Last night, National Public Radio aired a lengthy news story about the unusual agreement between The HSUS and the United Egg Producers to support newly introduced legislation to improve the lives of laying hens. The HSUS and the UEP have been fierce adversaries on the issue of the treatment of laying hens for many years. But in 2011, we reached an accord and together agreed to support federal legislation to improve the lives of these animals in all 50 states and give consumers more information on egg cartons about the conditions under which hens are kept.

The folks at UEP have been working diligently with The HSUS to enact this legislation. I am amazed, however, at the vitriolic reaction to this sincere effort at cooperation and problem-solving by other agribusiness trade groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

They just can’t seem to wrap their brains around the idea that sensible people are actually working to solve problems and figure out a way forward―that we don’t have to have never-ending fighting and conflict as the standard in debates over animal welfare in agriculture.

For The HSUS and other animal protection groups, the bill provides a pathway to improve conditions for more than 250 million laying hens now confined in barren battery cages. For consumers, the bill promises important information about their food. For the egg industry, it provides a uniform standard—rather than a patchwork of conflicting state laws—and a way to improve animal welfare in an industry that has had a controversial record on the issue. The leading scientists in the egg industry favor the reforms enumerated in H.R. 3798, because at a minimum the birds should have more space and enrichments to allow them to engage in natural behaviors.

Against all this compelling logic, the American Farm Bureau and the National Pork Producers Council are essentially saying they know more about egg production than egg producers. Against the wisdom of scientists, these critics seem to be saying they are for “science-based” solutions―except when science gets in the way.

In opposing this legislation, they stand squarely against four things: 1) animal welfare, 2) the self-determination of egg farmers, 3) sound science, and 4) cooperation.

These agribusiness groups like to talk about protecting farmers, but here they are trying to subvert the self-determination efforts of the egg industry.

Now, that’s not a position I’d like to defend. We are looking forward to a robust debate on this issue in Congress and an opportunity to take our case to the American people. We’ll be ready for the fight. Please take action if you haven’t already to support this important legislation.

Our Animal Rescue Team has saved cats, dogs, horses, rabbits, and even rats from all sorts of crises and cruelty situations. But this week’s main event was a particularly exotic mission: rescuing three tigers, two leopards, three cougars, two wolf-hybrids, and a macaque monkey.

HSUS responders deployed yesterday to the Collins Zoo in Mississippi, an unaccredited roadside facility where our undercover investigators had previously documented injured and emaciated animals and flimsy enclosures. We shared our findings with state officials in 2010, submitted legal complaints, and have been working with them ever since to address the problems. Ultimately, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks decided to seize 11 exotic animals and call in The HSUS to coordinate animal handling, transportation, and temporary placement with qualified sanctuaries.

Kathy Milani/The HSUS
One of the sedated tigers being prepared for transport.

Responders found the exotic animals in small enclosures with little enrichment to meet their needs to play and exercise. One leopard suffers from wounds on her leg and tail, and the male tiger appears to be overweight, probably a consequence of an improper diet and a cramped cage that prevented proper exercise. State officials also seized a number of native animals, such as snakes and turtles.

Safely transporting the large, potentially dangerous animals was no small feat. A veterinarian from the accredited Jackson Zoo and several other vets experienced in handling exotics worked to sedate the animals, microchip them for identification, and draw blood samples to assess their health. We carefully transferred the animals to special transport cages, then loaded these cages onto large trailers. Take a look at these photos to see how the team came together to transport animals such as a male tiger weighing more than 400 pounds.

This rescue is a reminder that most people have no business having dangerous and difficult-to-keep exotic animals; it almost inevitably turns out badly for the animals. The killing of tigers, wolves, and other exotic animals released by a man in Ohio brought the issue into the national spotlight, and The HSUS has said for years that dangerous exotics can only be safely and humanely cared for in qualified sanctuaries and accredited zoos.

Our Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch is caring for the tigers and wolf-hybrids until their custody is determined, while Carolina Tiger Rescue will be providing sanctuary for the leopards and a cougar, Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation will house another cougar, and Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary will care for the macaque.

There are about 200 accredited zoos in the country, but there are as many as 2,000 unaccredited facilities. There’s more work ahead and millions of dollars that our movement must spend in providing lifelong care as a consequence of the reckless acts of people who get in over their heads and then foist their problem on somebody else.

In “War Horse,” director Steven Spielberg treated his audience to a compelling case of historical fiction, grounding his World War I saga of a boy and his horse on a set of common facts―including that the Germans and the United Kingdom were combatants and horses had a major role in the conflict. In “The Grey,” director Joe Carnahan makes up something out of whole cloth in his drama about stranded oil riggers who are hunted as intruders by a pack of wolves.

Fiction is a perfectly respectable form of storytelling, but demonizing animals, in this case wolves, has destructive consequences―especially at a time when a renewed persecution of wolves in the United States places the lives of these creatures at more at risk than ever.

iStockphoto
Gray wolves were decimated by killing campaigns, yet
many wolves recently lost federal protections.

