Animals & Politics

Federal Court Upholds Decision to Prohibit Import of Wild-Caught Whales from Russia

There’s a growing public awareness about the suffering of captive whales, especially since the release of Blackfish in 2013, and latest reports indicate that Sea World’s profits have dropped 84 percent. It’s perplexing, then, that some companies would still fight so hard to try to capture wild whales from the oceans and import them into the U.S. for an outdated and failing business model.

Naomi Rose for The HSUS

Fortunately, there was good news on this issue yesterday, when a federal court upheld the National Marine Fisheries Service’s denial of an import permit application from the Georgia Aquarium. The case has critical implications for both the conservation of wild populations of marine mammals and the welfare of whales held in captivity in U.S. exhibition facilities.

In 2012, the Georgia Aquarium (in cooperation with three Sea World facilities and two other aquariums) sought permission to import 18 beluga whales captured from the Sea of Okhotsk near Russia by a company seeking to sell the majestic white whales to an exhibition facility. When the whales were captured in 2010, five of them were less than two years old and were likely still nursing and not yet independent of their mothers (who were not captured). The federal government rejected the permit application, finding that the Georgia Aquarium failed to demonstrate, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, that the import would not likely have an adverse impact on the species and that the import would not likely result in the capture of additional beluga whales.

The court found that the agency’s decision was well-reasoned and dismissed the aquarium’s lawsuit challenging the permit denial. The Humane Society of the United States had filed a brief to provide the court with information about the serious animal welfare and marine conservation concerns inherent in capturing and transporting these highly intelligent and sensitive beings for captive exhibition.

The decision makes clear that the “primary purpose of the MMPA is to protect marine mammals” and “was not intended as a ‘balancing act’ between the interests of industry and the animals.” It’s an important step in the trend toward ending the inhumane and unsustainable trade in wild cetaceans, or marine mammals, by U.S. exhibition facilities—indeed, it has been more than 20 years since the last wild-caught cetacean was imported directly into the U.S. for public display, and even Sea World now claims it would not take the whales if they were imported.

It means the government’s decision to reject these cruel imports will stand, and it reinforces a comprehensive record of protecting marine life during President Obama’s administration. Just last year, President Obama issued an executive order expanding the existing Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to 490,000 square miles—six times its current size—making it the largest marine monument in the world. The sanctuary is expected to protect nearly two dozen types of living marine mammals, along with threatened species of sea turtles.

In addition, the Department of Commerce revised the regulations governing the dolphin-safe label, requiring that all fisheries provide a certification that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the harvesting of tuna. NMFS also finalized rules to restrict fishing gear harmful to endangered right whales and permanently extend speed limits for ships along the east coast to prevent collisions with endangered whales. Most recently, NMFS took a significant step for global protections of marine mammals by issuing a proposed rule aimed at deterring foreign commercial fishing activities from harming these animals.

But there is still much to be done to address the plight of captive marine mammals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture drafted a proposed rule back in 2012 to set improved standards, including space requirements and water quality for marine mammals kept in exhibition facilities, but that rule has been languishing and has not yet been issued for public comment. It’s been more than two decades since the agency began working on this regulation and each day of delay means more suffering for the hundreds of orcas, belugas, dolphins, seals and sea lions used for commercial entertainment and interactive “swim-with” experiences.

Members of Congress are urging the White House to issue its long-delayed proposed rule, with Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., leading the effort in the House, and Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., winning an amendment on the issue in the Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 18 to 12.

The Obama administration has taken major steps forward for whales, but now must finish the job to establish more humane standards of care for captive marine mammals.

OIG Audit Fails to Address USDA’s Cruel War on Wildlife

It’s a government program that’s more than 100 years old, uses outdated and ineffective practices, costs tens of millions of tax dollars, and kills and maims tens of millions of animals, including unintended victims such as endangered and threatened species, and beloved family pets.

No wonder members of Congress and thousands of concerned citizens have urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to address these critical problems with its archaic Wildlife Services program, especially the unacceptable and cruel practices that the program conducts in the name of lethal predator control—using toxic poisons, steel-jawed leghold traps, and aerial gunning of wildlife.

The auditors glossed over the cruel methods that federal agents use, such as leaving animals to suffer in snares, traps, or from poisons. Above, a coyote in a leghold trap.  Photo by Dick Randall

At the request of U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., former Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., and Sen. (then-Rep.) Gary Peters, D-Mich., the USDA’s Office of Inspector General agreed to conduct an audit of the controversial program. The audit was a long time coming, for an agency using a 19th century model of wildlife management and failing to adapt to modern concerns or technologies. In the past decade alone, the Wildlife Services program killed nearly 34 million wild animals, with taxpayers footing a large part of the $1.14 billion bill.

For so many of us, this brought hope that finally the program would be exposed for what it is: a perpetual, irresponsible war on wildlife on behalf of a few private special interests, allowed to operate without transparency, as in the Wild, Wild West. Earlier this year, The Humane Society of the United States released a new white paper, “Wildlife Disservice: The USDA Wildlife Services’ inefficient and inhumane wildlife damage management program.” The paper proposed a series of common-sense reforms, such as incorporating animal welfare and conservation into the decision making process, eliminating the most inhumane and indiscriminate killing methods, such as toxic poisons, and updating the program’s environmental impact statement.

The OIG audit released yesterday, however, answers none of the concerns posed by the lawmakers and citizens who requested the investigation, and offers no pathway for reform. The auditors simply glossed over the extremely cruel methods that federal agents use, such as leaving animals to suffer in snares, traps, or from poisons that did not act quickly. They provided no insight into how more than $1 billion was spent from 2004 to 2013, much of it from federal tax dollars, and whether those funds were used effectively to solve wildlife conflicts.

The main conclusion of the audit is simply that Wildlife Services complied with the law. But arguing that the activities are legal doesn’t mean they aren’t outdated, inhumane, ineffective, and a waste of tax dollars. Our government should be held to a higher standard in conducting its business, and there are better ways of addressing wildlife conflicts than there were a century ago. Legal or not, citizens are demanding less waste, more transparency, and humane treatment.

In an era where cutting federal spending and eliminating government debt is widely encouraged, Wildlife Services lives on as an outlier. It is unacceptable that federally funded wildlife exterminators will continue to freely poison, drown, snare, and shoot wildlife from airplanes and helicopters using the taxpayers’ money and with very little accountability.

There is a legitimate case to be made for a federal agency that helps to solve wildlife conflicts and provides training and research on best practices with an emphasis on innovation and non-lethal solutions.

But Wildlife Services in its current form is a relic of the past. It exterminates wildlife as a government subsidy for private ranchers and other special interests, using inhumane and ineffective methods, and wasting federal funds. We have a right to expect better from our government, especially when humane alternatives are on the rise.

Reform is most urgently needed in order to bring Wildlife Services into the 21st century. Congress should continue to press USDA to adopt a more balanced approach aligned with mainstream American values that support humane, nonlethal methods for wildlife damage management.

FDA Takes Action to Ensure the Safety of Pet Food

Two-thirds of American households have pets. They are cherished members of our families, with 83 million dogs and 96 million cats living with us. We trust that the food we buy for them is safe and nutritious, and will contribute to their long and healthy lives as beloved family members. But in recent years, consumer confidence has been shaken, with a series of recalls of pet food and treats. Thousands of dogs and cats were sickened or died when melamine, a chemical used to make plastics, was found in several brands of pet food.

