Animals & Politics

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.

USDA Rule Takes a Bite Out of Online Puppy Mills

The Obama administration today took a major step to improve the treatment of thousands of dogs languishing in large-scale commercial puppy mills. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a final rule to close a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act regulations which currently requires breeders selling wholesale to pet stores to be federally licensed and inspected, but leaves those selling directly to the public over the Internet completely unregulated.

Unscrupulous puppy mill operators have been migrating to the Internet to escape even the most basic and minimal standards of animal care. They often set up misleading web sites showing pictures of puppies frolicking in open fields, while the reality is much grimmer—dogs confined in cramped cages, without exercise, companionship, socialization, or veterinary care. The rule, which will take effect 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register, will level the playing field for commercial breeders, regardless of whether they sell to pet stores or directly to consumers.

The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, and other groups have been pushing for this policy reform for years, and generated more than 350,000 comments from members of the public supporting the rule change. We are especially grateful to the bipartisan congressional leaders—Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and David Vitter, R-La., and Reps. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., Sam Farr, D-Calif., Bill Young, R-Fla., and Lois Capps, D-Calif.—who introduced and championed the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act, S. 395 and H.R. 847, to close this Internet puppy mill loophole. With USDA taking action on the rule, it essentially achieves the same reform sought by the PUPS Act. 

As Sen. Durbin said, “Too often, the media reports stories about dogs rescued from substandard facilities—where puppies are housed in stacked wire cages and routinely denied access to veterinary care. Unfortunately, online dog sales have contributed to the rise of these sad cases. Today’s announcement by the USDA brings much needed oversight to the previously unregulated business of online breeders and puppy mills. This is an important step towards ensuring that all dogs—whether they are sold online or in a pet store – are treated with care and compassion.”

Sen. Vitter added, “I applaud USDA’s work to close loopholes that unscrupulous breeders exploited with Internet sales. Finalizing this rule is a big step forward in ensuring that puppies are treated humanely and bred in safe and sanitary facilities, and that consumers can purchase healthy pets for their families.”

Rep. Farr said, “By a small rule change, the USDA has taken a huge step toward regulating and reforming online puppy mills. Animals depend on us to safeguard their welfare and protect them from abuse, neglect and other forms of mistreatment. By changing the definition of retail pet store, the USDA will now have the authorization needed to inspect puppy mills and enforce the standards of animal well-being laid out by the Animal Welfare Act.”

It’s an important day for dog protection and for the fight against abusive puppy mills. Thanks to USDA and the White House for finalizing this important policy, to the congressional leaders who elevated the issue and made the case for reform, and to the thousands of animal advocates who took action on the issue and submitted comments in support of the rule. It demonstrates the importance of staying power, with groups and individuals remaining focused on the issue for years and pushing it over the finish line.

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.

POTUS Pans BSL

President Obama this week announced the addition of a new First Dog, Sunny, who joins Bo as part of the First Family. We congratulate the Obamas on their new pet, and wish them years of joy and companionship. A less prominent canine-related announcement also came out of the White House this week, through its “We the People” web site, in response to a citizen petition asking the Administration to weigh in on breed-specific legislation, measures that typically seek to prohibit or penalize pit bull-type dogs or other breeds perceived as “dangerous.”

The official White House response succinctly states, “We don't support breed-specific legislation—research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources,” and cites data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention illustrating that BSL is bad policy. The Administration is right that canine profiling doesn’t work, and just serves as a distraction from the real public safety issues that can be addressed using a multi-pronged approach to community management.

While the White House response is welcome news for pit bull-type dogs and their advocates, we hope the Administration will do more than just comment on the issue, and will take the opportunity to examine policy changes that can make a real difference for dogs. For example, at the end of 2011 the Obama Administration pledged through its “We the People” site that it would crack down on large-scale puppy mills, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a proposed rule in May 2012 to require Internet puppy sellers to be licensed and inspected under the Animal Welfare Act. However, more than a year later the rule is languishing and has not been finalized.

On the BSL issue, while most policies are handled at the state and local levels, the federal government has a role to play, too. Federal housing agencies and military bases, for example, could be prohibited from banning dogs based on breed. Both public building managers and private landlords whose breed-specific policies tear families apart and leave thousands of dogs homeless, can be encouraged to adopt well-rounded guidelines for residents that incentivize pet owners to take steps toward managing their pets’ health and behavior to avoid problems, such as refundable deposits for sterilized pets, and rules about proper restraint on communal property.

Too often, policy makers learn the hard way that breed-specific laws don’t work. Misguided local officials in dog-loving communities like Watertown, Wisconsin, and Bluefield, West Virginia, have made poor decisions by trying to pass breed-specific policies that negatively impact thousands of families and place undue burden on animal welfare agencies. These leaders would better serve their communities by redirecting their focus toward increasing access to pet care and veterinary services, to prevent dog-related problems by strengthening pet ownership resources.

Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington) have wisely prohibited municipalities from enacting breed-specific laws, recognizing that there are more effective and holistic approaches to building safe, humane communities—other states should follow this smart policy path. In 2013, Connecticut, Nevada, and Rhode Island joined the ranks of states which have rejected breed-specific legislation and the mess that follows. This trend is a positive one for dogs, families, and communities.

Maryland remains the only state in the country with poorly crafted, breed-specific dog laws in effect statewide, following a court ruling in 2012 deeming all pit bull-type dogs “inherently dangerous.” Maryland lawmakers, and anyone else considering breed as a regulatory factor, whether public or private, should take this cue from the White House and find a better way forward. State and local officials can work toward developing effective, humane approaches to managing animal issues—and the Obama Administration has an opportunity to implement important policy reforms that will protect millions of dogs, who aren’t as fortunate as Bo and Sunny.

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.

Out of Gas

Let’s talk about progress, and how to get there.

It goes without saying that we all want to see the day when there’s no more euthanasia of healthy and treatable pets. Few things stir greater passions—there’s so much to do because each homeless animal put to death is a tragedy, really. But let’s also remind ourselves how far we’ve come. As a movement, we’ve succeeded in driving down euthanasia of dogs and cats by 80 percent, from 15 million in the mid-1970s to fewer than three million today. With aggressive campaigns to promote shelter and rescue adoptions, with determined efforts on behalf of spaying and neutering including more targeted outreach to underserved communities, with pet retention programs to keep animals from reaching shelters in the first place, and with innovative organizational partnerships between shelters and rescue groups, the goal of ending routine euthanasia is within reach.

But until we get to that point, euthanasia must be performed as humanely as possible. And one thing is clear: gas chambers do not belong in our nation’s public or private shelters. Imagine the stress and confusion for a healthy adult dog placed in the terrible confines of a gas chamber and then the door clangs shut. Then think about the effect on the old, young, sick, or injured. Simply stated, it’s impossible for this kind of euthanasia to be conducted humanely. Or with dignity.

Gas chambers take a needless toll on the physical and psychological wellbeing of staff too. Animal care workers have even been injured and killed by carbon monoxide—the colorless, odorless and tasteless toxic gas used in most shelter chambers.

Excessive financial costs further erode any conceivable justification for gas chambers. Studies have shown that operating a gas chamber is more expensive than using humane euthanasia drugs. It’s time to mothball gas chambers, period.

Indeed, we’ve been making progress toward that goal. In the past 10 months, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Texas have all passed laws to ban gas chambers. That brings to 23 the number of states with bans or partial bans. Nearly a dozen other states have voluntarily eliminated chambers. In Mississippi, the legislature failed to pass a statewide ban, but animal welfare groups succeeded in eliminating the last chamber from the state.

There’s no exact census of how many gas chambers are actually in use. In the remaining states where gas chambers are most common—including Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oklahoma—there may be as many as 150 or as few as three dozen. But the numbers continue to drop as The HSUS and other groups provide one-on-one support to help shelters convert to more humane methods.

Within the last two years, for example, six North Carolina shelters have voluntarily stopped using chambers. In many cases, shelters need the legal authority to license and purchase drugs used for euthanasia by injection, and after such legislation is adopted, they can dismantle their gas chambers for good.

Looking ahead, a statewide ban is under consideration in Michigan. Efforts are underway to require more humane methods in other states. At the federal level, Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., co-chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, and Lou Barletta, R-Pa., have introduced resolutions condemning the use of gas chambers for shelter animals. HSLF will continue to support these legislative initiatives.

So our goals here are two. We are closing in on the day when the last shelter gas chamber in the United States is shut down, and let’s finish that job right away. Meanwhile, we cannot spare even a moment in our quest for the wonderful day when every adoptable cat and dog can find a forever home and euthanasia of such animals passes into history.

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.

Kiwi’s Journey: Tips for Finding a Lost Pet

The Hill’s Judy Kurtz has a touching video interview with Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., whose lost dog, Kiwi, is back safe with her after a 13-month absence. The 9-year-old Shih Tzu mix bolted from the congresswoman’s enclosed yard in New Mexico when she was frightened by the noise from a hot air balloon. Fortunately, Kiwi had been microchipped, and even after such a long absence, when she was brought to an Albuquerque animal hospital, they were able to track down her family.

It’s a good reminder that microchipping our pets can save their lives when they get lost, in case their collars and identification tags come off. It’s important to use both visible ID tags and microchipping, preferably with a cell phone number, and keep your contact information current for the chip’s registry—if a scanned dog’s information leads to a disconnected phone number, they won’t be able to find you. Families can register with the microchip company, and also register with universal search groups such as Found Animals.