The historical record is unambiguous. Through the centuries, European settlers and generations of their descendants have slaughtered wolves, nearly exterminating them from the lower 48 states. There were federal hunters and trappers who killed wolves almost without limit. There were state-sponsored bounties. And ranchers and hunters did their own ruthless killing of wolves.

Now after modest recovery efforts over the last 35 years, wolf populations in the Northern Rockies and Upper Great Lakes have been removed from the list of federally protected species. Anti-wolf hysterics had a big part in the de-listing actions, and now these forces are clamoring for renewed widespread killing. Trophy hunters continue to make irrational claims about the impacts that wolves have on deer and elk, while ranchers exaggerate the threat that wolves pose to cattle and sheep. These notions are not grounded on fact, but on the mythology of the wolf as a rapacious predator who slaughters everything in its path.

Hollywood has generally been a force for the good in elevating the status of animals. But there have been awful stereotypes that have been fostered too―none worse and more lasting than “Jaws” with its vivid misrepresentations of sharks. Since that blockbuster made beaches feel so unsafe, hundreds of millions of sharks have been killed in an orgy of human-caused cruelty.

Let’s hope “The Grey” is a horrible flop, and doesn’t resonate with people like “Jaws” did. Putting aside its commercial prospects, “The Grey” does rival “Jaws” for its sheer ignorance and folly in terms of natural history and the human-animal relationship. The drama in the film revolves around bloodthirsty wolves hunting down humans as prey, even though there’s almost nothing in the historical record to reflect that wolves are any threat at all to people.

Director Joe Carnahan reportedly bought four wolves from a trapper and convinced the cast to eat wolf meat while on the set. The cast members, encouraged by Carnahan, apparently ate the meat in a preposterous attempt to create the atmospherics that real-life characters might find themselves in.

Even with protection under the Endangered Species Act for some wolves for 35 years, wolves now occupy less than 5 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 states. There are some 4,000 wolves in the Northern Great Lakes and fewer than half that number in the Northern Rockies. There is abundant scientific evidence that these animals have had enormously beneficial ecological impacts in the range they inhabit. And they are not a threat to people.

Wolf haters have staked out an anti-science, anti-environment, anti-animal posture. Hollywood has no business adding to the hysteria. Do stay away from this box office stinker. Go rent “Babe” or “Bambi” or “Free Willy” as an act of protest, or spend a little extra time with your dog, who as it happens is a descendant of these dreaded wolves.

In my speaking engagements throughout the country, I often say that opposition to cruelty is a universal value. No matter what traditions you consult―secular or faith-based, or both―there’s no escaping that humans have a moral duty to be merciful to animals. Our opposition to cruelty is no modern invention, but a moral fiber that can be traced back for a century and a half in our nation, and even longer in the wider world.

Kathy Milani/The HSUS
Watch the new anti-cockfighting video.

The HSUS was founded by people who embraced that tradition and sought to build on it. Indeed, since our founding in 1954, we’ve worked relentlessly to fortify the social, cultural, and legal frameworks against cruelty. Throughout, we’ve always been driven in part by faith-based values; in fact, the two prior CEOs came from the ministry before leading the organization, and people of virtually every faith tradition have been strong supporters.

That’s why I am so pleased that The HSUS is now partnering with Dr. Richard Land and Dr. Oran Smith―leaders, respectively of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Palmetto Family Council―on a campaign against cockfighting. Both Christian leaders remind us that we do not have the right to kill animals for our entertainment because animals are not ours to do what we want with. They belong to God―He made a covenant with them. Watching animals hack each other to death, with knives affixed to their legs, and gambling on the outcome finds no safety net in the Christian tradition. You'd never find Jesus at a cockfight, Dr. Land observes in this video.

 

Cockfighting is illegal in all 50 states, but it’s only a misdemeanor in 11 states, most of them in the South. A few states have particularly anemic penalties; in Alabama, cockfighting faces a minimum $20 fine and a maximum of $50. The weakest of these laws provide essentially no deterrent. It’s time to make cockfighting a felony in these states, and to make it a federal crime to be a spectator at an animal fighting venture.

We cannot tolerate this kind of cruelty in our communities. It’s not consistent with our values as a nation.

There are big stirrings today at the federal level―both bad and good―on farm animal policy.

Take action here to help hens.

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a harmful ruling nullifying major portions of California’s 2008 law to ban the mistreatment and slaughtering of downed animals, with implications not only for the humane treatment of pigs and other farm animals, but also for the health and safety of consumers. The challenge to California’s law was brought by the National Meat Association and supported before the court by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), which argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts any state from banning the use of sick and injured animals in the food supply, even though downer pigs are 16 times more likely to have antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter (the most common cause of bacterial food poisoning in the United States) than ambulatory pigs. We criticized the ruling and urged Congress and USDA to take action to strengthen federal rules related to downed animals.

Just across the street from the Supreme Court at the Capitol, a bipartisan group of four U.S. representatives, led by veterinarian Kurt Schrader, introduced the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012 at the urging of The HSUS and the United Egg Producers (UEP). This legislation (H.R. 3798) would codify a landmark agreement between The HSUS and UEP, essentially doubling the space per laying hen, banning forced starvation molting of the hens, and creating a labeling program to provide consumers with consistent information on production systems (e.g., “eggs from caged hens” and “eggs from cage-free hens” on cartons).

