weeks, we’ve seen a dramatic jump in the cosponsor counts for each of these bills, and we need to keep the momentum going with your help.

The bill to crack down on the cruel practice of horse soring has 209 cosponsors in the House and 26 in the Senate; the egg industry reform bill has 141 cosponsors in the House and 15 in the Senate; the animal fighting spectator bill has 211 cosponsors in the House and 33 in the Senate; and the horse slaughter bill has 156 cosponsors in the House and 28 in the Senate. These are impressive numbers, and they show the strength of our cause and our grassroots support.

Please check the scorecard charts and call your two U.S. senators and your U.S. representative today. Thank each of them for their support of the bills that they’re already on and urge them to cosponsor any of the four animal protection bills being counted on the 2013 Humane Scorecard that they’re not yet cosponsoring. If they decide to join on before the end of the 2013 session, they’ll receive credit on the final Humane Scorecard published at the end of the year.

You can look up your federal legislators here, and then call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be connected to each of your legislators. Here are the four animal protection bills whose cosponsors are being counted on the scorecard:

Horse Soring—S. 1406 and H.R. 1518, the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act. Introduced by Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Mark Warner, D-Va., and Reps. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.—to crack down on the cruel practice of “soring,” in which unscrupulous trainers deliberately inflict pain on the hooves and legs of Tennessee Walking Horses and certain other breeds to exaggerate their high-stepping gait and gain unfair competitive advantage at horse shows. Soring methods include applying caustic chemicals, using plastic wrap and tight bandages to “cook” those chemicals deep into the horse’s flesh for days, attaching heavy chains to strike against the sore legs, inserting bolts, screws or other hard objects into sensitive areas of the hooves, cutting the hooves down to expose the live tissue, and using salicylic acid or other painful substances to slough off scarred tissue in an attempt to disguise the sored areas. More than 40 years ago, Congress tried to rein in this abuse by enacting the Horse Protection Act, but rampant soring continues, according to a 2010 audit by the USDA Inspector General that recommended reforms incorporated in the PAST Act. The PAST Act will amend the Horse Protection Act to end the failed industry self-policing system, strengthen penalties, ban the use of devices associated with soring, and make the actual soring of a horse for the purpose of showing or selling it illegal, as well as directing another to do so. This legislation is endorsed by the American Horse Council and more than 30 other national and state horse groups, as well as by the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Equine Practioners, and many others. The PAST Act is not expected to add costs to the federal government; it will simply enable USDA to redirect its enforcement efforts and resources in a more efficient and effective way.

Eggs and Hen Housing—S. 820 and H.R. 1731, the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments. Introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Reps. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., Jeff Denham, R-Calif., Sam Farr, D-Calif., and Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.—to provide for a uniform national standard for the housing and treatment of egg-laying hens, phased in over a period of 15-16 years (during the normal course of replacing aged equipment for many producers), which will significantly improve animal welfare and provide a stable and secure future for U.S. egg farmers. The legislation is supported by the egg industry and animal welfare groups, and expressly does not affect any other livestock sector or food product other than eggs. Under this legislation, each laying hen will ultimately be provided nearly double the amount of current space, along with enrichments such as nest boxes and perches that permit hens to better express natural behaviors. Egg farmers will be able to invest in these enriched colony cage systems with the assurance that they will face regulatory certainty and not a patchwork of conflicting state laws—helping industry at no cost to the federal government (the preliminary CBO score on this legislation is zero). Studies have shown higher productivity for hens in enriched colony cage systems—i.e., more eggs and lower hen mortality. An economic study by the independent research group Agralytica concluded that the bill’s reforms are expected to increase consumer prices by less than 1 penny per egg, spread out over the lengthy phase-in period. Consumers support this legislation by a margin of 4-to-1, and it has been endorsed by leading consumer organizations, as well as by the American Veterinary Medical Association, more than 1,000 individual family farms across the country, and many others. Cage-free and free-range systems, as well as operations with fewer than 3,000 laying hens, will be unaffected by the legislation, except that they may see increased sales as consumers are able to more clearly distinguish what’s available on store shelves, thanks to the bill’s labeling provisions. View responses to frequently asked questions here.

