Animal Ambassadors

Animal cruelty knows no national boundaries. Almost all of the industries we confront are global in nature—animal fighting and puppy mills (see yesterday's blog), trophy hunting and the fur trade, the exotic animal trade and factory farming, just to name a few. As a matter of efficiency and focus, I'd love it if The HSUS could just focus on the problems in this country. But we cannot. We simply would not be able to achieve success. The industries we work to reform or abolish work on hundreds of fronts throughout the world, and we must meet them there as well.

© Marco Ciampi
Susan Prolman at Brazil's Universidade Estadual Paulista.

We have been working in Europe and Central America for a while, and we are turning our attention more and more to Africa, Asia, and South America. In terms of country focus areas, we are spending increasing amounts of time in India, and we are looking to work more in China. I've also asked staff to concentrate on Brazil, a country about the same size as the United States and that has an enormous agriculture industry.

Here's a report from Susan Prolman, who directs international campaigns for Humane Society International, our global affiliate.

Like people in the United States, Brazilians and others around the world care about the welfare of animals.

Yet in Brazil, like in the United States, millions of animals raised for food suffer from the cruelest intensive confinement systems in factory farming, including battery cages for egg-laying hens and gestation crates for pregnant pigs. In Brazil—one of the world´s largest agricultural producers—most consumers are not aware that farm animals are routinely confined in these inhumane cages.

© HSI
A visit with cage-free egg producer
Luiz Carlos Dematte Filho, center.

Humane Society International is taking action to address this growing problem. We are teaming with ARCA Brasil, a well-respected Brazilian animal welfare organization, to launch "Campanha contra o Confinamento Intensivo."

I was in Brazil last week with ARCA Brasil President Marco Ciampi and our Brazilian farm animal welfare specialist Maria Cristina Yunes. We traveled the country advocating for change. We met with company executives, university professors, government officials, and other opinion leaders. The response was incredibly positive. Many commented that now is an exciting moment for potential change in the way farm animals are raised in Brazil. For example, while I was there, one of the nation’s leading organic certifiers, ECOCERT Brasil, officially announced the nation’s first farm animal welfare certification program.

Just days after returning from the trip, I received an email from one of the people we met, Luiz Carlos Dematte Filho. Luiz Carlos manages a company that produces organic, cage-free eggs and he plans to earn a Ph.D. in farm animal welfare. He is interested in initiating a project on improved animal welfare standards for poultry, and he wrote to ask HSI for resources and advice to help in the project’s design. This is just one example of exciting new developments that are on the horizon in Brazil.

Our campaign is still new, but holds promise to help millions of animals in the years ahead.

Cultivating Animal Protection

The eyes glaze over, and it sounds very boring to the average American. But the Farm Bill—a massive multibillion-dollar hodgepodge of provisions that relate to agriculture and that the Congress takes up every five years or so—is the bread-and-butter bill for anyone interested in food and nutrition policy, agricultural commodities, conservation, energy, trade, and increasingly even animal protection.

Last week, House and Senate negotiators on the Farm Bill agreed to the terms of the legislation, and the final bill (called a conference report) is slated for an up-or-down vote in the House and Senate this week. It's controversial for a number of reasons, mainly its $300-billion price tag and the subsidies that wealthy farmers, including sugar growers, are slated to receive at a time when they are already reaping record profits. For that reason, President Bush is considering a veto. It appears though that the measure has broad, bipartisan support in Congress; there's something in it for everyone (kind of like a Department of Defense authorizing and appropriations bill with a nugget for every district and major player), and if Bush vetoes it, both chambers may override.

Payments to farmers, conservation provisions, more promotions of fruits and vegetables, surplus sugar purchases for ethanol, and other items of the measure have garnered the most attention. But tucked into the bill are several enormously important animal protection provisions, and that's why The HSUS is urging the House and Senate members to approve the legislation and urging the President to sign it.

