Look at the history of any social reform movement, and you’ll see heroes who led the way. Yet the historical record is also peppered with people who did the opposite, blocking progress by any means they could muster. Those leaders and those obstructionists also did their handiwork in legislative bodies, including in our Congress. When the subject of women’s rights came up, male lawmakers mocked the notion. When civil rights emerged as an issue, some white lawmakers stood in the way, spewing hatred that gave voice to their prejudices and dim view of the world. Until, that is, they were overcome by the forces of history, and the power of right.

Such is the case today with animal welfare, with strong leaders driving needed change. But there remain a small number of lawmakers who shill for outliers in the agribusiness industry and others who have no regard for the well-being of animals, and simply see them as economic opportunities in the waiting.

Last night, the House Republican leadership made a statement about animal welfare and their disregard for that universal value in our society. The Rules Committee, led by Rep. Pete Sessions, denied the full House the opportunity to debate three critical bipartisan amendments: to codify a national agreement to approve the welfare of egg-laying hens in barren battery cages – and to nix the King amendment and its attack on states’ rights, to end the shameful slaughter of healthy American horses for human consumption, and to crack down on horse soring (deliberately inflicting pain on the hooves and legs of Tennessee walking horses in training and in the show ring).

Kathy Milani/The HSUS

The Rules Committee approved more than 100 amendments for consideration, but not one animal welfare amendment. The members chose to include amendments for floor debate on promotion and research on natural stone, Christmas tree taxes, and on the spiny dogfish, but could not find their way to allowing debate on policies to help hundreds of millions of animals suffering right now. Mind you, the egg industry reform bill was a compromise measure among all the key stakeholders – producers, animal welfare groups, consumers and scientists. It was not going to require an act of courage to ratify it, but merely a sensible execution of their authority.

But the beef and pork lobbies, and the Farm Bureau, demanded its demise. Maybe we would listen to these people if cows and pigs laid eggs, but they do not. These special interests simply want to obstruct any progress on animal welfare, and no decent-minded lawmakers should heed their reckless demands. Their worldview is that that we’ve reached the end point of animal welfare policymaking, or more honestly, that there should be no policymaking at all for farm animals.

House Speaker John Boehner announced prior to the Rules Committee fiasco, “The Leader [Rep. Eric Cantor] and I will encourage the Rules Committee to provide a fair process that will allow for a vigorous and open debate – the kind of process I pledged we would have more of in the House when I became speaker.”

That’s called hollow-speak. You cannot make such claims and then just allow amendments you agree with. This is an abuse of power and an abuse of the process. There’s no reason that all animal welfare amendments should have been denied consideration, especially since they were all authored by respected, mainstream Republican lawmakers with bipartisan cosponsors.

Now, it’s critical that animal advocates contact their lawmakers and urge them to defeat the Farm Bill, H.R. 1947. Please do your part.

The House Agriculture Committee, which impedes animal welfare at nearly every turn and has fought positive actions to help animals in many ways, had previously allowed the King amendment to be inserted into the Farm Bill, even though there was no underlying bill to examine, no hearings, and no assessment of its sweeping impact on state law. This reckless measure seeks to nullify state laws and rules that impose any standard of condition on agricultural products. That could sweep up and nullify a half dozen state anti-horse slaughter laws, ten state laws to restrict extreme confinement of pigs and laying hens, and more than a half dozen bans on the sale of shark fins for soup. And that’s just the start. It’s the lowest common denominator approach to policymaking, and puts all states at the mercy of one or a handful of states.

Remember, the Agriculture Committee leaders, who worked in tandem with House leadership to block major animal welfare reforms from even being debated last night, all fought the provision to crack down on people bringing kids to dogfights and cockfights and to make it a crime to be a spectator at these awful spectacles of cruelty. They lost that battle because a majority of their committee members favored our position. And they knew they’d lose the fight over egg industry reform and protection of horses, so their only maneuver was to block a fair and open debate.

In the late hours of the night, they made a mockery of their comments about transparency and open and vigorous debate about the issues that concern American citizens. Call and email your House member today and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 1947. It must be defeated for the sake of our cause, and these lawmakers must hear our roar.

Tell Congress to Vote NO on the Farm Bill >>

On Friday, the California-based Santa Rosa Press Democrat published an editorial calling out the hypocrisy of the Farm Bill amendment introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, “who will enthusiastically tell you that Washington meddles too much in state and local affairs. Until he disagrees with local voters and their elected representatives. Then he's all for Washington laying down the law.” With the Farm Bill scheduled to come up in the House this week, the paper said “Congress should let the states — like hens on California farms — spread their wings, leaving King's amendment to line cages.”