Animal Fighting Spectators—S. 666 and H.R. 366, the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act. Introduced by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mark Kirk, R-Ill., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and David Vitter, R-La, and Reps. Tom Marino, R-Pa., Jim McGovern, D-Mass., John Campbell, R-Calif., and Jim Moran, D-Va.—to establish misdemeanor penalties for knowingly attending an organized animal fight and felony penalties for knowingly bringing a minor to such a fight. Members also receive credit if they voted in favor of a related amendment, offered by Rep. McGovern during markup of the Farm Bill in the House Agriculture Committee (markup Roll Call #10 to H.R. 1947). While Congress has strengthened federal animal fighting law in recent years, this bill will close a remaining gap: prohibiting spectating and helping take the profit out of animal fighting.  Spectators are more than mere observers at animal fights. They are participants and accomplices who enable the crime, paying hundreds or thousands of dollars in admission fees and gambling wagers, and helping conceal organizers and handlers who try to blend into the crowd when a raid occurs. This legislation is widely supported by nearly 300 national, state and local law enforcement agencies (covering all 50 states), including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. The preliminary CBO estimate on this legislation is zero.  Related language is in the House-passed Farm Bill (H.R. 2642), as it was in last year’s House Agriculture Committee bill. This legislation has also been approved three times by the full Senate—in June as part of its Farm Bill (S. 954), and last year as a Farm Bill floor amendment and as free-standing legislation (S. 1947) on a vote of 88-11.

Horse Slaughter—S. 541 and H.R. 1094, the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act. Introduced by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Reps. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.—to protect horses and consumers by prohibiting the transport and export of U.S. horses to slaughter for human consumption. American horses are not raised for food and are routinely given hundreds of drugs over their lifetimes that can be toxic to humans if ingested. The shocking discovery of horse meat in beef products in the U.K. underscores the potential threat to American health if horse slaughter plants were to open here. Horse slaughter is cruel and cannot be made humane, and the U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes it. Horses are shipped for more than 24 hours at a time without food, water, or rest in crowded trucks in which the animals are often seriously injured or killed in transit. Horses are skittish by nature due to their heightened fight-or-flight response, and the methods used to kill horses rarely result in quick, painless deaths; they often endure repeated blows during attempts to render them unconscious and sometimes remain alive and kicking during dismemberment. The horse slaughter industry is a predatory, inhumane enterprise. They don’t “euthanize” old horses—but precisely the opposite: they buy up young and healthy horses, often by misrepresenting their intentions, and kill them to sell the meat to Europe and Japan. It makes no sense for the federal government to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to oversee new horse slaughter plants at a time when Congress is so focused on fiscal responsibility.

A Howling Shame

Today marks the first day of Wisconsin’s second consecutive wolf hunting and trapping season in decades. The first wolf was killed this morning after suffering in a steel-jawed leghold trap. It’s another round of killing in what has been a pogrom against wolves in the areas they’ve reclaimed—with hundreds killed in the Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stripped wolves of their federal protections and turned management of their populations over to states with hostile anti-wolf policies.

In Wisconsin, despite opposition from scientists, humane groups and Native American tribes, the state established a quota of 251 wolves to be killed this year. In fact, a recent public opinion poll showed that Wisconsin residents opposed a wolf hunt by an 8 to 1 margin. The state’s wolf population has declined from a high of 880 to 809 over the past two years, and the sport hunting and trapping quota of 251 wolves does not include those that will be killed for depredation purposes (76 last year), or those killed by illegal poaching and car collisions.

Cumulatively, this could result in more than 40 percent of Wisconsin’s fragile, recovering wolf population perishing this season. After decades of work and millions of dollars spent to bring the wolf back from the brink of extinction, the species is now at risk from the same practices that caused the decline in the first place. Worst of all, if breeding wolves are killed at random, packs will disband, which has happened in Yellowstone National Park. Because of these significant concerns, wildlife protection groups, including The Humane Society of the United States, filed a lawsuit earlier this year to restore federal protection for Great Lakes wolves.