Kevin Wolf/AP Images for HSI

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration took action to address the threat of adulterated pet foods, and released a final rule to ensure protective measures are put in place for the safety of the food we give our pets. This is especially significant because until now, requirements governing pet food safety have been almost non-existent.

The new rule calls for manufacturers of pet food, including importers, to establish protective procedures at critical points in the production process where problems are likely to arise. Makers of animal food sold in the U.S. will be required to ensure prudent measures are in place to keep pet food free of contaminants and hazardous materials. The rule also requires written plans to prevent food-borne illnesses, like Salmonella, and shifts the focus from responding to food contamination to preventing it.

This rule has been a long time in the making with key Members of Congress demanding greater oversight of the pet food industry. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., led the charge by introducing the Human and Pet Food Safety Act. Key elements of their bill were incorporated into an FDA package signed into law in September 2007, which required the agency to set standards for pet food, strengthen labeling rules, establish an early warning system, post searchable online recall lists and compel companies to report contaminated food and make key records available during investigations so contaminants can be traced quickly.

The momentum continued forward in December 2010 when Congress enacted the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), a sweeping reform to better protect human and animal health by preventing food safety problems before they occur. The FDA then set to work writing seven new comprehensive rules to implement the many components of FSMA, and this new one that regulates food made for animals was part of that process. We commend the agency for its efforts to better protect the food we give our beloved pets.

When it comes to pet food safety, a preventive approach is the best approach. But up until now, business as usual wasn’t cutting it to avoid these outbreaks. For instance, as of September 2014, the FDA had received around 5,000 reports of pet illnesses apparently related to the consumption of jerky-style pet treats. While the FDA continues to investigate these illnesses, it has not definitively identified the precise cause.

While this rule will likely not prevent all outbreaks of illness and food recalls, it is a much-needed first step to ensure that there are safety protocols in place from the start in the manufacturing process of pet food. Manufacturers will be charged with assessing and tracking risks that could threaten our pets, which will shorten the time from outbreak to solution in the future and should keep issues from occurring in the first place.

The FDA also has been granted much-needed mandatory recall authority under FSMA, whereas before, food recalls could only be done on a voluntary basis by food companies. Since September of last year, the agency has reported 36 recalls on pet food and treats, which have protected countless pets from becoming sick. Some of these recalls were taken at the request of the FDA, while most of the recalls occurred voluntarily by the pet food companies.

Our hope is with the implementation of this new rule, we will see fewer outbreaks and recalls. But remember that the best protection for our pets will come from watchful pet owners. The HSUS has the latest and most up-to-date recall information on its pet food safety webpage, as well as tips for pet owners on how to best protect your cherished companions.

Lawmakers Taking a Stand to Protect the Salt River Horses

The U.S. Forest Service has sparked a national outrage with its new plan to remove all of the horses from one of the nation’s most iconic herds—the Salt River horses—from Tonto National Forest in Arizona. 

In 1971, Congress codified the important place horses hold in American life through the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, declaring that horses are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West. The act bound federal agencies to protect and manage wild horses living on our public lands, and noted that where horses were found, they were to be considered an integral part of the natural system. 

A Salt River horse foal
Source: KPHO/KTVK

Shockingly, the Forest Service has failed to acknowledge the horses of the Salt River herd as wild, deserving the protections that Congress intended. Instead, the agency claims the horses have been released onto the land, and designates them instead as abandoned livestock. Removing these iconic horses based on a technical loophole would allow them to be sent to livestock auctions—where kill buyers are waiting to peddle horse flesh to slaughter plants in Canada and Mexico.

One thing is clear: the public is outraged by the Forest Service’s proposed action. 

Tourists come from across the nation to visit and photograph the forest with specific hopes of catching a glimpse of one of these beautiful animals. Their removal could have a great ecological impact on the park, and threatens an economic blow to Arizona and the national forest system. 

Fortunately, federal and state lawmakers are also not taking this action lightly.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has called on the Forest Service to halt its plans to remove the horses from Tonto National Forest. Representatives Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., David Schweikert, R-Ariz., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack noting that wild horses are an integral part of America’s West, and asking for an immediate halt to their removal. Representative Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, also weighed in with a letter questioning the need for immediate removal of the horses, who have been living safely within the forest’s borders for decades. Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., requested that the Forest Service cease all management activities until the public has had a sufficient chance to participate in the process.

Arizona’s Republican Governor Doug Ducey—who is establishing a solid animal protection record after vetoing the state’s bill to exclude farm animals from the regular cruelty code—is also speaking out for the horses. He tweeted that the Forest Service should leave the Salt River horses alone, promising that Arizona would provide them with sanctuary if the federal government wouldn’t. 

Local citizens have offered to partner with the government to solve this problem, but the Forest Service has rebuffed the offer of assistance. This is the type of public-private partnership, and constructive problem solving, that our government agencies should encourage, not reject. Public officials should encourage citizen participation, not shut it down.

We are grateful to federal and state policymakers for standing up for what’s right, and urging the Forest Service to reconsider its plan to remove the Salt River horses from their home in Tonto National Forest.  Our nation’s horses simply deserve better, and this time they have some powerful advocates making sure they get it.

Please help support the effort by letting the Forest Service know you oppose its plan. »

 

Airlines Take Flight from Trophy Hunting; When Will Congress Get On Board?

The tragic death of Cecil the lion—senselessly shot by an American dentist with a bow and arrow and left to suffer for hours before being shot again—has exposed the pay-to-slay subculture of wealthy people who spend a fortune to kill the grandest, most majestic animals in the world. The public outrage shows no signs of slowing down.  

Virtually overnight, a cascade of major airlines has banned the transportation of spoils from the trophy killing industry—principally elephants, rhinoceros, lions, leopards, and buffalo, or the “Africa Big Five” sought for self-aggrandizement in the Safari Club International record books. Delta, United, American and others are all in flight from the destruction and death meted out by trophy hunters on the African continent.

Cecil the lion with his cubs. Photo by Brent Stapelkamp

But when will Congress get on board?  Even now, there are lawmakers working quietly to appease the bullies and fat-cats of the trophy hunting corps. While most of the world is convulsed over Cecil, some members of Congress are springing into action to grant special favors for one of the smallest and most elite groups of trophy hunters in the world.

Walter Palmer is now a household name. What isn’t so widely known is that there are thousands of ultra-wealthy trophy hunters just like him, and that 41 of them are lobbying Congress for a wholly unprincipled bail-out that would blow a hole in the heart of the Endangered Species Act.

Bills in the House and Senate—the “Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act” sponsored by Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and the “SHARE Act” sponsored by Reps. Rob Wittman, R-Va., Tim Walz, D-Minn., Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., and Gene Green, D-Tex.—both provide a sweetheart deal to help 41 big-bucks, trophy-mad hunters import the heads of rare polar bears they shot in Canada. None of these millionaire trophy hunters, who paid as much as $50,000 each to shoot a polar bear, ate the meat. They just went on a head-hunting exercise in the Arctic, and paid a fortune to do so—all for the head and the hide and the bragging rights that go along with it.

U.S. law bars import of these trophies because polar bears are in terrible trouble with their very survival at stake, thanks to climate change, commercial trade, and over-hunting. These animals were killed during expensive trophy safaris in Canada at a time when the Bush Administration had proposed listing the polar bear as a threatened species—the U.S.’s contribution to conservation. These fat-cat hunters proceeded knowing that the door would be closed to polar bear trophy imports, but confident that they could always call upon friends in Congress to do their bidding and get them an exemption.