Already, the NPPC and several other livestock industry groups that have nothing to do with egg production have announced their opposition to H.R. 3798 because they oppose any federal animal welfare standards. Remember, this is the same NPPC that successfully used federal law as a sword to nullify California’s anti-downer law. In that case, the pork industry group argued that only the federal government can set rules for the humane treatment of animals at USDA-inspected slaughterhouses, and that the states have no role at all.

So just to keep this all straight: NPPC wants federal standards to override state laws for downer pigs, but it wants to tell the egg industry not to have a federal standard for its animals.

When it comes to downer pigs, the pork industry doesn’t want either Congress or the USDA to enact any measures to stop the mistreatment of these animals. And it’s urged federal courts to strike down any state laws against the mistreatment of downer animals.

So there’s one overriding conclusion. The pork industry wants no state or federal laws to protect any farm animals. Federal or state. Pig or chicken. Animal or mineral. It wants to be left to its own devices, even though it routinely confines animals in gestation crates barely larger than their bodies and has no problem with downer animals being dragged or abused to get them into the kill box.

So you’ve got two very contrasting visions for how animals should be treated in society. The HSUS and the egg industry believe in reasonable, consistent rules that can help animals and producers alike, and the pork industry and some others think there should be no rules whatever. I bet I know where the public stands on these issues. And now it’s up to Congress to act on behalf of the people, not special interests who care just about profits.

Please contact your U.S. representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H.R. 3798, and ask your two U.S. senators to support the legislation, too. Tell them the improvements for laying hens are good for animal welfare and supported by nearly the entire egg industry and animal protection community. Animals need protection from people who treat them like they don’t matter at all.

Léalo en español (Read this blog entry in Spanish).

The HSUS works on so many stages, saving animals in crisis, but also working to prevent cruelty―whether that’s changing corporate behavior, educating the public, or improving the legal framework for animals. In order to make progress, we’ve got to take stock of where we are, and that’s why we released earlier this week the third annual “Humane State Ranking,” evaluating all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their performance on 66 different animal welfare policies. You can see where your state rated on our interactive map of our 2011 Humane State Ranking.

California built on its prior first-place finish by enacting nearly a dozen new laws in 2011, including a vital measure to ban the sale and possession of shark fins. Several other major reforms enacted within the last two decades in California came through the ballot initiative process, and our consistent success in taking measures to the people has demonstrated to elected officials that there is an overwhelming majority in the Golden State committed to improving the lives of animals. In short, our direct democracy work through the initiative process has given lift to our efforts in the state legislature.

New Jersey and Oregon tied for second place in the national rankings, while Illinois and Massachusetts tied for fourth. Earning the lowest scores were South Dakota (last place), Idaho (50^th), North Dakota and South Carolina (tied for 48^th), and Mississippi (47^th place).

Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota are the only three states in the nation with no felony penalty for egregious acts of animal cruelty. We intend to press for reform in each one of these states, even if we must conduct ballot measures in order to establish a basic legal framework for the proper level of protection for animals.

Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia are the only 11 states without felony-level penalties for cockfighting, and we’ll be pursuing reforms with energy on that front, too.

Several states showed strong upward movement in the last year. Ohio moved up to 36th from 45th place after the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board adopted standards to phase out veal and gestation crates and tail docking of dairy cows, bar new battery-cage egg facilities, and require humane euthanasia of downer cows.

Ohio will be under close scrutiny this year as it considers vital legislation on private ownership of dangerous exotics, cockfighting, and large-scale commercial dog breeding―all elements of an agreement between The HSUS and agricultural groups. There are six other states that have no restrictions on keeping dangerous wild animals as pets, and we’ll be focused on that reform, too.

Texas tied for 25th place, up from 36th the year before, after upgrading its anti-cockfighting law and enacting humane standards for breeding dogs and cats. Maryland (tied for 15th) also worked to strengthen its puppy mill law.

As you’ll see if you drill down and look at the numbers, no state is yet close to having a perfect score―even the top states have big gaps in their laws and sometimes regress. For example, California's governor has just proposed repealing significant laws that have improved outcomes for homeless pets in shelters for more than a decade. We have a lot of work to do to improve animal welfare policies in the states. We’ve seen remarkable progress across the country in recent years, but a number of states are badly lagging, especially in the Plains states, the Northern Rockies, and the Deep South. That lack of progress is due, in many cases, to obstructionist efforts by the agribusiness and trophy hunting lobbies, which sometimes stand in the way of even the most modest reforms, such as felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty to companion animals. Overall, however, we’re gaining ground, and winning the support of the public and elected officials for humane laws and regulations.

If you’d like to make a difference in your state to support animal-friendly policies, please join us for Humane Lobby Day in your capital.

A number of state legislatures have opened their 2012 sessions, and others are gearing up. We are sure to see a raft of pro-animal legislation introduced by lawmakers, but also measures to open up new opportunities for animal cruelty and abuse, to conceal what’s going on in certain industries, and to maintain the status quo.