Today through February, Wisconsin’s iconic wolves will be left to suffer in traps and killed with firearms, crossbows and bow and arrows with disregard for science-based concerns about the species’ sustained conservation. Wolf hunters can use electronic predator calls and shoot wolves over bait. Most unsettling, and rightfully the subject of opposition and legal challenges from Wisconsin animal shelters and respected animal behaviorists, is the use of packs of dogs to chase down and kill wolves this season. A Wisconsin veterinarian has shared gruesome details of hunting dogs being brought to his clinic ripped to pieces and dying on the surgery table and his concerns for dogs involved wolf altercations. The state rightly bans dogfighting, but has essentially sanctioned wolf-dog fighting. 

These are the same threats we expect wolves to face in other states that have rushed to open hunting and trapping seasons. In the neighboring state of Michigan, where the wolf population has also declined from 687 to 658 animals in the last two years, the first hunting season is set to open on November 15. The politicians in Wisconsin and other states where reckless wolf hunts are taking place may not be listening to their citizens, but in Michigan, the voters have a unique opportunity to make things right. By gathering enough signatures and placing a referendum on the statewide ballot, all Michigan voters can have a say in whether to keep wolves protected or allow their hunting as a game species—and can send a message to other states that people don’t support a renewed wolf slaughter. If you live in Michigan, we need your help collecting signatures—it could not be more urgent for wolves. And if you care about wolves, please support our efforts to be vigilant and energetic in their defense wherever and whenever they come under threat.

Growing Tide of Opposition to King Amendment

The House of Representatives is likely to take up the nutrition assistance portion of the Farm Bill again this week. While the House has not yet named its conferees and much work has yet to be done to negotiate a final House-Senate package, there’s growing opposition to one toxic provision in the broader bill, which was offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and is the last thing they need if they want to get Farm Bill programs done this year.

USA Today published a lead editorial yesterday panning the King amendment, which would gut “a wide swath of state laws on everything from food safety to the regulation of livestock, which in some states includes dogs and puppies.” As the paper wrote, “States, of course, have long set rules on products sold within their borders. Alabama and Mississippi, for example, require labels on out-of-state catfish.” And “there’s no need for such an extended battle, because a better solution exists: a compromise struck by the Humane Society and the United Egg Producers. These natural adversaries agreed on an “enriched colony cage” that would allow the birds more space, to be phased in gradually.”

The County Executives of America, which represents top-level elected local government officials, wrote to House and Senate Agriculture Committee leaders expressing its opposition to the King amendment. The group said, “Passage of the King amendment would centralize decision making on an entire set of issues in the hands of the federal government, removing the rights of states, counties, cities and towns to enact our own standards for agricultural products based on the needs and interests of our local constituencies. The King amendment would negatively impact laws and ordinances on everything from animal welfare issues to invasive pest management, from food labeling to environmental standards.”

And Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood sent a letter to the state’s congressional delegation, urging them to oppose the King amendment. “Due to the provision’s vagueness and overly broad language, it is unclear exactly what impact the King Amendment could have on our state’s ability to enforce its own laws and to protect Mississippi businesses and consumers….For instance, Mississippi’s law requiring that all catfish products sold in Mississippi be labeled with their country of origin would be subject to challenge by any non-Mississippi catfish producer under the King Amendment’s restrictions.”

These opinion leaders and public officials join a building chorus of others speaking out against the dangerous and overreaching King amendment, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, nearly 200 Democrats and Republicans in the Congress who signed letters to Agriculture Committee leaders, and a broad coalition of 82 organizations representing sustainable agriculture, consumer, public health, fire safety, labor, conservation, animal welfare, and other concerns. You can join them and take action today: let your representative and senators know that the King amendment is a poison pill, and they should reject this radical attack on animal welfare and state and local laws.

A Light at the End of the Barrel

Thanks to five grueling days of intensive, around-the-clock care, a very fortunate Canada goose at the Cape Wildlife Center in Massachusetts narrowly escaped lethal lead poisoning this week. Unable to stand, walk, or lift his head to eat when he was first found, the suffering bird had nearly no chance of survival without emergency medical care.

He was lucky; most of the tens of millions of animals that needlessly fall sick from ingesting toxic lead ammunition every year don’t receive treatment and even fewer survive and make it back to the wild.