Indeed, Congress has several times granted similar import allowances—a de facto repeal of the import ban—sending a message to trophy hunters that they can continue killing imperiled species and eventually exert their influence to get approval to bring home their trophies. The cumulative impact of this corrosive pandering encourages more reckless killing of these animals around the globe.

The whole sordid business is fueled by competitive killing programs that give “hunting achievement” awards and “grand slams” for kills in specific categories. For example, hunters at the Safari Club International compete for the “North American 29” award, which requires killing a minimum of 29 species and subspecies of animals, including the polar bear, in North American habitat. They also strive to earn the “Bears of the World” award, which requires killing five bears, such the polar bear and Eurasian and Siberian brown bears, on a number of continents.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering a rule to list the African lion as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Should all the Walter Palmers of the world seeking the “Africa Big Five” award now rush to be among the last hunters to bag the king of the jungle? That acceleration of killing inverts the very purpose of the law.

These trophy hunters don’t care that African lion populations and polar bear populations are declining fast. They don’t care that time is running out to slow the mortality of these majestic creatures. But Congress should.

House Action is a Mixed Bag for Animals

Yesterday was a mixed day of results for animals on Capitol Hill, with some setbacks and some progress on a number of different fronts for companion animals, wildlife, and farm animals. 

What good news there was came in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill that passed the House Appropriations Committee.

A provision of the bill sends a strong message that grisly, taxpayer-funded experiments on farm animals at federal research facilities will not be tolerated. It prevents the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from receiving five percent of its appropriations ($56 million in federal funding) until it certifies in writing to both the House and the Senate that it has updated its animal care policies and that its facilities will be subject to regular inspections.

A provision of the bill sends a strong message that grisly, taxpayer-funded experiments on farm animals at federal research facilities will not be tolerated. Photo by iStockphoto

The New York Times exposed gruesome experiments at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska, including pigs locked in steam chambers until they died, calves born with “deformed vaginas” and tangled legs, and sheep bred to produce lambs without any human assistance, with the newborns left to starve, freeze, or, get battered to death by hail. The congressional committee, in a report that accompanied the legislation, said that it was “disturbed” to read the Times article and “continues to be deeply disappointed in the department’s response and must take action to ensure the welfare of all animals used in research at ARS facilities.”

In another victory, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., succeeded in including language in the bill to deny funds for USDA’s licensing or relicensing of Class B animal dealers who sell “random source” dogs and cats for use in research, often obtained from animal shelters, flea markets, or “free to a good home” ads (and sometimes from pet theft). The 1966 Animal Welfare Act was intended to stop the illegal sale of family pets for use in experimentation. However, nearly 50 years after the passage of this landmark legislation, the AWA still fails to reliably protect either pet owners or animals from Class B dealers. The animals are routinely deprived of veterinary care, sufficient food, clean water, safe and sanitary cages, and protection from extreme weather, as well as being subjected to experimentation.

The House committee bill also contains good news for animals in terms of funding for critical animal welfare laws. Thanks to strong bipartisan support, funding for USDA to enforce and implement these key laws was sustained and even modestly increased in some cases. In such a tough budget climate with so many programs competing for finite dollars, we are pleased that lawmakers understand it’s possible to achieve macro-level cuts while still taking care to ensure that specific small and vital accounts such as these have the funds they need.

Here’s a rundown of what the House committee bill provides for key programs:

• Animal Welfare Act: $28,410,000 ($400,000 increase) for USDA enforcement of the important law that sets basic standards for care of animals at more than 10,000 sites across the country—including puppy mills, research laboratories, roadside zoos, traveling circuses, and airlines.  The increase is designated for inspections and oversight of USDA’s Agricultural Research Service facilities involved in research on animals.
• Horse Protection Act: $697,000 (current funding level) for USDA enforcement to end the cruel practice of “soring” Tennessee walking horses and related breeds  (deliberately inflicting severe pain and cooking chemicals into the horses’ legs and feet to make it hurt for them to step down, so they will exaggerate their high-stepping gait and win prizes). 
• Investigative and Enforcement Services: $16,224,000 (current funding level) for this USDA division whose responsibilities include investigation of inspectors’ findings regarding alleged violations of the AWA and HPA and the initiation of follow-up enforcement actions. 
• Office of Inspector General: $95,643,000 ($617,000 increase) for this office that handles many areas, including investigations and audits of USDA’s enforcement efforts to improve compliance with the AWA, HPA, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and regulations to protect downed animals.
• Humane Slaughter: Helpful committee report language (restated from previous years) directing the Food Safety and Inspection Service to ensure that funds provided for Humane Methods of Slaughter Act enforcement will be focused on overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and stunning areas, and that all inspectors receive robust national training.
• Veterinary Student Loan Repayment: $5,000,000 (current funding level) for this program that helps ease the shortage of veterinarians practicing in rural communities and in government positions (such as those overseeing humane slaughter, AWA, and HPA rules), by repaying student debt for those who choose to practice practice in underserved areas and in the vital government divisions devoted to veterinary inspection and oversight.

Without adequate funding for enforcement, the laws and rules we work to enact are mostly just exhortations. The HSUS and HSLF have been steadily working to build the enforcement budgets for these and doing this work provides a critical service to the broader movement to protect all animals. Over the past 17 years, for example, we’ve succeeded in boosting the annual funding for enforcement of the AWA by 205 percent (a cumulative total of more than $157 million in new dollars to the program). Today, there are 123 AWA inspectors, compared to about 60 during the 1990s, to help ensure basic humane treatment at thousands of facilities with animals under their care.

There was a major setback in this same committee, however, when it failed to adopt an amendment to prevent the slaughter of horses for human consumption on U.S. soil. The amendment, offered by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., resulted in a tie vote, 24-24, with the measure not passing. Several longtime Republican supporters of this provision reversed their votes in committee and instead sided with the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

We will not waver in our efforts to protect American horses. Photo by The HSUS

The fight is not over, as we prepare for similar amendments on the House floor and in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we will not waver in our efforts to protect American horses. 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.

In other bad news, the Interior Appropriations bill which was on the House floor this week, includes harmful riders that would block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from any rulemaking to address the ivory trade and elephant poaching, and would force the removal of wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming from protections under the Endangered Species Act. Congressman Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., offered an amendment to strike the ivory rider, and Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., sponsored one to block the weakening of the Endangered Species Act for wolves and other species. Both amendments unfortunately failed on largely partisan votes.

It’s shameful that so many lawmakers pandered to the NRA and sided with ivory sellers and elephant poachers, when close to 100 elephants are being butchered every day for their tusks. There is an epidemic of elephant poaching in Africa, claiming as many as 35,000 elephants each year throughout their range, and threatening extinction of the species. The biggest ivory-selling markets in the world are in China and the United States, and these sales are fueling the slaughter of elephants thousands of miles away.  African armed militia groups massacred hundreds of elephants with the sale of the animals’ tusks financing murderous activities of al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Janjaweed, so this is a national security issue as well as a humane issue.

It’s also shameful that lawmakers continue to try to punch holes in the Endangered Species Act, and strip protections from wolves, with the public and the courts being shut out of the process. They would hand over wolf management to states in which more than 1,700 wolves have been killed in the last few years with the aid of leghold traps, snares, packs of hounds, bait site, clubs, and firearms. If members of Congress can dictate wolf management by legislative fiat, it opens the door for any politician or special interest group to do the same for a species they don’t like.

See how your U.S. representative voted on the ivory amendment and the wolf amendment. If they voted “aye” please thank them for standing up for animals, conservation, and national security, and if they voted “no” please let them know how disappointed you are. Also, please ask them to oppose the final passage of the Interior bill, which includes these harmful provisions.