Animal science professor Peter Cheeke writes in an agricultural textbook, “One of the best things modern animal agriculture has going for it is that most people...haven't a clue how animals are raised...For modern animal agriculture, the less the consumer knows about what's happening before the meat hits the plate, the better."

The HSUS
An HSUS undercover investigation in 2010.

But a number of exposés from news-gathering organizations and from animal protection groups like The HSUS have thrown back the curtain on extreme confinement methods and inhumane handling and slaughter practices. One of the most notable was surely our investigation into the Hallmark Westland plant and the abuse of downed animals in California, which led to cruelty convictions, Congressional hearings, a shut-down of the plant, and the largest meat recall in U.S. history. This slaughter plant was the number-two supplier of ground beef to the National School Lunch Program.

In the wake of these scandals, the response from certain segments of industry has not been reform and transparency, but concerted efforts to turn the curtain into a concrete wall―barring anyone not part of the industry from seeing what’s going on.

So far this year, big ag interests are actively pushing for the enactment of bills in Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and New York to ban undercover anti-cruelty investigations on factory farms.

These so-called “ag-gag” bills range from banning taking a photo or video of a factory farm without permission, to even banning possession and distribution of such photos or videos. Some of the bills seek to accomplish the same goal by essentially making it a crime for an undercover investigator to gain employment at a factory farm. Some of the bills go so far that they would prevent whistleblowers from exposing illegal activities at a factory farm, even financial embezzlement, sexual harassment, or violations of worker safety laws. It's an attack on the First Amendment of the worst kind.

As The HSUS’s Paul Shapiro told CNN viewers, it’s understandable that the meat industry would want to pass these bills and conceal its practices from Americans. After all, poll after poll shows that Americans don’t want animals confined in tiny cages where they can barely move an inch their whole lives. Yet this extreme confinement is regrettably a standard practice for millions of farm animals in our country.

Animal agriculture has become more consolidated and more industrialized over the past few decades, and more people than ever are removed from the daily experiences of animals. There’s a widespread assumption in the American public that someone’s looking out for the creatures on the farm. 

When people learn of systemic abuses, however, they want change.

Some industry organizations are changing, such as the United Egg Producers, which is joining with The HSUS in an effort to transition the egg industry away from barren battery cages. Other state-based groups have also driven reform in Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, and other states.

These ag-gag bills take our nation in the wrong direction. They should be defeated. And instead, we should be working on improving conditions for farm animals and letting sunshine flow into food production facilities across the country.

It’s amazing how in Washington, D.C., the simplest things can turn into a mess.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Today’s announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in the Everglades to ban the import and trade in Burmese pythons, yellow anacondas, and northern and southern African pythons is, to be sure, an important advance—for animal welfare, conservation, and public safety. These large constricting snakes are not suitable as pets; they suffer from capture in the wild and long-distance transport for trade; they can injure and kill people who possess or interact with them; and they can wreak havoc on our natural resources as an invasive species, killing native wildlife, including endangered animals.

But there’s a back story here, and it says so much about Washington, D.C., and how good policy and common-sense ideas get scuttled, delayed, or weakened in this town, to the detriment of the nation.

Here’s a timeline.

June 2006: The South Florida Water Management District petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requesting the listing of Burmese pythons as injurious under the Lacey Act, a federal law that regulates trade in wildlife.

January 2008: FWS published a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register asking the public for comments on several large constrictor snakes.

July 2009: U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers posed by large constricting snakes to Florida’s ecosystems, unveiling the skin of a 17-foot Burmese python perhaps shed in the Everglades.

October 2009: The U.S. Geological Survey issued a science-based report that identifies nine species of large, constricting snakes as posing a medium or high risk as invasive species in the United States.

March 2010: FWS issued a proposed rule to list nine large constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act.

January 2011: Open Secrets, a website that discloses federal lobbying expenditures, announced that the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers spent $120,000 lobbying against the FWS rule. USARK submitted a report saying that banning the trade in these species would cost the industry $100 million–an utterly absurd figure.

March 2011: The White House Office of Management and Budget/Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs received the final rule from FWS. (This White House agency's review process is usually 90 days, yet the rule was held up for 10 months.)

January 2012: Salazar makes the announcement covering only the four species.

What or who got in the way here? There’s only one reasonable explanation: narrow thinking and poor political judgment at OMB.

The folks who run OMB for President Barack Obama are focused on the vulnerability of the administration on the jobs issue, with Obama facing a competitive re-election with high unemployment numbers. So when USARK and its lobbyists made a jobs argument, it struck a nerve at OMB. OMB appeared ready to kill the whole thing, until lawmakers from Florida on both sides of the aisle started demanding action. Ten of the 11 largest newspapers in Florida urged adoption of the FWS rule and demanded that the Obama administration stop dragging its feet and do something about the trade in these invasive, dangerous species.