A Canada goose recovers from lead poisoning at
Cape Wildlife Center. photo: Deborah Millman/Cape
Wildlife Center

In fact, it’s estimated that more than 130 species—including humans—are harmed by the effects of ingesting spent lead ammunition. Whether it is by inadvertently eating lead shot pellets off the ground while foraging, or unknowingly swallowing micro-shards of lead bullets scattered throughout the carcasses of hunted animals, this toxic metal poisons animals up and down the food chain.

Fortunately there is hope.

Public health organizations, environmental groups, hunters, and animal protection organizations are heeding the warnings and are coming together to support measures that get the lead out of ammo.

In California, we are joined by nearly 100 groups in support of Assembly Bill 711, which, if it passes the Senate in the next week, will be one step closer to phasing in the use of non-lead ammunition for all hunting.

As physicians dedicated to the health of Californians, the California Medical Association has endorsed AB 711. In its letter of support the organization wrote, “The CMA holds the protection of the public health as one of its core missions, and supports the concept of environmental protection and public access to recreational areas.”

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife showed its support last week when it also issued a letter of endorsement, stating, “The best available science related to wildlife health shows that spent lead ammunition creates the risk of lead poisoning for wildlife."

For public health, for wildlife, and for the environment, it’s time to get the lead out. These bullets keep on killing long after they have left the chamber, and it’s an easy switch to make with so many affordable and ballistically accurate alternatives on the market, like copper and bismuth. If you live in California, please take action by calling your state Senator today.

Standing Up for State Laws

Congress is on recess in August, but facing the remaining task to iron out a final Farm Bill and decide the outcome of Rep. Steve King’s, R-Iowa, destructive provision seeking to nullify state rules relating to agricultural standards. In addition to repealing protections for farm animals, horses, sharks, and dogs, the King amendment could also wipe out of hundreds of state laws protecting food safety, crop protection, fire safety, and more.

When federal animal welfare laws are proposed in the Congress, such as legislation to make it a federal offense to bring a child to a dogfight, King often proclaims that the federal government should back out and leave such matters to the states. However, in the case of King’s Farm Bill amendment, he’s made it clear that he doesn’t want the states to have a say on these issues either. His sweeping amendment is so broad and overreaching that hundreds of state laws that have nothing to do with animals are also on King’s chopping block.

That’s a primary reason the National Conference of State Legislatures sent a letter to House and Senate committee leaders urging them to strip King’s dangerous provision from the Farm Bill. In the bipartisan letter, New Hampshire Speaker of the House Terie Norelli, D-N.H., and Oregon State Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Ore.—the president and president-elect, respectively, of NCSL—write that the King amendment “would preempt vital state agricultural policies designed to protect the safety and well being of our farmland, waterways, forests and most importantly, our constituents.” They add that the King amendment “would also have significant economic effects across the states” and would target “state laws that were approved by state legislatures for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of consumers and the viability of our precious farmland and forests.”

Members of Congress are also speaking out and standing up against this political power grab. In the last few days, 23 members of the U.S. Senate signed a group letter led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and 166 members of the House signed either a Democratic letter led by Reps. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., and Gary Peters, D-Mich., or a Republican letter led by Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., sent to the leaders of their chamber’s Agriculture Committee expressing strong opposition to the King amendment.

This morning at the NCSL annual conference in Atlanta, state lawmakers are holding a press conference to highlight the assault on states’ rights the King amendment poses, and to call on their federal counterparts in Washington to nix this radical and dangerous provision from the final Farm Bill. And you can tell them the same. Now is the time to contact your U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators to let them know that the King amendment to the Farm Bill has got to go.

Senate Bill Introduced to Step Up Horse Protection

Two U.S. Senators are asking their colleagues to work with them to crack down on the rampant cruelty of “soring” in Tennessee walking horse show competitions. This week, U.S. Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Mark Warner, D-Va., introduced the bipartisan Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act, S. 1406, which will fortify the four-decades-old federal Horse Protection Act and help strengthen law enforcement efforts to stop horse abuse. 

Soring is the deliberate infliction of pain to the hooves and legs of show horses—applying caustic chemicals to their pasterns (ankles), inserting hard or sharp objects into their sensitive hooves, and using other painful techniques to force an artificially high-stepping gait. It’s a form of cheating that gives those who engage in this abuse a competitive edge over owners and trainers who do not, as exposed by an HSUS undercover investigation in 2012 at the training barn of Jackie McConnell, one of the breed’s most celebrated trainers caught on camera beating a horse and painting chemicals on the legs to burn his flesh.