We will continue to watch the appropriations process closely and keep you posted on the fights over horse slaughter, ivory trade, wolves, and other critical animal issues. 

Where Science and Compassion Overlap: Making Progress on Animal Research Issues

If you want evidence that animal research in the country has gone off track, you don’t need to look very far.

After using chimpanzees in medical experiments for three decades, the New York Blood Center simply abandoned 66 chimps in Liberia and cut off funding for their care. Volunteers were handing cups of water to the animals every couple days, to prevent their deaths, until The HSUS stepped in and provided support to keep them alive.

Agnes Souchal for The HSUS
Liberian chimps receive relief.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center was exposed for conducting ghoulish experiments on farm animals, with animals dying in steam chambers, of deformities, or left to starve or freeze to death.

In what all have come to see as a shocking example of government hypocrisy, medical research at a private laboratory must adhere to standards of the Animal Welfare Act, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture exempts itself from these same rules when it’s acting as the R&D arm of the factory farming industry.

Thankfully, there has been much progress on the issue of animal use in research, testing, and education as well.

Worldwide, the number of animals used has been coming down over the last several decades, and we’ve seen incredible progress in the development of non-animal methods in toxicity testing and related areas.

The National Institutes of Health has largely stopped using chimps in research and is working with animal welfare groups to retire them to sanctuaries. NIH no longer funds research involving dogs and cats rounded up from random sources such as shelters, flea markets, and free-to-a-good-home ads, and only two such “Class B” dealers are still licensed by the USDA—down from 200 some time ago.

Part of the reason for this success is a growing understanding that advancing science and medicine doesn’t mean we have to throw other values, such as humane treatment of animals, out the window.

Dr. David Wiebers, the chair of the board of directors of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, and emeritus professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, has been arguing for decades that these ideas are not mutually exclusive, and he’s been working to build bridges between the medical profession and the animal welfare movement.

In a recently published Q&A with HSLF, Dr. Wiebers said:

When I first became involved with The HSUS 27 years ago, the medical and animal protection communities were at terrible odds with one another, largely over the issue of animal research. The rather strident discord between these communities seemed particularly ironic since the primary goal of the medical profession is to decrease the amount of unnecessary death and suffering in human beings—and the animal protection community simply wishes to extend this same goal to beings other than humans.

Over the years, however, I can tell you that I’ve spent a lot of time in both fields and that some of the most beautiful, caring and compassionate individuals you’ll ever meet come out of both of them. There is a great deal of similarity in the spirit of giving and caring, and the enormous fulfillment from helping others.

For these reasons, I have always viewed my work in animal protection as an extension of the work I do in medicine. The key to bridging the two fields is to focus on the common elements and the uniting force of compassion that runs through both of them. Happily, the discord between these two fields has lessened considerably over the years.

You can read the full interview with Dr. Wiebers in "Humane Activist," the HSLF membership magazine.

See No Evil: Dogfighting Spectator Law Already Making a Difference

I’m pleased to report that the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act, which we worked with Congress to enact last year, is now having a tangible impact in the field and helping to crack down on the entire cast of characters involved in animal fighting. This week, eight people were convicted under federal law for attending a dogfight in Akron, Ohio.

The HSUS

Last November, police raided what the Cleveland Plain Dealer called a nationwide dogfighting ring. Forty-seven people were arrested. Ten were charged in federal court, and the rest are being prosecuted in state court.

The spectators who had crossed state lines to attend the match were charged federally, along with the two chief organizers of the fights that were held that night.

Eight dogs were seized in the raid, including two who were already bloodied and were fighting in a 16-by-16-foot pit when law enforcement descended on the property.

Animal fighting routinely goes hand in hand with other crimes, and this was no exception. Narcotics and $52,000 in gambling cash were confiscated. One convicted felon was charged with being in possession of a firearm.This was a highly organized operation, and fight organizers even sold concessions and dogfighting paraphernalia to attendees.

These latest convictions show that while much of our work involves passing laws to protect animals, it’s equally important that those laws be properly enforced. Thanks to the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act, it’s now a federal crime to attend or bring a child to an animal fight.

This was the fourth upgrade of the federal animal fighting statute since 2002, as we’ve worked to close gaps in the legal framework and strengthen the penalties for dogfights and cockfights.

With the FBI now tracking animal cruelty crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting database, and agencies like the National Sheriffs’ Association speaking out forcefully against animal cruelty, we should see more enforcement of all animal cruelty laws. Animal fighting crimes are particularly well suited for federal prosecution because animal fighting almost always involves interstate activity.

In another high-profile example, federal investigators closed down a major cockfighting pit in Pikeville, Kentucky, last year and found that participants in that operation came from dozens of states.

Those out of state attendees even included members of organized criminal gangs like the Mexican Mafia. The evidence is clear. Animal fighting is a lose-lose endeavor for the animals as well as for the communities where the crimes are staged.

It also demonstrates why strong federal and state laws are both needed and complementary in the effort to crack down on animal fighting. Sometimes the fights are multi-state and multi-jurisdictional, and participants might be charged under federal law, or state law, or both. We are grateful to the lawmakers who helped shepherd through this new spectator animal fighting provision in the last Congress, thus providing one more important tool for law enforcement.

Of course, much more needs to be done across the country. The Tennessee House of Representatives may vote this week on a bill that would strengthen the state’s animal fighting law. The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has written to every member of the Tennessee House, urging them to support efforts to stiffen the penalties for animal fighting.

It’s far too early to declare victory over dogfighting and cockfighting. Some states maintain absurdly low penalties for cockfighting. And dogfighting is still pervasive in some quarters—just two weeks ago Montana lawmakers rejected an effort to criminalize being a spectator at a dogfight.

But we can take heart in the fact that animal fighting laws are getting tougher, law enforcement is paying attention, and a growing chorus of voices is saying that this cruelty must end.

The Little Engine That Could Carry Pets

The first animal protection bill of the 114^th Congress is on track and leaving the station.

I wrote last month about the introduction of the Pets on Trains Act, H.R. 674, by Reps. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and the practical impact this reasonable legislation would have on the lives of many pets and their families, especially in regions of the country where train travel is the most affordable or most convenient option. Today I’m pleased to report that the House of Representatives took up and passed a larger bill to reauthorize passenger rail programs and appropriate funds for Amtrak for the next four years, and included in that package is the provision directing Amtrak to allow pets on trains.

There would be reasonable requirements for pet owners, such as keeping the pet in a kennel or carrier. Photo: iStockphoto

In a time of partisan rancor and gridlock in Congress, it’s especially encouraging to see a broadly supported reform that all sides can agree deserves to get out of the gate. When you can take your dog or cat on an airplane, and stay with your pet in many hotels, it makes little sense that you still can’t have a companion animal travel with your family on a passenger train.

Under the legislation, Amtrak would be required to develop a policy for people to travel with their pets, and to designate, where feasible, at least one car of each passenger train in which a ticketed passenger may transport a dog or cat. There would be reasonable requirements for pet owners who want to take advantage of this policy, such as keeping the pet in a kennel or carrier, traveling less than 750 miles, and paying a fee that covers the cost of administering the policy. The bill gives Amtrak the flexibility to develop the details of the policy to best fit the service and their customers. Just as you don’t have to sit in the quiet car if you’d rather  talk on your cell phone, you won’t have to sit in the car that allows pets if you have allergies or other concerns.