© iStockphoto

The Farm Bill includes a provision, inserted in the original Senate bill by Majority Whip Richard Durbin, to curb the import of puppies for commercial sale from foreign puppy mills. A growing number of breeders in Eastern European countries, China, Mexico, and other foreign countries see the United States as a potential market and are shipping tens of thousands of dogs in, even though there is a strong domestic dog and cat breeding industry here and there are millions of pets available from shelters, rescue groups, and U.S. breeders. The provisions require that any dog imported into the United States for commercial sale be at least 6 months old, to ensure that young, unweaned, and unvaccinated puppies are not forced to suffer from harsh, long-distance transport. They also ensure that any dog entering the United States be deemed healthy prior to entry. Exceptions are provided so as not to interfere with shelter and rescue work, veterinary treatment, or research purposes.

This provision has potential to dramatically slow the inhumane trade in puppies into the United States. That will bring great relief to dogs right now, but it will also be a bulwark against the development of a massive puppy breeding industry in China and other countries that might see the United States as an even more lucrative market for puppy sales, notwithstanding serious animal welfare concerns.

© The HSUS

There's also what I call the Michael Vick provision, and this measure has potentially enormous consequences for the future of dogfighting and cockfighting in this country. The Congress upgraded the federal animal fighting law last spring at The HSUS's urging, making it a federal felony to move fighting animals in interstate or foreign commerce. Then the Vick case broke, and there was unprecedented national attention on the scourge of dogfighting. The Vick case prompted a raft of state legislation to upgrade animal fighting laws, and it also prompted the introduction of new bills by Sen. John Kerry and Reps. Betty Sutton, Elton Gallegly, and Earl Blumenauer to further upgrade the federal law against animal fighting. Sen. Kerry offered his bill as an amendment on the Senate Farm Bill, and it was accepted. In the conference committee on the Farm Bill, thanks primarily to the exceptional work of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (with the assistance of his Senate counterpart, Patrick Leahy), the legislation was strengthened further to toughen the federal animal fighting law by making it a crime to knowingly possess or train animals for fighting, enhancing the penalty for animal fighting offenses from a potential three-year prison sentence to a maximum five-year prison sentence, and making any animal fighting affecting interstate or foreign commerce a federal crime.

In addition to cracking down on all staged animal fights that are organized in the United States, the federal legislation also bans the export of fighting animals to other nations. Yesterday, Jeremy Schwartz of Cox News Service wrote a story about how U.S. fighting birds, specifically birds from Georgia, are dominating in fights in Mexico. Under existing law, shipping fighting birds outside of a state—to another state or another country—is a felony-level offense. So the federal government can crack down on it now. But if the animal fighting provision in the Farm Bill is approved, it will strengthen the federal case against these lawbreakers even more.

True, if viewed in the broadest sense, the overall bill might logically be considered a disappointment for animal advocates (not just because conferees struck language approved by the House and Senate to put a stop to Class B dealers, and their nefarious work in collecting "random source" dogs and cats and selling them to research facilities, often for painful and terminal experimentation). The lawmakers who wrote the Farm Bill do not proactively address any core concerns that animal advocates have about animal agriculture, including intensive confinement systems, cruel mutilation procedures (such as tail docking), the rampant non-therapeutic use of antibiotics on factory farms, or greenhouse gas emissions from farm animal agriculture. Indeed, it was the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production—an independent group chaired by former Kansas Governor John Carlin and that included former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman—that took on these questions squarely in its historic report issued two weeks ago. It would be a failure of Congress not at some point to consider the Pew report and take up many of its recommendations.

But politics is the art of the possible, and the members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees who write the Farm Bill are tied too closely to the agriculture industry to readily take on these issues in a proactive way, and they come from districts with a heavy demographic tilt toward established agricultural interests. But some lawmakers do seem more willing than ever to address animal abuse problems that do not relate centrally to the agriculture industry, and we're grateful for that.

Talk Back: Racing Breakdown

The death of Eight Belles at last Saturday's Kentucky Derby has spurred a national debate over horse racing and the safety and welfare of the animals (NPR's Tom Ashbrook led a discussion of the contrasting perspectives on Wednesday's "On Point" program, which you can listen to here).