The administration had to do something; it had to deal with the Burmese python. But in the end, it excluded five species from the import restrictions—two of which, boa constrictors and reticulated pythons, alone make up two-thirds of the trade. As a result, the trade is likely to shift to these species. Salazar said his agency will watch and see how things are going with the other constrictor snakes, and consider banning the other five species down the road, but given the administration’s track record on this issue, that seems highly implausible.

So, in the end, no one is happy—not animal advocates or environmentalists, or even the reptile dealers. The administration shows itself as weak, quick to jettison science for politics, and essentially tone-deaf on this entire issue in the critical battleground state of Florida, whose electorate and opinion leaders clearly want something done about invasive species of snakes.

And for the animal protection community, the burning question is, if OMB cannot stand up to the reptile dealers—who created this problem by peddling high-risk snakes to unqualified individuals and cost the government tens of millions of dollars in invasive species control efforts—how is it going to handle the really tough animal welfare problems the country faces?

Report Card for 2011

Executive Summary: The Obama administration had B-level scores for the first two years of the term, but earned only a C-minus from The Humane Society of the United States for its performance on animal welfare issues in 2011. The Obama administration had a wide range of opportunities to advance a constructive animal welfare agenda for the nation in 2011, but it was responsible for only a few noteworthy beneficial actions for animals. It stalled, weakened, or exhibited indifference to some overdue reforms, and it even took some highly adverse actions against animal protection.

Take action to ask President Obama to do better for animals.

There were valuable actions to ban the transport of horses on double-decker trucks, to advocate that Congress increase funding for enforcement of animal welfare laws, to crack down on soring abuses of Tennessee Walking horses, and to block the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies. The administration publicly committed to bringing Internet sellers of puppies under its authority, but there’s been no rule proposed yet.

A rule to ban the import of nine species of large constricting snakes for the pet trade has stalled, apparently as a result of pressure from the pet industry. The administration generally had a status quo approach on the management of wild horses and burros, subsidies to factory farms, lethal predator control by Wildlife Services, and the use of chimps in research—although a scientific report released in December on the value of chimps in laboratories has altered the trajectory on that issue for the better. In actions that could only be characterized as hostile, the administration pushed to de-list wolves from the list of federally protected species in the Northern Rockies and the Upper Great Lakes, worked with the slaughterhouse industry to nullify a California downed animal protection law, and tried to allow the killing of sea lions in the Northwest.

Full Report

With three years completed in his term, President Barack Obama is moving decidedly in the wrong direction on animal welfare issues, earning a grade of “C-minus” for 2011 according to a Report Card produced by The Humane Society of the United States. This performance is a downgrade from last year’s “B” and the President’s first-year score of “B-minus.”

Despite campaign promises that he’d be strong on humane issues, the President has failed to pull together a coherent animal welfare strategy or to deliver any kind of message to our community of 20,000 animal protection organizations and millions of animal-loving Americans throughout the country. His high-level appointees for the agencies that matter most to animal welfare—the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—have made positive moves on a few fronts, but more often they have left important policy matters incomplete or, worse, taken strongly adverse actions.

The administration removed protections for wolves in the
Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes regions.

The president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 did recommend significant increases in funding for USDA enforcement of key animal welfare laws, which set the stage for congressional approval of those increases in a tough budget year. Yet there were few completed regulatory actions of substance carried out by the administration in 2011, except perhaps for a USDA rule to close a loophole and ban the transport of horses in double-decker trailers on their way to slaughter plants. Even this rule took years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also made a positive preliminary finding on a petition from The HSUS and several other animal welfare and conservation groups to list all chimpanzees, including captive animals, as “endangered,” but the agency still must make a final decision on the petition and correct an unprecedented 1989 “split listing” for our closest living relative. That decision will have implications for the use of chimpanzees in the pet trade, in commercials and movies, and in biomedical research.

In contrast, the administration has taken a series of high-profile actions hostile to animal protection, including removing gray wolves from the list of protected species in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes regions; actively joining the meatpacking industry’s argument in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a California law banning the mistreatment of downed animals; and authorizing state wildlife officials to kill California sea lions in the Pacific Northwest—a position from which the administration withdrew only in response to litigation filed by The HSUS. The administration is currently considering whether to once again authorize lethal removals of sea lions based on a new application.

In November, President Obama signed an agriculture spending bill that cleared the way for horse slaughter plants to open on U.S. soil; as a U.S. senator, Obama cosponsored legislation to ban horse slaughter, but he’s made no definitive pronouncements on the issue as President. Horses are also being harmed by the policies of the Bureau of Land Management, which, while often saying the right things on wild horse and burro management and promising to ramp up the use of an HSUS-developed contraceptive vaccine, nonetheless rounded up more than 10,000 wild horses and burros in 2011. This depleted free-roaming populations and added to swelling populations of captive horses and burros whose care and management consumes nearly three-quarters of the program’s entire budget, putting it on a long-term trajectory of financial ruin.

The government rounded up 10,000 wild horses and
opened the door for horse slaughter plants in the U.S.