As Congressman Denham—who often travels with his 15-pound French bulldog, Lily—argued on the House floor, this legislation could attract new customers who previously wanted to ride Amtrak but opted for other travel arrangements because they couldn’t bring their pets with them. And it could be a profit generator for the train operator, as Americans are spending more every year on their pets and may want to take their best friend along on vacation or business travel.

Last year, in response to the awareness created by the bill, Amtrak launched a pilot program in Illinois to test the idea of allowing pets on passenger trains. As Congressman Denham said, “This legislation builds on the success of that pilot program and would help families nationwide save money and time in traveling with their pets while bringing in much-needed revenue for Amtrak.”

Now that it’s passed the House, we hope the Senate will get all aboard and pass this common-sense legislation, which won’t cost the federal government or Amtrak any additional funds, but will help millions of American pet owners and strengthen the human-animal bond.

 

The 113th Congress in Review for Animals

Editor's note: This post was originally published at 7:34 p.m. on Tuesday, January 6, 2015

As the gavel comes down on the 113th Congress (which spanned January 2013 to December 2014), and the new 114th Congress begins its work today, it’s a good time to take stock of what was achieved and what lies ahead for animals in the New Year. The 113th may be remembered for its relative lack of productivity and growing polarization. In terms of general lawmaking, it appears this Congress enacted fewer laws, by a wide margin, than any other since at least 1947, the date to which the House clerk’s records go back.

The HSUS

Despite two years of gridlock, some major setbacks and disappointments, Congress produced a number of important results for animals.

The successes in the areas of animal fighting, chimpanzee sanctuaries, horse slaughter, wildlife trafficking, fending off the King amendment, and more demonstrate that even when little else is getting done, animal protection can bridge partisan divides in Congress.

In part, this is because the public demand for a more humane future for animals is strong enough to generate real results in Washington.

Together, we can and must keep the momentum going—and gear up for the new session of Congress, where we will once again advance a mainstream and common-sense agenda to close the gaps in the legal framework and protect animals from cruelty, suffering, and abuse.

POSITIVE STEPS

Animal Fighting:
The final Farm Bill signed into law in February 2014 (P.L. 113-79) includes a provision to strengthen the federal animal fighting law by making it a crime to knowingly attend or bring a child to an organized animal fight.

iStock

The language of the freestanding animal fighting spectator bill (S. 666/H.R. 366, led 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.) was part of the Senate Farm Bill from the beginning, as introduced in the Agriculture Committee, thanks to the leadership of Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Ranking Member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

For the House, related language was approved as an amendment offered by Rep. McGovern during committee markup with a strong bipartisan vote of 28-17. It had already won approval in 2012 by the House Agriculture Committee and twice by the full Senate, but final action on the Farm Bill stalled that year. This legislation was 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, and is the fourth upgrade to the federal animal fighting statute since 2002.

Forty-nine states already had penalties for animal fighting spectators, but the provision was needed to sync up the federal and state laws since many of these animal fighting raids are multistate and multijurisdictional. Closing this gap in the legal framework will help law enforcement crack down on the entire cast of characters involved in animal fighting, including those who finance the activity with admission fees and gambling wagers, provide cover to animal fighters during raids, and expose children to the violence and bloodletting.

Chimpanzee Sanctuary:
In late 2013, Congress passed a bill (P.L. 113-55) to help hundreds of chimpanzees warehoused in barren laboratory cages and facilitate their retirement to natural sanctuaries. Earlier that year, the National Institutes of Health announced its plans to retire about 90 percent of government-owned chimps from laboratories to sanctuary—where they can live the rest of their lives in peace—and to significantly scale back funding for chimpanzee research.

But there was a hitch that had to be overcome: the law Congress enacted in 2000, establishing the national chimpanzee sanctuary system, imposed a cumulative ceiling on the funding that NIH could devote to it. NIH was due to reach that limit in mid-November 2013, which not only jeopardized the retirement of chimps in labs slated for transfer to sanctuary, but also funding for the continued care of chimps already living at Chimp Haven in Louisiana.

This would be terrible for the animals and also for taxpayers, since retirement to sanctuary is less costly than warehousing chimps in labs. Fortunately, there was bipartisan support in Congress to solve this problem. On November 14—just under the wire before the cap was reached—the Senate gave final approval to a legislative fix passed by the House a few days earlier, and it was signed into law the day before Thanksgiving. P.L. 113-55 amends the 2000 CHIMP Act to allow NIH the flexibility to continue using its existing funds for sanctuary care.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Ranking Member Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., led this effort. Horse Slaughter: For fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Congress reinstated a vital “defund” provision that had been in place from 2007 to 2011 barring the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding inspections at horse slaughter plants, effectively making it illegal to slaughter horses for human consumption in this country.

The agency itself requested this provision for the first time in the president’s recommended budget for FY14 and then renewed the request for FY15. The House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations bills followed suit, with successful amendments offered by Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and the late Bill Young, R-Fla., and Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., during committee markup in both chambers.

The omnibus spending package signed into law in mid-December 2014 (P.L. 113-235) will sustain this protection for horses until the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 2015. It is urgently needed, as some companies have been poised to open horse slaughter plants in the United States. 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.

Horses suffer in long-distance transport and in the slaughter process. Rounded up from random sources, they have also been given drugs and medications throughout their lifetimes that are not intended for and are actually prohibited from being introduced into the human food supply. The horse slaughter industry is a predatory, inhumane enterprise.

Its agents 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. Combined with the recent announcement from the European Commission that it will ban the import of horsemeat from Mexico, maintaining the defund provision is a major one-two punch against the North American horse slaughter industry.

We will seek to renew the defund provision and press the new Congress to enact a permanent and comprehensive ban via legislation like the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act (S. 541/H.R. 1094, sponsored by Sens. Landrieu and Graham and Reps. Pat Meehan, R-Pa., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.).

Ivory and Wildlife Trafficking:
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY15, also enacted in mid-December 2014 (P.L. 113-360), contains a Senate provision offered as an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., adding authority for the Department of Defense to partner with civilian law enforcement on joint task forces to combat wildlife trafficking.

The FY15 omnibus spending bill dedicates $55 million to combat wildlife trafficking, with at least $10 million of that directed to programs to protect rhinos from being poached for their horns, and it prevents the United States from assisting certain countries and military groups if they are found to have participated in wildlife poaching or trafficking.

Harmful language that had been part of the House Interior Appropriations bill—to block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from cracking down on the illicit trade in elephant ivory—was kept out of the final omnibus package, thanks to the efforts of many legislators including Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., Jared Polis, D-Colo., and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

And the Senate committee reports accompanying the appropriations bills for the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security included language sought by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., highlighting the seriousness of this problem and directing those agencies to report back on their actions to address it. We hope these provisions will provide some relief for many imperiled species by curbing the illegal trade in wildlife parts that has become a source of cash to finance terrorist networks and transnational organized crime.

More than 30,000 African elephants are killed each year by poachers who typically hack the animals’ faces off, since that’s the easiest way to run off with the ivory. This vicious cruelty is destroying elephant populations.

Wild Horses:
The FY15 omnibus includes language championed by Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert, R-Calif., and Ranking Member Jim Moran, D-Va., in the House and Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., in the Senate to encourage the Bureau of Land Management to consider new, more humane methods of wild horse population management, including $1 million for a related study, so that the agency can move beyond its current inhumane and costly system of round-ups and long-term penning.It also contains language prohibiting the destruction of healthy wild horses and burros for human consumption.