In my blog earlier this week, I argued that the industry had no major watchdog organization, and that I thought this was an unhealthy situation. It would be better for the industry to have an organization nipping at its heels and making it stronger from a humane perspective. In terms of spectator sports involving animals, The HSUS decided years ago to concentrate on dogfighting, cockfighting, hog-dog fighting, and greyhound racing (which we oppose), not horse racing (which we do not oppose). You can read our policy statement here.

That said, we feel an obligation to weigh in and work with industry to improve the treatment of the horses. There are very obvious and identifiable problems in the industry, and no responsible voice can deny these deficiencies. My strong preference is for industry insiders to drive change—partly because there are many racing enthusiasts who care about horses.

For years, there have been bursts of attention to the problems with horse racing generated by breakdowns, drugging scandals, or other highly publicized cases where horses have been caused harm. The big issues that the industry must confront are the racing of 2-year-olds (the animals' skeletal systems are not developed enough to take the pounding from racing), the widespread use of drugs on race days (horses should be racing just on hay, oats, and water), track surfaces (there are superior alternatives to dirt tracks), overbreeding ("surplus" horses are being sent to slaughter), and selective breeding that has made horses more vulnerable to breakdowns. These issues have been debated for years, but there's not been enough action to institute lasting reforms. The very public death of Eight Belles is a moment for the industry to drive change, and we'll help the industry with these changes.

Blog readers have weighed in from varying perspectives. Among the comments we received:

I'm sorry Wayne, but you do not have all the facts about horse racing. Yes, I agree, do not change your priorities. The horse racing industry is trying to take care of its problems. I am a member of HSUS and I totally disagree with your "position" as far as horse racing is brutal and inhumane. Get off the subject. —Sandra Kozlowski

I'm sure there are well over two breakdowns a day in pastures with horses "just being horses" running around on their own time. I've been a long supporter of The HSUS, and there are issues the horse racing industry needs to address, but to downgrade horse racing and call it inhumane is incorrect in my opinion. Most trainers and owners want the best for the animals in their charge. You can find poor trainers and owners in any area involving animals. —Kelly Woodham

As an animal lover and a horse owner, I am OUTRAGED by the most recent "accident" at the Kentucky Derby. This must stop. I don't care what argument the opposing sides come up with; it is cruel and wrong to force a 3-year-old baby horse to run its heart out for the glory of man. It's no "freak accident"; the horses are forced to run and run and run and run. Their whole short three years are filled with running and training. No one asks them if they want to; they are conditioned to know they have to. Most never get to spend time in a grassy pasture, play with other foals, or just be a horse. They only know hard training, and a small stall because they are worth too much money to let out and possibly get hurt before they earn their owners lots of money. When does it end? Horse racing isn't about the love of horses; it's about the love of money. It's time those of us who have had the unbelievable experience of having a loving and respectful relationship with this magnificent and giving creature stand up for them and end this cruel practice of running them until they drop. —Christi

I was relieved to see The HSUS take on this issue. I think pressure should be put on those involved in the sport to make racing safer for the horses. If that's not possible, then maybe we shouldn't be racing horses in the first place. —M.B.

Why are the animal welfare groups waiting for them to change themselves? I have read some of the comment postings included with some of the news articles and the horse owners, breeders, and trainers that are posting have no intent to change. Mostly they say that the treatment the racehorses receive is better than the treatment most people get. I really don't know who exactly it is that they are kidding. Many people don't pay attention to the horse racing industry because they think it is abusive to horses. I doubt the industry will change itself. —BD

Weigh in we must! An industry so motivated by revenue will not police itself. These animals must be defended! —Susan Mudrey

Bull's-eye!

Thank you U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. The Ohio-based radical hunting organization derailed a program we launched with Meijer to generate an additional $5,000 for our fund to help pets and shelters affected by the home foreclosure crisis. I updated you on the issue yesterday—noting that we'd eclipsed our goal of raising twice the amount ($10,000) in order to help animals and teach USSA a lesson.