The administration, after receiving more than 32,000 signatures on an HSUS- and ASPCA-backed petition on the White House website, has pledged to take action to bring Internet sellers of puppies under the regulatory authority of the USDA and to provide for inspections of these facilities. This is a long-awaited policy goal, since so many puppy mills are no longer selling to pet stores, but rather are placing dogs for sale on the Internet and escaping any oversight. Yet, three years into the President’s term, the agency has not released an actual proposed rule or timetable for action to accomplish this regulatory change. The USDA’s Office of Inspector General issued a report in May 2010 that condemned USDA’s inspections programs for large-scale dog breeders and recommended that all large-scale commercial dog breeders, including those that sell over the Internet, should fall under USDA’s regulatory authority. Animal protection advocates in Congress introduced S. 707 and H.R. 835, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act, to achieve that reform and to provide for exercise requirements for dogs (these bills have nearly 230 cosponsors, with broad support from lawmakers in both parties), but bringing oversight to Internet sellers of puppies is something the agency already has authority to do without needing Congress to explicitly require it.

The humane community was heartened by a proposed rule from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in March 2010 to ban the import and interstate trade of nine species of large constrictor snakes presenting high or medium risk to natural resources. More than 1.1 million of these snakes have been captured in their native habitats in Asia, Africa, and South America and imported into the United States for sale as pets from 1977 to 2007. This trade causes injury or death to numerous snakes during collection or transport. Moreover, snakes have been illegally released in the wild here in the U.S. once their owners realized the animals can grow to 15 or 20 feet in length and weigh 250 pounds. The result is that thousands of Burmese pythons now inhabit Everglades National Park and other natural habitats in south Florida and prey on native species, including endangered species. More than a few kept as pets in private homes have killed children and even adults, one of the latest casualties a 2-year-old child in Florida.

Despite these compelling arguments and bipartisan congressional support for the rule-making, the Office of Management and Budget has stymied final action proposed by the DOI. A year and a half has passed since Salazar announced his proposal. The administration may propose listing just four of the nine species, which would address only 30 percent of the trade and allow the commerce in giant snakes to shift to the species exempted from the trade ban, all of which were determined by a U.S. Geological Survey report to present “high” or “medium risk.” This amounts to an unwarranted capitulation to the reptile industry, and specifically to snake dealers who recklessly peddle these animals at flea markets and over the Internet and have caused the very problem that has cost the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars to address.

Here’s a more detailed look at the administration’s record in some key areas of concern:

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Farm Animals, Wildlife, and Horses

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been entirely silent on the July 2011 accord reached by The HSUS and the United Egg Producers (UEP) to jointly seek federal legislation to phase out barren battery cages, to prohibit other inhumane practices at egg farms, and to set up a national egg labeling program to give consumers more information about housing practices. Egg producers throughout the nation support the legislation and view it as essential to their future survival, while a broad coalition of animal protection organizations considers it one of the biggest farm animal welfare advances ever achieved. Congressional lawmakers from both parties plan to introduce legislation consistent with the terms of the HSUS-UEP agreement this month. This is a perfect opportunity for the Obama administration to embrace a consensus-driven, solutions-oriented approach.

USDA
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

If the administration has been slow to embrace industry-backed farm animal welfare proposals that we consider constructive, it has been quick to endorse industry’s various efforts to undermine advances in reforming the sector. In a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, National Meat Association v. Harris, the federal government sided with the slaughter industry in its attempt to overturn a California state law to stop the mishandling of downer animals. The pork industry has for years claimed that downer pigs are simply “fatigued,” and that they will recover and stand on their own if given enough time. The reality is pigs go down because they live in terrible conditions on factory farms, they are weakened because of fast rates of growth and drugs to spur that growth, and they suffer in long-distance transport. The industry’s rationalization for continued mistreatment of downer animals is similar to what we heard from the cattle industry for years, as it blocked action to ban downer cows in the food supply until a series of crises made continued inaction untenable.

The administration’s decision to align with the meatpacking industry to overturn a state law, passed after an HSUS investigation at the Hallmark-Westland slaughter plant that resulted in the largest meat recall in American history, is surely one of the most hostile and sweeping actions taken against animal welfare in 2011. Ironically, the same Department of Justice has been pursuing a False Claims Act legal action with HSUS against the owners of the plant at the very same time it was working, in concert with the National Meat Association, to undermine the California law.

In the meantime, the USDA continues to dole out tens of millions of federal dollars to buy up surplus pork as a direct subsidy to the industry, even though producers have been experiencing record profits. The HSUS has encouraged USDA to tie any buy-ups to a commitment from the industry to an industry-wide phase out of gestation crates and the routine dosing of pigs with antibiotics for non-therapeutic reasons, but that request has been met with silence.

In another case of a pledge without any subsequent action, USDA announced its intention to approve a new rule to protect downed calves, after a separate HSUS investigation of a slaughter plant in Vermont—more than two years ago—documented fully conscious calves being severely abused and even skinned alive. But no final rule has yet been issued.

The HSUS
The administration increased funding for enforcement
of federal humane laws.