Animal Welfare Enforcement:
For both fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Congress again came through with needed funding for the USDA’s enforcement and implementation of key animal welfare laws—the Animal Welfare Act (which requires minimum standards of care for animals at breeding facilities, research laboratories, roadside zoos, circuses, and other regulated facilities), Horse Protection Act (regarding “soring” of Tennessee walking horses), Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal animal fighting law, as well as for programs to address the needs of animals in disasters and to incentivize veterinarians to practice in rural and inner-city areas and to apply for USDA inspection positions.

The omnibus package just signed into law preserves funding for each of these programs without any cuts, despite intense competition for budget dollars. Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La., and Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., marshaled the bipartisan support of 38 Senators and 166 Representatives on joint letters calling for these funds, and the subcommittee leadership—Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and Ranking Member Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., and Ranking Member Sam Farr, D-Calif.—responded to their colleagues’ appeals.

Alternatives to Animal Testing:
The committee reports accompanying the FY14 and FY15 House Interior Appropriations bills contain language provided by Chairman Calvert that encourages continued development of non-animal alternatives for chemical testing.

Veterinary Medicine Mobility Act:
Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 113-143, signed into law in August 2014) introduced by Reps. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., and Ted Yoho, R-Fla., and Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Angus King, I-Maine, to amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow veterinarians to transport, administer, and dispense medications outside of their registered locations.

This will ensure that veterinarians can provide proper care to animal patients in rural or remote areas, including pets in disasters, cruelty cases, mobile spay and neuter clinics, animal sanctuaries, wildlife rehabilitation centers, and more.

Endangered Species Conservation:
Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 113-165, signed into law in September 2014) led by Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., and Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Tom Udall, D-N.M., that will provide funding for endangered species without using taxpayer dollars through the “Tiger Stamp.”

Since its inception, the Tiger Stamp has raised $2,567,000.00 for the Multinational Conservation Species Fund, which benefits the African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, the Great Ape Conservation Fund, the Marine Turtle Conservation Fund, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and other international wildlife conservation funds authorized by Congress.

DEFENDING AGAINST HARMFUL MEASURES

King Amendment:
The final Farm Bill nixed the destructive provision that had been folded into the House bill during committee, with minimal debate, at the behest of Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa—Sec. 11312 of H.R. 2642.The King amendment aimed to gut state laws protecting farm animals.

By negating most state and local laws on the production or manufacture of agriculture products, it could have preempted laws addressing intensive confinement on farms and a host of other animal protection concerns such as puppy mills, sale of horse meat, and shark finning, as well as laws covering everything from child labor to dangerous pesticides to labeling of farm-raised fish and standards for fire-safe cigarettes.

iStock

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., led the charge in the Senate to keep this out of the final bill. Opponents were denied the opportunity to have a floor vote on an amendment led by Reps. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., to strike it during House floor debate.

Hundreds of public officials and organizations representing sustainable agriculture, consumer, health, fire safety, environment, labor, animal welfare, and religious concerns opposed the measure.

This included nearly 200 Senators and Representatives who cosigned letters led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Reps. John Campbell, R-Calif., Schrader, and Gary Peters, D-Mich., the National Conference of State Legislatures, the County Executives of America, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Mississippi and Arkansas attorneys general, the Iowa Farmers Union, the Safe Food Coalition, professors from 13 law schools, and editorials in a number of papers such as USA Today, the Des Moines Register, and the Washington Post.

This strong and unified opposition successfully fended off this controversial attack on states’ rights, food safety, and animal welfare.

Sportsmen’s Act:
This sweetheart deal for millionaire trophy hunters and special interests was defeated in the Senate on a procedural vote.

The Sportsmen’s Act would have carved out the latest in a series of loopholes in the law for wealthy hunters to import sport-hunted trophies of threatened polar bears (encouraging the killing of rare species around the world), opened sensitive federal lands to sport hunting and trapping, and stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to protect wildlife, habitat, and people from lead poisoning through exposure to toxic ammunition despite the ready availability of non-toxic alternatives (unfortunately Congress subsequently enacted a harmful provision on lead ammunition in the omnibus).

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, played a key role in opposing this legislation, as did Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who sought an amendment to strike the polar bear provision but was denied the opportunity to offer it on the House floor. Otters: Language sought by commercial fisheries and the Department of Defense, to provide an exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act that would allow them to harm sea otters off the southern California coast, was kept out of the final National Defense Authorization Act.

Ivory/Wildlife Trafficking:
As noted above, Congress rejected a harmful rider—based on the so-called “Lawful Ivory Protection Act,” S. 2587/H.R. 5052 by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Reps. Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Jeff Miller, R-Fla.—that would have prevented the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from restricting the devastating trade in elephant ivory.

This crisis cannot be resolved without our country adopting strong policy reforms, since the United States is considered the second largest retail ivory market in the world after China.

SETBACKS

Of course, along with the successes, there were some major setbacks, with Congress caving in to extreme segments of the trophy hunting and factory farming lobbies, and working to block common-sense reforms.

The omnibus package recently enacted includes terrible provisions seeking to block the EPA from regulating toxic lead content in ammunition, to interfere with Endangered Species Act listing of the sage grouse, and to discourage the USDA from trying to reform the corrupt beef check-off program that finances agribusiness lobbying against animal welfare improvements.

That same massive spending bill also blocked the EPA from requiring reporting or the issuance of Clean Air Act operating permits for greenhouse gas emissions from animal agricultural sources—an act that the Los Angeles Times panned in an editorial. We must redouble our efforts to correct these problems in the new Congress.

And some crucial measures were left unfinished. A prime example is the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act, introduced by Reps. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Mark Warner, D-Va., to end the cruel soring of Tennessee walking horses and related breeds. With the overwhelming bipartisan support of 308 House cosponsors and 60 Senate cosponsors and endorsements by an extraordinarily broad coalition of veterinary, horse industry, animal welfare, and other groups, the PAST Act was more than ripe for final action.

It was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee but blocked from Senate and House floor consideration by a few legislators doing the bidding of the horse sorers, who don’t want Congress upsetting the status quo that has been so profitable for them. There’s no excuse for not passing the PAST Act. It must be addressed as a priority in the new year.

Congressional leaders also failed to allow votes on other critical reforms, such as the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments (H.R. 1731/S. 820, introduced by Reps. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., Jeff Denham, R-Calif., Sam Farr, D-Calif., and Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.), which would codify an agreement between animal welfare groups and the egg industry to improve the treatment of laying hens and provide a stable and secure future for egg farmers nationwide.

Despite having the support of all major stakeholders, including veterinarians, consumers, and the industry actually impacted by the reform, lawmakers allowed petty caterwauling by the pork and beef lobbies to prevent egg producers from controlling their own destiny.

OTHER ANIMAL PROTECTION MEASURES IN THE 113th CONGRESS

Many more issues were tackled during the previous two years.

Some of these efforts raised awareness about important animal issues and spurred agency actions to address them, and some are unfinished business that we expect to be reintroduced in the 114th Congress. They include:

Pets:

• Puppy Mills: Reps. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., Sam Farr, D-Calif., the late Bill Young, R-Fla., and Lois Capps, D-Calif., and Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and David Vitter, R-La., introduced H.R. 847/S. 395 to close a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act regulations by requiring that large-scale commercial dog breeders who sell 50 or more puppies per year directly to consumers via the Internet or other means be licensed and inspected, as breeders who sell to pet stores already are; and to require that breeding dogs at commercial facilities be allowed to exercise daily.
  