Congresswoman Lujan Grisham says she is implementing some additional layers of protection, such as a GPS tracking device for Kiwi’s collar. (Some of my colleagues use the Tagg tracker, which attaches to your pet’s collar, allows you to monitor activity through your computer or mobile device, and sends you email notifications on their whereabouts.)

But despite your best efforts, what happens if your beloved dog or cat slips out an open door and disappears? Here are some tips from The HSUS that can help you find a lost pet:

1. Contact local animal shelters and animal control agencies. File a lost pet report with every shelter within a 60-mile radius of your home and visit the nearest shelters daily, if possible.

To find your local shelter, search online or check your phone book. If there is no shelter in your community, contact the local police department. Provide these agencies with an accurate description and a recent photograph of your pet. Notify the police if you believe your pet was stolen. Ask the shelter if they have an online lost and found service to search.

2. Search the neighborhood. Walk or drive through your neighborhood several times each day. Ask neighbors, letter carriers, and delivery people if they have seen your pet. Hand out a recent photograph of your pet and information on how you can be reached if your pet is found.

3. Advertise. Post notices at grocery stores, community centers, veterinary offices, traffic intersections, at pet supply stores, and other locations. Also, place advertisements in newspapers and with radio stations. Include your pet’s sex, age, weight, breed, color, and any special markings. When describing your pet, leave out one identifying characteristic and ask the person who finds your pet to describe it. Here are some tips on how to make an eye-catching flyer.

4. Try the Internet. These sites may be able to help you out:

• Center for Lost Pets
• Fido Finder
• Craigslist

Consider using a lost pet alert service such as findtoto.org to contact homes in your area. Use social media and post flyers on local and state Facebook pages for lost pets.

5. Be wary of pet-recovery scams. When talking to a stranger who claims to have found your pet, ask him to describe the pet thoroughly before you offer any information. If he does not include the identifying characteristic you left out of the advertisements, he may not really have your pet. Be particularly wary of people who insist that you give or wire them money for the return of your pet.

6. Don't give up your search. Animals who have been lost for months have been reunited with their owners—just like Kiwi coming back to Congresswoman Lujan Grisham after 13 months!

Remember that a pet—even an indoor pet—has a better chance of being returned if he or she always wears a collar and an ID tag with your name, address, and telephone number. Ask your veterinarian or animal shelter about microchips, which provide more permanent identification in case their collar and tags come off, and keep your contact info current. It made the difference for Kiwi, and can make the difference for your beloved pet, too.

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.

Continuous Improvement on Anti-Cruelty Laws

The Forum newspaper in Fargo-Moorhead this past weekend weighed in strongly with an editorial on North Dakota’s anemic anti-cruelty statute, saying that even with the changes in the law taking effect next month, it’s not enough to deal with cruelty cases such as two horrific incidents of dog abuse that had occurred during the prior week. The paper opined:

North Dakota’s attitudes, as reflected in law and at the Legislature, send entirely wrong signals about animal welfare. Crimes against animals, whether perpetrated on dogs, cats, horses or cows, do not carry penalties that might act as deterrents. In case after case in the state, especially when farm animals are victims, abusers most often get a slap on the wrist and a small fine. The laws are weak, and even with marginal changes made by the 2013 Legislature, the law will remain inadequate, especially when viewed in light of the number of animal welfare violations reported.

That’s well-stated, and it’s the right sentiment that lawmakers in the state need to do better. North Dakota upgraded its anti-cruelty law in April, as a follow up to last year’s Measure 5 campaign, which put the issue of animal cruelty on the public agenda and spurred action by state lawmakers. The bill was watered down by the North Dakota Farm Bureau and other agribusiness interests during the legislative process, and fell short of the comprehensive reform that was promised to voters, but it was a major step forward and put felony-level cruelty penalties on the books for the first time in the state.

On animal cruelty and fighting statutes, the test is not perfection, but whether they are moving in the right direction. In 1985, only four states had felony penalties for malicious cruelty, 15 states had felony dogfighting penalties, and seven states had felony cockfighting laws, with cockfighting still legal in six states. In recent years, HSLF, The HSUS, and other groups made a conscious decision to reshape the legal landscape on animal cruelty and fighting to show a zero tolerance policy for this conduct in our country. As a result of this focused effort, malicious cruelty is now a felony in 49 states, dogfighting is now a felony in all 50, and cockfighting was outlawed in the six remaining states—and is now punished as a felony in 40.