Unfortunately, USDA has also continued the use of lethal predator control methods by Wildlife Services, an agency program that kills wildlife as a subsidy for private ranchers and other special interests, and has failed to shift the focus of its resources to nonlethal alternatives that can be more effective. The HSUS requested that Wildlife Services eliminate the use of two highly toxic and indiscriminate poisons, Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide, which kill hundreds of non-target wild and domestic animals every year, including family pets. These poisons are used to kill more than 13,000 animals a year, yet only 0.3 percent of the animals killed by Wildlife Services are killed by these toxicants, indicating how these poisons are of limited value to Wildlife Services’ program. It’s business as usual for Wildlife Services, as the agency has refused to stop using these dangerous and inhumane poisons.

On the positive side, USDA has stepped up enforcement of the Horse Protection Act that bans the practice of “soring” of Tennessee Walking Horses, hiring 15 new inspectors to address the criminal use of caustic chemicals and other substances to harm horses’ hooves and make it painful for the horses to step down in order to cause an artificially high-stepping gait in show competitions. The Department of Justice brought charges against three individuals for illegal soring, in one of the first serious enforcement actions we’ve seen against this industry’s scofflaws in years.

Significantly, too, the administration did request increased funding for enforcement of federal humane laws as part of the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2012, and with 159 members of the House and Senate lining up in support, record funding for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and Horse Protection Act was secured.

U.S. Department of the Interior: Wolves, Chimps, Wild Horses, and More

The DOI’s delisting of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes, thereby paving the way for large-scale killing of wolves in six states, has been its highest-profile and most negative wildlife action for the year. This action by the administration opens the door for sport hunting and trapping seasons on wolves in these states, many of which have extremely hostile wolf management plans that call for dramatic reduction in numbers of wolves—undoing the very recovery that occurred under federal protection.

Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar

The agency has, however, made a positive preliminary finding to list all chimpanzees, including captive chimps in the U.S., as endangered, which could have an impact on the use of chimps in invasive research, in entertainment, and as exotic pets. It has also announced a work plan to address the backlog of Endangered Species Act listing determinations for 251 species over the next six years. Finally, it has fought efforts by the trophy hunting lobby to import sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada, consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s designation of polar bears as a threatened species.

The HSUS has been in close communications with DOI’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about the wild horse and burro program, and in February Congress called attention to the program’s serious flaws during a floor debate on the FY 2011 budget. BLM has made a number of reforms in the program and has pledged to reduce annual round-ups to no more than 7,600 and to increase the annual number of contracepted horses to 2,000 during the next two years, which would at least be a start in the right direction.

Unfortunately, while the agency often says the right things about reforming its woefully inadequate wild horse management program, so far, it has failed to translate those words into action in the field. Sadly, FY 2011 was no exception as BLM removed more than 10,000 wild horses and burros from their homes. We hope next year that the agency will live up to its promises and finally put this broken program on a humane, effective, and sustainable track.

DOI has also failed the bison in Yellowstone National Park by relinquishing responsibility to the states when bison leave the park simply to find sufficient food sources in the winter. The agency has not seriously addressed habitat, population control, and ecosystem management options to ensure the survival of this culturally and historically significant animal species.

U.S Department of Commerce: Whales and Other Marine Animals

The administration authorized states in the Pacific
Northwest to kill sea lions.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has initiated a few actions to benefit animals. For example, the agency announced the Pelly Certification (trade sanctions) against Iceland for commercial whaling in defiance of the International Whaling Commission’s ban, and it is helping Hawaiian false killer whales by issuing proposed rules to modify commercial fishing gear and impose fishery closures in substantial areas around Hawaii in order to reduce hooking-related deaths of this species.

But the majority of the agency’s decisions were harmful, especially to marine animals. The agency denied two petitions by The HSUS to protect the dwindling populations of porbeagle sharks (both of which HSUS has had to challenge in court), authorized states in the Pacific Northwest to kill up to 85 sea lions per year at Bonneville Dam for eating salmon in the Columbia River (though sea lions account for only a tiny fraction of salmon killed), and failed to issue regulations for the number of smooth dogfish sharks that can be caught (this is a growing fishery in the Atlantic, and regulations are needed to mitigate the harmful impact of their exemption by Congress from the fins-attached policy mandated in the 2010 Shark Conservation Act).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Antibiotics in Livestock Feed and Animals in Laboratories

In reviewing the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 2011 actions, we were not pleased when the agency rejected a petition to ban non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock feed—a common industry practice to compensate for overcrowded, unsanitary, and highly stressful conditions on factory farms. Also, at the end of the year, the agency withdrew its longstanding proposals to remove approvals for two classes of antibiotics, penicillins and tetracyclines, for use in livestock feed. These actions are incredibly frustrating because it is estimated that 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are fed to livestock, primarily in order to promote growth, maintain forced production yields, and suppress the spread of disease that accompanies the extreme concentration of animals in factory farms. 

Early in 2012, however, the agency made a positive step toward limiting the overuse of antibiotics by prohibiting some uses of cephalosporin antibiotics in food producing animals. We applaud the agency for this action and encourage FDA to take further urgently needed steps to address the overuse of antibiotics on factory farms.

Chad Sisneros/The HSUS
The National Institutes of Health halted the transfer of
186 chimps to a research facility.