  The broad bipartisan support for this legislation helped spur the USDA to finalize regulations in September 2013 to extend federal oversight to thousands of puppy mills that do business online. Sens. Durbin and Vitter and Reps. Gerlach and Farr also urged the agency to finalize its long-awaited regulations to implement the 2008 ban on puppy imports, and Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., led a letter to USDA cosigned by 37 representatives urging action; the agency followed through on August 14, 2014.
  
  

• Pets on Trains: Reps. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., introduced H.R. 2066/S. 1710 to require Amtrak to propose a pet policy that allows passengers to travel with cats and dogs on certain Amtrak trains.
  
  Their legislation prompted Amtrak to undertake a pilot project allowing travelers to bring their pets on certain routes from Chicago. In its press release, Amtrak’s president said, “Amtrak is supportive of accommodating pets on trains, and through direct collaboration with the Illinois Department of Transportation and a working group led by U.S. Rep. Jeff Denham of California, we are optimistic a plan can be reached to address the needs and concerns of all our passengers."
  
  
• Safe Airline Transport: Sen. Robert Menendez, D.-N.J., helped encourage the U.S. Department of Transportation to expand the definition of “animal” in the agency’s regulations requiring airlines to report incidents involving animal loss, injury, or death, so consumers can compare the safety records of different carriers. On July 2, 2014, DOT decided to broaden the reach of the reporting requirement to cover more airlines and to cover cats and dogs regardless of whether they are already identified as someone’s pet—so the requirement now applies to commercial shipments of animals by breeders, research facilities, and other commercial entities.
  
  
• Domestic Violence: Reps. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., introduced H.R. 5267, the Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act, to expand federal domestic violence protections to include safeguards for the pets of abuse victims on a national level and to provide grant money for domestic violence shelters to better accommodate families with pets. Many abusers will harm or threaten the beloved dog or cat of a spouse or partner as a way of exerting control over that person, and as many as one-third of domestic violence victims delay their departure from an abusive relationship for up to two years out of fear that their pets will be harmed if they leave.

• Veterans Dog Training Therapy: Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., introduced H.R. 183 to create a pilot program for training dogs, including shelter dogs, as a form of therapy to help treat combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other post-deployment mental health conditions. 
  
  
• Wounded Warrior Service Dogs: Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 2847 to require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly establish a K-9 Companion Corps Program that will award competitive grants to nonprofit organizations to assist them in the planning, designing, establishing, and operating of programs that provide assistance dogs to covered military members and veterans. 
  
  
• Disaster Preparedness: Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., introduced H.R. 4524 to ensure that entities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (including commercial breeding facilities, research laboratories, zoos, and circuses) have contingency plans in place, and all their employees are trained on emergency procedures, to safely evacuate and care for animals in an emergency or disaster situation. In December 2012, USDA had published a final rule requiring regulated entities to take additional steps to prepare for potential disaster situations, both natural and manmade, but in July 2013, just before the rule was to go into effect, the agency put its implementation on hold indefinitely. 
  
  
• Euthanasia Methods at Shelters: Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Lou Barletta, R-Pa., introduced H. Res. 208/H. Res. 433, respectively, to voice opposition to the use of inhumane and dangerous gas chambers to euthanize shelter animals and express support for state laws that require the use of more humane euthanasia methods.
  
  

Equine:

• Horse Racing: Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., introduced S. 973/H.R. 2012 to ensure the integrity and safety of horse races that are the subject of interstate off-track wagers. Their legislation would ban doping of racehorses and give the U.S. 
  
  

  
  The HSUS

  Anti-Doping Agency, an independent body that has helped root out doping in other professional sports, the authority to oversee and enforce the new rules.Rather than having different rules with respect to medicating of horses in every state where tracks operate, there would be a consistent national policy.
  
  A powerful New York Times exposé examined 150,000 horse races from 2009 to 2011, reporting that minimal oversight, inconsistent regulations, and rampant doping of horses has led to a stunning “average of 24 horse deaths on racetracks around the country every week.”
  
  This is tragic for the horses and also often the jockeys, who can suffer serious injuries, paralysis, or death from being thrown. 

• Transport: Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., introduced S. 1459 to prohibit and establish penalties for the transport of horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another (except a vehicle operated exclusively on rail or rails). 
  
  
• Horse Therapy: Reps. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced H.R. 1705 to expand the Department of Defense managed health care program for military beneficiaries to include coverage of rehabilitative therapeutic exercises that utilize horses.
  
  
• Corolla Wild Horses: Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced H.R. 126 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement to provide for management of the free-roaming wild horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge. The bill passed the House by voice vote in June 2013, but did not get a vote in the Senate.
  
  

Farm Animals: 

• Non-Therapeutic Use of Antibiotics: Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced H.R. 1150/S. 1256 to phase out the routine non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals—a common practice to promote growth and compensate for overcrowded, stressful, unsanitary conditions on factory farms—in order to maintain the effectiveness of antibiotics for treating sick people and animals. 
  
  Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Feinstein, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Slaughter introduced S. 895/H.R. 820 to require the Food and Drug Administration to improve both the collection and public reporting of information on how antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs are used in food animal production. Rep. Slaughter and Sen. Feinstein also secured helpful committee report language accompanying the Agriculture Appropriations bills for FY14 and FY15 encouraging steps by FDA to address this problem.
  
  And additional legislators—Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.—joined Rep. Slaughter and Sens. Feinstein and Gillibrand on various letters to FDA urging specific actions on this topic.
  
  
• Poultry Slaughter: Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Jim Moran, D-Va., Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., led a group letter cosigned by 68 Representatives to USDA calling on the agency to withdraw a proposed rule that it claimed would “modernize” poultry slaughter practices but would actually jeopardize food safety, animal welfare, and worker safety.
  
  Fortunately, the final rule issued in July 2014 ditched one particularly troubling element of the original proposal—allowing increased line speeds at poultry slaughter plants that already process birds at an exceedingly fast pace not conducive to humane treatment or worker safety—but other problems remained, including the removal of hundreds of federal inspectors in an unwarranted shift to industry self-regulation.
  
  
• Downer Calves: Reps. Grace Meng, D-N.Y., and Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., led a joint letter cosigned by 72 Representatives and Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Cory Booker, D-N.J., led a letter cosigned by a dozen Senators calling on USDA to prioritize and expedite a long-awaited rulemaking to close a loophole in federal regulations that allows downer calves—those too sick, injured, or weak to stand on their own—to be slaughtered for food (whereas adult downer cattle must be euthanized humanely).
  
  The loophole encourages abuse as workers drag, kick and prod the calves in an attempt to get them to stand for inspection. In March 2013, the USDA granted a 2009 HSUS legal petition to close this loophole, and in May 2014 following the congressional letters, it signaled a further step forward, though the agency has yet to issue the proposed rule.
  
  

Animals in Research:

• Alternatives Development in Research and Testing: Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, included report language for the FY14 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to prioritize federal funding for non-animal methods in the BRAIN initiative and through the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
  
  And as noted above, Chairman Ken Calvert, R-Calif., included report language for the FY14 and FY15 House Interior Appropriations bills encouraging continued development of non-animal alternatives to chemical testing. The late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., also included provisions in S. 1009 calling for a reduction in animal testing.
  
  
• Alternatives to Live Animal Use in Military Training: Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., introduced the Battlefield Excellence through Superior Training (BEST) Practices Act, H.R. 3172/S. 1550 to require the Secretary of Defense to employ alternative methods that are more effective and humane than live animal use for training members of the Armed Forces in the treatment of severe injuries.
  
  Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., also reached out to the Air Force regarding the use of live goats for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) school training. Though some unnecessary and inhumane practices continue, the Department of Defense recently announced its plans to halt the use of animals in a variety of medical training programs.
  