Despite enactment of the Horse Protection Act in 1970 to outlaw soring, there remain those in the Tennessee walking horse industry who continue the abusive practice and go to great lengths to avoid detection. Decades of corrupt industry self-regulation have fostered an environment in which unscrupulous trainers and owners subject horses to torturous practices for the sake of prize money and a blue ribbon, with industry inspectors routinely overlooking soring violations and issuing weak penalties.

“Whether riding, racing, hunting or training, horses have been a part of Virginia’s culture for 400 years,” said Senator Warner. “However, owners and breeders from across the Commonwealth agree that the deliberate act of inflicting pain on horses has no place in modern equestrian competition. Senator Ayotte and I are proud to introduce the Prevent All Soring Tactics Act, which will give USDA the tools it needs to crack down on horse soring and end this cruel practice once and for all.”

“Horses hold a special place in the hearts of citizens across New Hampshire and the nation. These animals are an iconic part of our national heritage, and they must not be subjected to inhumane training practices that purposefully cause pain,” Senator Ayotte said. “This bipartisan legislation will help stop abusive tactics that deliberately harm horses, and I’m pleased to see that the bill has broad support among animal cruelty prevention organizations.”

The bill would amend the Horse Protection Act to end the industry’s failed system of self-policing, ban the use of devices implicated in the practice of soring, strengthen penalties, and make other reforms needed to finally end this torture. S. 1406 is the companion bill to H.R. 1518, introduced in April by U.S. Reps. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., which now has 140 bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation also has the support of a diverse coalition of horse industry, veterinary, and animal protection organizations, including the American Horse Council, American Saddlebred Horse Association, United Professional Horsemen’s Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

We are grateful to Sens. Ayotte and Warner for introducing this important horse protection bill, and to Reps. Whitfield and Cohen for leading this effort in the House. Please contact your Senators and Representative today, and ask them to cosponsor the PAST Act to stamp out horse abuse.

It’s a Captive Jungle Out There

When private citizens keep wild animals—such as lions, tigers, bears, chimpanzees, and monkeys—as exotic pets, it never turns out well. The private possession of dangerous wild animals is a ticking time bomb for the owners and other people who live and work in their neighborhoods, and relegates the animals to wholly unnatural living conditions.

Roughly half of the states already prohibit the private possession of big cats and some or all primate species as pets, but these animals are still easily obtained over the Internet and through out-of-state dealers and auctions, making federal legislation necessary to support the efforts of state law enforcement and to promote global conservation efforts.

Thankfully, two new bills introduced in Congress this week demonstrate that lawmakers are taking proactive steps to stem the tide in these dangerous animals flowing into communities across the nation.

Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., yesterday introduced H.R. 2856, the Captive Primate Safety Act, which would prohibit the interstate commerce in great apes, monkeys and other primates for the exotic pet trade. Similar legislation, led by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La., passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year, but did not make it through the full Congress.

There are an estimated 15,000 primates kept as pets in the United States. Primates of all sizes are wild animals capable of inflicting serious and sometimes catastrophic injuries. A Tennessee woman was severely injured in her own driveway by a pet macaque monkey who escaped from a neighbor's home. And it's not easy to forget the horrific incident in Connecticut, where a pet chimpanzee attacked a woman—tearing off her hands, nose, lips, and eyelids, blinding her in both eyes. It’s a risk we don’t need to take in this country.

Also, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., has just introduced S. 1381, the Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act, which would prohibit the private possession and breeding of tigers, lions, and other big cats. The House version of the bill, H.R. 1998, was introduced in May by Reps. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., and Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.

Tigers, lions, and other big cat species have exploded in popularity in the exotic pet trade with an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 tigers in private hands. Even when born in captivity and hand-raised, these wild animals retain their predatory instincts. They injure and kill people, as evidenced by the hundreds of attacks by big cats in the U.S. in the last two decades alone. And with the constant overbreeding to supply baby tiger and lion cubs, the adult animals are eventually dumped on government agencies and nonprofit animal sanctuaries who have to spend millions of dollars cleaning up after reckless individuals.