Well, in this update, I am happy to report that we have continued our fundraising surge, thanks to you. As a result of my call to action we've now raised $43,000 for the foreclosure fund, and more than $10,000 for the wildlife abuses campaign—for a total now exceeding $53,000—more than 10 times what USSA tried to deny us, and the animals. A hearty thanks to all of you who stepped up to help and to send USSA a signal.

Now that we have this tool in place, we'll use it every time USSA tries to rear its ugly head and disrupt a business relationship. We'll not take their nonsense any more.

So, I say to USSA—thanks for the lift in fundraising to allow us to help pets and take on the wildlife abuses you so happily defend. They'll be receiving a formal letter of thanks from me soon, indicating that they've hurt their cause and allowed us to expand our programs in a major way.

P.S. Outdoors writer Ted Williams, in his blog on Fly Rod & Reel, had a great post on the issue that I wanted to share with you.

Routine Abuse

I just spoke at a standing-room-only press conference at our Washington, D.C. headquarters to reveal our latest undercover investigation and video. I announced that our investigations unit had looked at the handling of "downer" cows before they arrive at a slaughter plant—specifically, at intermediate transport points known as livestock auctions. People sell and buy animals at auctions, and from there, animals often go to slaughterhouses. This was a follow-up to our Hallmark/Westland hidden camera investigation, unveiled on Jan. 30, which triggered the largest meat recall in American history.

Our undercover investigators visited four auction sites in four states—in Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Texas—and at every location they found downer cows languishing and suffering. What they also found was that no one was taking charge or taking responsibility.

In the Hallmark investigation, the abuses of the downer cows occurred even though the U.S. Department of Agriculture had inspectors present. Today's investigation revealed that these animals are in regulatory limbo—there are no federal or state humane inspectors who are a regular presence at the auction sites. And neither the farmers delivering the animals nor the auction house personnel receiving them were humanely euthanizing the animals, even when they were languishing in open areas in plain sight for hours.

In the most appalling case of abandonment and mistreatment, one downer cow in Westminster, Md. was left for dead in the mid-afternoon, and the auction house left her there overnight, even after the auction ended. Her misery ended only the next day after our undercover investigator called the local humane society to come out to dispatch the animal with a firearm.

The issue should be covered on your evening news tonight, since there was a bank of 12 cameras at our press conference today. You can also view our web feature and narrated video. We'll continue to provide you updates on humanesociety.org.

We Did It

You responded, and we are sending a major message to the extremist wing of the hunting lobby. Yesterday, I issued a call to raise $10,000 after the radical U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), in a despicable move, intimidated Meijer department stores into dropping its support of a fund we created to help keep pets with their families during home foreclosures. Already, supporters have donated more than $25,000—and counting—to help the pet victims of the foreclosure crisis and to save wildlife from horrible abuses such as captive shoots and polar bear trophy hunting. If you’d like to join me in giving USSA a pointed lesson about compassion, please donate to our campaign to end wildlife abuses or to our Foreclosure Pets Grant Fund.

I will soon send a letter to the Sportsmen's Alliance and let them know that they've helped us raise money for pets and for fighting canned hunts and the other inhumane and unsporting practices that are the group's favored activities.

And if they attempt to tamper with our business relationships to help pets or other animals, we'll do the same the next time.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Let's not let them get away with this. I need your attention to an important issue—and I need your help.

Last week, in a cynical and destructive maneuver, the Ohio-based U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) targeted Meijer department stores for agreeing to donate up to $5,000 through a pet photo contest to a restricted fund administered by The HSUS to provide relief to pets abandoned during the foreclosure crisis. As you probably know, as people have had their homes foreclosed, we've seen a rash of animal abandonment cases, with dogs and cats even left in locked-up homes to languish and die. We've been hearing reports of this from shelters across the country, and we set up a fund to help shelters deal with the influx of animals.

The Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Meijer agreed to help with the foreclosure fund. But for some reason, Meijer capitulated to the extremists at the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, which is a de facto trade association for arms and ammunitions manufacturers, bowhunting companies, hunting guides and outfitters, and other suppliers of hunting equipment and services. The group has a very small rank-and-file membership, but it masquerades as a group speaking for sportsmen. It's really just an arms and bowhunting industry front group.

It's time to teach the USSA a lesson, and I hope you'll help.

So this group has denied pets the help they need. They'll continue to attempt to intimidate businesses from helping animals until they see that their actions are counterproductive.

Here's the plan. Let's raise at least $10,000 right now, with $5,000 to go to pets who are the victims of foreclosures and an additional $5,000 to fight the horrible wildlife abuses that the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance loves.

So, in short, every time USSA tries to bollix up a deal, they'll actually motivate us to generate more revenue not only for the specific cause we're looking to help with, but also to raise funds to fight the abuses that USSA so dearly wants to preserve—like captive shoots, polar bear trophy hunting, bear baiting, aerial gunning of wolves, and the use of steel-jawed leghold traps.

If the USSA nixes a $5,000 deal, we'll raise $10,000. If they disrupt a $10,000 donation, we'll raise $20,000. We'll use their tactics to motivate our supporters and double the money going to the cause of protecting animals. More money will mean more pet protection, but also more ballot initiatives to restrict inhumane and unsporting hunting practices, more state legislation, more local ordinances.
And when we succeed, USSA will have second thoughts about such petty tactics—and, more to the point, the group may realize that it makes no economic sense to launch these campaigns.

I'm putting in $250 today to start us off. Will you please donate $10, $50, $100, $250, or $1,000 right away? This is no gimmick. This is a fundraising plan with a programmatic purpose. I'll keep you apprised of our progress on the blog, and then I'll personally send a letter to USSA thanking them for helping us raise money to fight their inhumane hunting practices, as well as to help the pets that their misguided campaigns are structured to harm.

I assure you that the leaders of the USSA read this blog. They are now notified. They've awakened us now, and we are on their trail.

Alarm Bells Over Eight Belles

It's happened again. A horse breaks down in one of the signature events of horse racing, precisely at the time that average Americans briefly turn their gaze to the spectacle and become fans or followers for a day. Their interest in horse racing is as fleeting as one or two mad dashes of horses in a Triple Crown race. But now, rather than remembering the pomp and circumstance and getting a positive dose of the sport, they remember the names of the poor creatures who break down on national television.

For those only mildly interested in horse racing, it certainly appears that something is wrong with the sport. First Barbaro. Now Eight Belles, a 3-year-old filly. And for those immersed in the sport—the breeders, trainers, owners, veterinarians, and the fans—there's been a history of denial, but now perhaps a grudging acknowledgment of the problems with horse racing.

Horse racing—except on a few days in the run-up to major races—has long been relegated to the back pages of the Sports section. It does not compare with football, baseball, basketball, or even hockey. It's been overtaken by soccer and sometimes by track and field. It's still a major industry, but it's become more of a niche interest rather than a general interest spectator sport. At the tracks themselves, there is a diminishing handle and an aging fan base—not as pronounced as in greyhound racing for sure, but unmistakable nonetheless.

© iStockphoto
Catastrophic injuries have tarnished horse racing.   

Not too long ago, it was apostasy for sports writers or reporters to criticize horse racing or to comment on the humane treatment issues. Now, as we saw after the breakdown of Barbaro and failed efforts to rehabilitate him, there's a spirited debate. Angered by the death of Eight Belles, New York Times columnist William Rhoden asked, "Why do we refuse to put the brutal game of racing in the realm of mistreatment of animals?" He asked, "At what point do we at least raise the question about the efficacy of thousand-pound horses racing at full throttle on spindly legs?"

Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins also wrote in Sunday's paper about the thoroughbreds "on champagne-glass ankles" and the inherent problems in the industry. "Twice since 2006, magnificent animals have suffered catastrophic injuries on live television in Triple Crown races, and there is no explaining that away," wrote Jenkins. "Horses are being over-bred and over-raced, until their bodies cannot support their own ambitions, or those of the humans who race them. Barbaro and Eight Belles merely are the most famous horses who have fatally injured themselves. On Friday, a colt named Chelokee, trained by Barbaro's trainer Michael Matz, dislocated an ankle during an undercard for the Kentucky Oaks and was given a 50 percent chance of survival."

Horse racing has gotten a pass from animal advocates for decades. We've been more worried about the mistreatment of dogs in puppy mills and the tragedy of healthy and adoptable companion animals being euthanized in shelters across the nation. We've been concerned about millions of animals killed by the fur trade—clubbed or trapped or caged to peel away their fur even though we have viable alternatives. We're repulsed by the killing of tens of thousands of animals by trophy hunters at canned hunting facilities, or the shooting of rare animals like polar bears or grizzly bears or wolves. And more and more, we are turning our attention to the routine privations endured by billions of farm animals raised on factory farms. And in terms of horses, the bigger crime has always been the horse slaughter industry, which gathers up and slaughters tens of thousands of healthy horses every year, transports them by inhumane means, and then terrorizes these highly alert animals on kill floors in the United States or Mexico or Canada.

The tragic death of Eight Belles, as discomfiting and disturbing as it was, is unlikely to reorder our priorities. We'll say a few words about horse racing, as do the commentators and industry press, but we'll return to our priorities in a couple of days. But that's a mistake for us all. This industry has not had a rigorous critic to set it in the straight and narrow, and major problems have grown and festered. It's time for the thoroughbred industry to deal with its problems, and if it does not, animal advocates may well decide they can no longer continue to give the industry a free pass.

Here are some of the historic problems. Drugging of injured horses to keep them running, which makes vulnerable horses more susceptible to breakdowns. Racing horses too young. Because the marquee events feature 3-year-olds, these horses must start racing at the tender age of two years, and that's well before their skeletal systems are sturdy enough to endure the pounding from the rigors of the race track. And third, racing horses on track surfaces that are not forgiving—with American tracks favoring dirt surfaces over grass or synthetics.

And then there are the problems coming to light more than ever—problems related to breeding. Breeding too many horses, and waiting for someone else to clean up the problem. And breeding them for body characteristics that make these animals vulnerable to breakdowns, especially those spindly legs on top of these stout torsos.

Sally Jenkins writes, "According to several estimates, there are 1.5 career-ending breakdowns for every 1,000 racing starts in the United States. That's an average of two per day."

It's up to the industry. Deal with your problems, or animal advocacy groups and others not all that interested in horse racing will be forced to weigh in.

Warm and Fuzzy Tails

I want you to do something Sunday morning. It’s pretty simple—just open your newspaper and look at the MUTTS comic strip by Patrick McDonnell. (If yours isn’t one of the more than 700 papers that carries MUTTS, or you’ve moved beyond paper, you can see an archive of the strips at muttscomics.com.)

Sunday's strip is a tribute to animal shelters.

Twice a year, for the last decade, Patrick has created a week of shelter-themed comic strips. And all 10 years of strips, along with more than 70 candid and endearing photos of adopted pets, now fill the pages of Patrick’s latest book, "Shelter Stories: Love. Guaranteed." It's a fantastic book, and one you should buy or give as a gift to any animal lover or to a friend who may not know much about adoptions and animal shelters.

I had the privilege of writing the book’s foreword for Patrick, who is a dear friend and one of the nicest people you will ever meet on this planet. He has served on the board of directors of The HSUS since 2000, and has been a tireless advocate for animals throughout his adult life. Over the years, MUTTS has mixed humor with real insight into every issue we work on—including the Canadian seal hunt, the cruelty of fur, factory farming, the wildlife trade, puppy mills, and the tethering of dogs.