In many cases, the states have upgraded their laws a number of times, closing gaps in the legal framework, strengthening the penalties, addressing loopholes, and fine-tuning their animal protection laws over the years. From a historic perspective, once a state breaks through the “glass ceiling” on felony penalties—even if it’s a relatively weak second-offense or third-offense felony only for repeat offenders—it is more likely to come back and fortify the law later. Take these examples:

• Indiana (1998), Virginia (1999), Tennessee (2001), Nebraska (2002), and Kentucky (2003) all passed second-offense felony cruelty laws, and later came back and upgraded them to first-offense felony—Indiana and Virginia in 2002, Nebraska in 2003, Tennessee in 2004, and Kentucky in 2007.
• Alaska passed a third-offense felony cruelty law in 2008, and made it a first-offense felony just two years later in 2010.
• Kansas upgraded its anti-cockfighting law to a high misdemeanor in 2002, and then made it a felony in 2009.
• Texas made cockfighting a felony in 2001, but the law had major loopholes and did not prohibit spectators, the possession of birds with the intent to fight, or cockfighting implements. All three of those activities, which allowed cockfighting to thrive, were banned in 2011.
• Nevada passed a second-offense felony cockfighting law in 2001, and upgraded it to a first-offense felony in 2013.

North Dakota has taken an important step in breaking the glass ceiling on felony cruelty, and as other states have done in the past, must continue to fortify its law to adequately protect animals from malicious abuse. When it comes to cruelty laws, it’s a process, not an event, and we must push for continuous improvement.

 

The Forum newspaper in Fargo-Moorhead this past weekend weighed in strongly with an editorial on North Dakota’s anemic anti-cruelty statute, saying that even with the changes in the law taking effect next month, it’s not enough to deal with cruelty cases such as two horrific incidents of dog abuse that had occurred during the prior week. The paper opined:

North Dakota’s attitudes, as reflected in law and at the Legislature, send entirely wrong signals about animal welfare. Crimes against animals, whether perpetrated on dogs, cats, horses or cows, do not carry penalties that might act as deterrents. In case after case in the state, especially when farm animals are victims, abusers most often get a slap on the wrist and a small fine. The laws are weak, and even with marginal changes made by the 2013 Legislature, the law will remain inadequate, especially when viewed in light of the number of animal welfare violations reported.

That’s well-stated, and it’s the right sentiment that lawmakers in the state need to do better. North Dakota upgraded its anti-cruelty law in April, as a follow up to last year’s Measure 5 campaign, which put the issue of animal cruelty on the public agenda and spurred action by state lawmakers. The bill was watered down by the North Dakota Farm Bureau and other agribusiness interests during the legislative process, and fell short of the comprehensive reform that was promised to voters, but it was a major step forward and put felony-level cruelty penalties on the books for the first time in the state.

On animal cruelty and fighting statutes, the test is not perfection, but whether they are moving in the right direction. In 1985, only four states had felony penalties for malicious cruelty, 15 states had felony dogfighting penalties, and seven states had felony cockfighting laws, with cockfighting still legal in six states. In recent years, HSLF, The HSUS, and other groups made a conscious decision to reshape the legal landscape on animal cruelty and fighting to show a zero tolerance policy for this conduct in our country. As a result of this focused effort, malicious cruelty is now a felony in 49 states, dogfighting is now a felony in all 50, and cockfighting was outlawed in the six remaining states—and is now punished as a felony in 40.

In many cases, the states have upgraded their laws a number of times, closing gaps in the legal framework, strengthening the penalties, addressing loopholes, and fine-tuning their animal protection laws over the years. From a historic perspective, once a state breaks through the “glass ceiling” on felony penalties—even if it’s a relatively weak second-offense or third-offense felony only for repeat offenders—it is more likely to come back and fortify the law later. Take these examples:

Indiana (1998), Virginia (1999), Tennessee (2001), Nebraska (2002), and Kentucky (2003) all passed second-offense felony cruelty laws, and later came back and upgraded them to first-offense felony—Indiana and Virginia in 2002, Nebraska in 2003, Tennessee in 2004, and Kentucky in 2007.
Alaska passed a third-offense felony cruelty law in 2008, and made it a first-offense felony just two years later in 2010.
Kansas upgraded its anti-cockfighting law to a high misdemeanor in 2002, and then made it a felony in 2009.
Texas made cockfighting a felony in 2001, but the law had major loopholes and did not prohibit spectators, the possession of birds with the intent to fight, or cockfighting implements. All three of those activities, which allowed cockfighting to thrive, were banned in 2011.
Nevada passed a second-offense felony cockfighting law in 2001, and upgraded it to a first-offense felony in 2013.

North Dakota has taken an important step in breaking the glass ceiling on felony cruelty, and as other states have done in the past, must continue to fortify its law to adequately protect animals from malicious abuse. When it comes to cruelty laws, it’s a process, not an event, and we must push for continuous improvement.