Keeping primates and big cats in backyards, basements, and living rooms deprives the animals of all that is natural to them. It’s bad for public health and safety, and bad for the animals who are caught up in this trade. Please contact your federal lawmakers today and urge them to co-sponsor the Captive Primate Safety Act and the Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act.

One Letter Makes a Difference

Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Minn., in his weekly “Correspondence Corner” video series, took a question from a constituent who emailed him in support of H.R. 847, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act, to crack down on abusive puppy mills. Joined by his special guest, Arbor, a rescue dog adopted by one of his staffers, Rep. Paulsen took the opportunity to answer the question from Dick in Bloomington, and talk about not only his co-sponsorship of the puppy mill legislation, but also his co-sponsorship of the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act, H.R. 366, to make it a crime to attend or bring a child to a dogfight or cockfight. You can watch the video here (the question begins at 1:41).

When Dick took action and sent an email to his congressman, he may not have known whether it would make an impact, or whether he would even get a response. But it’s an example of just how much a single constituent letter really matters. Dick’s email prompted the lawmaker and his staff to focus their attention on animal protection policy issues and to communicate his record of support for bills cracking down on puppy mills and animal fighting to other constituents throughout the district. A single letter not only can spur action by a lawmaker, but also can start a conversation that has a ripple effect and spreads the message to others throughout the community.

So keep writing those letters, making those phone calls, and sending those emails. Find your federal and state lawmakers by typing in your zip code on our web site.

Don't Tank the Shark Finning Laws

A bipartisan group of 62 House members—led by U.S. Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and Grace Meng, D-N.Y.—sent a letter to the Obama Administration urging it to revise a proposed federal rule that could undermine state bans on buying or selling shark fins. When they previously served as state legislators, Huffman and Meng led the efforts in California and New York, respectively, to ban the trade in shark fin products. Those states (the New York bill is awaiting Gov. Cuomo’s signature), along with Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands, have adopted policies to crack down on finning by drying up the demand for shark fins within their borders.
 
Congress passed the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, which strengthens the federal law against shark finning—the brutal practice of hacking the fins off sharks, often while they’re still alive, and throwing the mutilated animals back overboard to die slowly in the ocean. Shark finning had been illegal in U.S. waters since 2000, but major loopholes in the law rendered the ban unenforceable. For example, ships were allowed to transport fins obtained illegally as long as the sharks were not finned aboard that particular vessel. The new federal law requires that sharks be landed with their fins still naturally attached, the only sure way to enforce a domestic ban on finning.

But in addition to proposing regulations to implement the new law, the National Marine Fisheries Service, shockingly, has proposed to preempt states and territories from passing complementary laws to combat shark finning. It goes way beyond what Congress intended with the Shark Conservation Act, which deals with the act of finning sharks at sea, not the trade in shark products within the U.S.
 
Both federal and state laws are needed to do everything we can to curb the killing of up to 73 million sharks each year for shark fin soup. Today, one-fifth of shark species are threatened with extinction, and some populations have declined 90 percent in the last 30 years. Sharks are apex predators who play an essential role in marine ecosystems. The cruel and ecologically devastating practice of shark finning endangers their survival—and that of the species that rely on them.
 
The U.S. has a major role to play, as it’s the largest market for shark fins outside Asia. Trade data indicates that more than 90 percent of our shark fin imports come from Hong Kong, which receives and processes fins from more than 80 countries. Once imported into the U.S. it’s very difficult to tell by looking at a processed, treated shark fin sold here what species or country it’s from, or whether it’s from an illegal or overfished fishery—and it’s impossible to tell whether those fins came from a shark subjected to the cruel practice of finning. The federal prohibitions on shark finning are important, but they cannot and do not address the fact that local markets for shark fin products within the U.S. are primarily supplied from fins that are not produced in U.S. waters and other areas where bans on finning are in place.

As states ban the sale of this product, and consumers and chefs choose alternatives in restaurants and banquet halls, we can reduce the demand for this cruel and wasteful killing and turn the problem around for sharks. We can’t allow the continued mass slaughter of these important ocean predators just for a bowl of soup. Contact the Obama Administration today and tell them we can’t allow NMFS to turn back the clock on shark protection.