His characters Earl the dog and Mooch the cat are most often the stars in MUTTS. In the shelter-themed strips, however, the characters are, to use Patrick’s words, “the innocent animals who patiently wait for a home, the dedicated workers who devote such care to them, and the kindhearted people who adopt them.”

If I were to make a list of the most valuable yet underappreciated jobs, “animal shelter professional” would have to be somewhere near the top. Every day, these men and women perform challenging—and sometimes heroic—acts to help animals, too often without the recognition they deserve. To have an artist as talented and popular as Patrick celebrate their work in front of millions of readers is a needed and well-deserved morale boost.

In a couple of weeks, more than a thousand animal care and rescue professionals will be able to thank Patrick in person when he addresses the crowd and signs copies of his book at Animal Care Expo, the world’s largest education conference for people working in the animal care field. (It's still not too late to sign up to attend.) He’ll be joined by another great cartoonist, author, and animal advocate—Berkeley Breathed.

You probably know Berkeley best from his hugely popular creations, Bloom County and Opus. A couple of years ago, he turned his imagination and wit to "Flawed Dogs," a book about a mythical animal shelter and its equally unique inhabitants. His message: that even imperfect dogs can be perfect companions.

Comic strips that include a message, along with humor and irony, are part of the American cultural tradition. With Patrick and Berkeley, we are fortunate to have two immensely talented cartoonists using their talents to help animals. And we couldn’t be prouder to count them as friends.

Talk Back: Critical Review

Readers had mixed reactions to last week's blog about the exhibit by Costa Rican artist Guillermo Vargas, which centered around a starving street dog. Among the comments we received:

Actually, it sounds to me like this is exactly the kind of reaction Vargas was looking for. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but from what I've heard it actually sounds like, in a roundabout way, he was making a statement about animal neglect. Probably more so in Nicaragua and Costa Rica than here in the states, it would be quite common to just ignore these poor animals and leave them to starve without a second thought. But he takes just one of the probably hundreds or thousands of starving dogs, puts it on display, and suddenly people notice. It's a statement about how much time and care people are actually going to devote to this sort of thing. And, in his defense, he did feed the dog (or attempt to), and only had the dog on display for three hours. But you already said that we should stop condemning the artist for this event and I agree. Obviously our focus should be turning our attention to what people would just ignore before—animal cruelty and neglect. —Jason Ericson

While I see artist Guillermo Vargas's display of the starving street dog as pathetic and disrespectful, I, at the same time, see Vargas as intelligent and driven. At first thought I signed one of the petitions, but the more I started thinking, the more I wanted to take the hand of Mr. Vargas and thank him for turning the light on this unfair suffering. I have to think that this was Vargas's way of releasing his anger as he must have felt so helpless and alone regarding the issue. I agree with Mr. Pacelle that now is the time to move on and act without pointing the finger. It's time for solutions. —PJ Bertsch Plano, Texas

Thanks so much for posting about this, Wayne. As usual, your post is well written and very much on point. The power of art is sometimes overlooked in our society, but it has the ability to sway opinions in both positive and negative directions. I would hope that we now see a stream of art that holds animals in the light they deserve. —Ted Robb

Upon reading the above blog on the starving street dog that was made an exhibit as a means of highlighting the plight of starving animals… Perhaps this was the artist’s way of bringing this to the public eye. However, if in the future the artist would like to repeat such a performance, could I suggest he try taking pictures of the dog in its state when found, then trying some kindness and compassion. How about he demonstrate how the animal would improve by being fed and nourished and given a little TLC, then release this animal to a good home. He could also raise awareness of spaying during this exhibition. I don't see what he achieved by doing this act of cruelty except of course damaging his already "struggling" reputation. —Keith Richardson

I thank you for addressing this issue. As one who loves animals and loves to create, I have had discussions with others regarding the inclusion of living beings in "artistic" statement/creation. You have addressed this eloquently, and have provided a wonderful response to the question about "freedom of expression" when the suffering of a living being is at stake. I enjoy reading your blog; thank you for all that you do for animals. —Judy Creason