  
• Class B Dealers: Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., introduced the Pet Safety and Protection Act, H.R. 2224, to prohibit the use in research of dogs and cats obtained through Class B dealers from random sources such as pet theft and free-to-good home ads. In an important breakthrough on this long-standing issue, the National Institutes of Health announced it would no longer fund research involving dogs from random source Class B dealers as of October 1, 2014, following a similar announcement for cats in 2012. 
  
  
• Humane Cosmetics: Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., introduced H.R. 4148 to phase out cosmetics testing on live animals in the U.S. as well as the sale of any cosmetics in interstate commerce if the final product or any component was developed or manufactured using animal testing. India and the European Union—home to a combined 1.7 billion residents—already have such policies, and the U.S. can help the global cosmetics industry continue moving toward non-animal alternatives that are safer and more effective.
  
  
• Primates: Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., pressed the Department of Defense to facilitate the retirement of the chimpanzees housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility on Holloman Air Force base in New Mexico. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., sent a letter to NIH expressing concern about taxpayer-funded projects involving maternal deprivation and other highly stressful psychological experiments on baby monkeys at an NIH laboratory.
  
  
• Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, led a joint letter cosigned by 10 Senators, and Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Steve Israel, D-N.Y., Langevin, Jim Moran, D-Va., Aaron Schock, R-Ill., and Dina Titus, D-Nev., sent individual letters to NIH requesting implementation of the recommendations of an advisory group convened by the agency to report on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-Supported Research.
  
  Sens.Cantwell and Collins also sent a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services supporting the agency’s proposal to list all chimpanzees, both wild and captive, as endangered. Doing away with the “split listing” that distinguishes chimpanzees in the pet and entertainment trade and in biomedical research from those in the wild will significantly enhance conservation efforts for this imperiled species.
  
  

Wildlife:

• Shark Finning: Reps. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., Jared Huffman, D-Calif., Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., and Sam Farr, D-Calif., introduced H. Res. 285 to raise awareness of the dangers of shark finning and express the view of Congress that, in order to even the playing field for U.S. fishermen and prevent the overfishing of sharks on a global scale, the U.S. should end the importation of shark fins from foreign fisheries that practice shark finning.
  
  These lawmakers, with Reps. Madeleine Bordallo, D-Guam, and Grace Meng, D-N.Y., and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., mobilized letters cosigned by more than 70 representatives and senators calling on the National Marine Fisheries Service to reverse its interpretation of the Shark Conservation Act that may preempt state laws barring the trade in shark fin products.
  
  The Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., also pressed the agency to rethink its position. NMFS has responded by replacing its blanket preemption with a state-by-state analysis of the laws in question and, to date, it has not found any of the state shark fin bans to be preempted.
  
  Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, introduced H.R. 5308 to prohibit foreign assistance to countries that do not prohibit shark finning in the territorial waters of the country or the importation, sale, possession, or consumption of shark fins obtained as a result of shark finning. 

• Captive Marine Mammals: Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Jared Huffman, D-Calif., successfully offered a floor amendment to the FY15 Agriculture Appropriations bill directing the USDA to study the effects of captivity on marine mammals and finalize a much-needed upgrade of its Animal Welfare Act regulations for captive orcas and cetaceans—a reform that has been languishing for nearly 20 years—so these rules will better address the animals’ physical and behavioral needs. Unfortunately, since the House did not complete action on this bill, the amendment was not incorporated in the final omnibus spending package, but we hope the agency will heed its message. 

• Captive Primates: Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La., introduced H.R. 2856/S. 1463 to prohibit interstate and foreign commerce in primates for the exotic pet trade. This would extend to dangerous primates such as chimpanzees, who can be easily purchased over the Internet and from out-of-state dealers, the protections afforded by Congress to big cats in the Captive Wildlife Safety Act of 2003. 

• Primate Imports for Sanctuary: Reps. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced H.R. 3556 to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a rule allowing the importation of primates for the purpose of placement of abused, injured, or abandoned primates in certified animal sanctuaries.
  
  
• Big Cats and Public Safety: Reps. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., and Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced H.R. 1998/S. 1381 to better address the exotic pet trade by limiting the breeding of lions, tigers, and other big cats to accredited zoos, and preventing unqualified individuals and facilities from possessing these dangerous predators, who suffer from being kept in abusive and unsafe conditions and threaten public safety. 
  
  
• Wildlife Services: Reps. John Campbell, R-Calif., Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Gary Peters, D-Mich., called on the USDA Office of Inspector General to conduct an audit of the agency’s Wildlife Services lethal predator control program, including its use of poisoning and aerial gunning. The results of this OIG audit, which could lead to important recommendations to reform the outdated and mismanaged Wildlife Services program, are expected in 2015.
  
  Also, Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., introduced H.R. 2074 to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress, and make available to the public on the Internet, a report on the animals killed under the Wildlife Services program. 
  
  
• Dangerous Constrictor Snakes: Reps. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., Jim Moran, D-Va., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., and Patrick Murphy, D-Fla., and Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., sent letters urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to move swiftly to add five species of dangerous constrictor snakes to the list of injurious species whose trade is banned under the Lacey Act. 
  
  All five species were identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as posing a medium or high risk of establishing breeding populations in the United States, jeopardizing native wildlife and pets, as well as human health and safety. Together, these five species including boa constrictors make up 70 percent of the large constrictor snakes in the U.S. pet trade. Thankfully, the agency has proposed finishing the job of adding them to the list. 

• African Lions: Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., led a letter cosigned by 44 Representatives to the Department of Interior in support of a petition by a coalition of wildlife protection and conservation organizations calling for the African lion to be listed as an endangered subspecies.

  
  The HSUS
  

  
  
  In October 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing African lions as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and is currently accepting public comments on the proposal. 
  
  
• Wolves: Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., sent a letter to the Department of Interior voicing support for the agency’s withholding publication of a proposed rule to remove ESA protection from gray wolves in the lower 48 states (except in the Southwest), and urging the Department to cancel the scientifically flawed delisting proposal.
  
  When the proposed rule was published, Reps. Grijalva and Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., led a letter with 86 cosigners opposing the delisting. After the agency performed an independent peer review of the science used to make the rule, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., led on a letter to DOI with 74 cosigners calling attention to the review’s findings that the proposed rule is not based on the best available science and undermines decades of conservation work to protect the gray wolf.
  
  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., also sent DOI a letter expressing concern with this potential delisting and requesting that a decision not be made without additional independent scientific peer review. • Manatees: Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., sent a letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service calling for continued protections for Florida manatees under the ESA.
  
  
• Circus Animals: Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., introduced H.R. 4525, the Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act, to amend the Animal Welfare Act to restrict the use of exotic and non-domesticated animals in traveling circuses and exhibitions.
  
  
• Elephant Ivory: Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced H.R. 5454, the Targeted Use of Sanctions for Killing Elephants in their Range (TUSKER) Act, to provide for trade sanctions against countries involved in illegal ivory trade.
  
  
• Refuge from Cruel Trapping: Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., introduced H.R. 3513 to end the use of body-gripping traps in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  
  
• Bird-Safe Buildings: Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., introduced H.R. 2078 to require federal agencies to incorporate bird-safe building materials and design features into existing public buildings, and to address the impacts of interior and exterior lighting on native bird species. 
  
  
• Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers: Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, introduced H. Res. 651 to recognize the importance of experienced and accredited wildlife rehabilitation centers and their contributions to the humane treatment of animals.