In June 2010, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced plans to transfer 186 chimpanzees from a holding facility in New Mexico to a research facility in Texas, where they would be used for invasive research. The HSUS and Animal Protection of New Mexico raised a hue and cry, as did other groups, and the transfer was stopped. In response to a congressional inquiry, the NIH then asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to examine the question of whether chimpanzees are necessary for research. An IOM panel issued its report on Dec. 15, concluding that chimpanzees are largely unnecessary for research. In a positive move, NIH immediately agreed to halt funding of new chimpanzee studies and will not issue any new awards for research involving chimps until a process is in place to implement the IOM recommendations. Meanwhile, The HSUS is supporting legislation in Congress to phase out the use of these animals in invasive experiments and retire them to sanctuary, which would not only be much more humane but would save taxpayers $30 million annually.

For its part, FDA clarified that there is a policy within the agency not to request data from chimpanzee studies.

In addition, FDA approved a new procedure that avoids using animals for testing batches of Botox. We expect this action to reduce the use of animals in these tests by 95 percent for the popular anti-wrinkle treatment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Factory Farm Pollution and Animal Testing Alternatives

There are some high and low points with EPA’s record on animal protection in 2011. In respect to water pollution, the agency made a positive step by re-establishing concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), agricultural operations where large numbers of animals are intensively confined and fed for industrial production, as a national enforcement priority. This is important to protect human and ecosystem health by preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and ground waters, including harming wildlife, fish, and other aquatic species.

The agency has not, however, responded to a legal petition submitted by The HSUS and a coalition of environmental and public health organizations submitted in 2009 requesting the agency to list CAFOs as sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act. The agency has also failed to respond to a petition submitted by The HSUS along with the Environmental Integrity Project and a coalition of environmental and public health organizations to list ammonia, a hazardous air pollutant often emitted from CAFOs, as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA announced a plan to incorporate more
non-animal tests into a screening program.

EPA also chose not to respond to a 2010 court-ordered remand of a 2008 exemption issued by the agency to CAFOs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. In 2012, the agency should withdraw the 2008 rule and re-empower U.S. citizens to know what hazardous chemicals are entering their environment and their communities.

Next, EPA’s efforts to minimize duplicative animal testing in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program were minimal and will only modestly impact the number of animals used. However, the agency has been working with the NIH on developing a series of rapid, inexpensive non-animal tests for chemical activity, some of which test for endocrine-related activities. In December, EPA released its plan for incorporating these tests into the screening program. Initially, the non-animal tests will be used to prioritize chemicals for further testing and the impact on animal use will be modest—for those chemicals that are of lowest priority, animals may not be tested upon. However, EPA’s eventual plan is to transition to a completely non-animal battery within five years, which would have a substantial impact on the number of animals used in the screening program.

Take Action Today

We are hopeful that the Obama administration will improve upon its record and address many important animal welfare policies in 2012. In fact, some are already in progress, such as the announcement that USDA will work to propose a rule to regulate large-scale commercial dog breeders that sell puppies over the Internet. Please take action today  to urge the White House to make good on its promises and to establish a stronger record on animal welfare.

Marcus Gyger

I wrote last week about the growing momentum to end the Canadian seal slaughter as Russia and other nations have announced bans on seal products and a new report highlights the threat to seals from the loss of sea ice. This has been a top-tier campaign for The HSUS and HSI, and it’s not surprising that there’s so much passion on this issue among our supporters.

Take a look at our guide on how you can help protect seals, or our action guide for residents of Canada and elsewhere. Thank you for supporting the international campaign to stop this cruelty.

The barbaric slaughter of helpless baby seals must stop. I would never ever visit Canada or buy anything Canadian. Money talks! If everyone that is against the killing of baby seals boycotted anything that is Canadian, these killings may stop. Canada may think twice before allowing this heartless, barbaric, boorish act to continue. —Vasilis Alekos Korallis

Well, most Canadians are against this, myself included. It’s disgusting. —Renée Erdman

Wayne, I look forward to the day this barbaric murder spree ends and I honestly think it may be on the horizon. The Canadian Prime Minister and Fisheries Minister really have no leg to stand on now. It breaks my heart every year when I hear about it. I still protest eating any seafood from Canada and will not eat at any restaurant that gets its seafood from there. I actually protest anything and everything from Newfoundland until they stop this insanity… —Desiree Reid

Please keep working on this issue and keep the pressure on Canada. I've been waiting all of my life for the seal hunts to end and it seems like we are getting really close. I won't even travel to Canada until the seal hunts stop. —Sharon Ponsford

…As you suggest, only a compensation for the fishing industry by the government could make a difference. And on our part a vocal boycott of Canadian seafood or any product for that matter. Here in Manhattan, each time I buy fish or eat in a restaurant, I ask whether the fish comes from Canada. They must have heard the question so often, that they usually answer "Oh, no!" How to be sure? —Dr. Ch. de Lailhacar

P.S. You can find out which U.S. restaurants and businesses have joined our Protect Seals boycott using our locator map, or view Canadian and European restaurants that are participating. And we’ll be sharing an action alert soon to thank the Russian government for its seal product ban.