This week, Representatives Jeff Denham, R-Calif., and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., will try to strike the King provisions with an amendment of their own. The Denham-Schrader amendment will also attempt to substitute legislation to ban barren battery cages for laying hens and to drive a transition in the egg industry toward more humane housing systems.

The HSUS

There’s so much at stake – for more than 250 million laying hens now crammed in small cages and for more than 150 state laws that could be wiped out if the King amendment survives. The King amendment is not just an affront to animal welfare, but also to the longstanding Constitutional rights of the states to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens and local businesses.  

While the amendment ostensibly seeks to target state animal welfare laws, such as California’s Prop 2 and other anti-confinement laws and state laws banning horse slaughter, it is so broad and vague that it could be interpreted to nullify an entire spectrum of state laws dealing with food safety, labeling, labor and environmental protection. It could also trigger expensive court cases about any state law related to agricultural products, from the sale of raw milk, to the labeling of farm-raised fish or artificial sweeteners, to restrictions on firewood transported into a state in order to protect against invasive pests and damage to local forests. That’s why the King amendment is opposed by so many diverse organizations, including the Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers League, Natural Resources Defense Council, Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

Forcing states to allow commerce in products they have banned is about as heavy-handed as it gets. If any one state in the country allows the sale of horse meat or dog meat, every state would have to allow it – it’s the least common denominator approach to policymaking.

The King amendment is especially dubious because there is a much better and more reasonable solution to the problem of conflicting state laws on agriculture products – which is to adopt a uniform national standard, not to throw out standards altogether. This is the idea behind the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments, H.R. 1731/S. 820, which would preempt state standards for laying hens, but replace them with a minimum standard when it comes to animal welfare (producers, driven by the market, can reach for an even higher welfare standard, but they can’t fall below the federal rule). If there is a problem with interstate commerce caused by conflicting state laws, such as on the housing of egg-laying hens, the more workable and narrow approach to provide regulatory certainty is the Denham-Schrader amendment – which is supported by all the key stakeholders, the egg industry, veterinary groups, leading animal welfare groups and consumer groups.

When you have a win-win solution that is better for animals, better for consumers, and better for the egg industry, it’s time for Congress to get on board. They’ll have that chance this week, but lawmakers must hear from you.

I hope you will put aside what you’re doing and call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, or send an email, and urge him or her to nix the King amendment and its radical assault on state laws, and support the Denham-Schrader amendment, which provides a national solution to the problem of intensive confinement of the more than 250 million laying hens in our country. And please spread the word to other animal advocates.

P.S. The House may also take up two separate amendments on the Farm Bill – one to ban the slaughter of American horses here at home, but also in Canada and Mexico, and a second one to strengthen the Horse Protection Act to make “soring” abuses a felony and to add prohibitions to the law against the use of stacks and chains on the horses’ feet. I’ll have more to say about these amendments on tomorrow’s blog, but I’ve written about slaughter and soring frequently and you can learn about them here and here.

The work of The HSUS is grounded on a couple of core principles: animals have the capacity to suffer, and we humans have the capacity to help them. We hold all the power over animals and our choices and conduct have enormous consequences for them. And it’s hardly some far-off or abstract concern, since they live in our communities, as pets and wild neighbors, and they are enmeshed in so many sectors of our economy and society, whether in food production, fashion, science or wildlife management.

Where warranted, we at The HSUS invoke moral conviction to assure better outcomes for animals, placing principle ahead of selfish concerns, whether profit or whim or habit. In some cases, exercising moral choices may require some sacrifice, whether it’s seen in higher prices for products in the marketplace, or some tangible inconvenience in our lives. But to make a modest or a meaningful sacrifice to do good is a mark of our humanity, not some naïve or impractical notion. It’s a moral imperative when the well-being and even the survival of others rest with our routines and choices. 

More often than not, these choices are easy, and hardly require any sacrifice at all. We can meet the necessities of life and hardly notice the difference. With the genius and creativity of the human mind, we can devise alternatives to cruel treatment of animals – and these alternatives often provide us with equivalent or even superior options.

Fur-wearing is a classic case example. Fur itself is beautiful, and for keeping warm it has practical value. But today, we have natural fiber and synthetic alternatives that can match fur for style and warmth. If we choose coats not made of fur, our lives are not diminished in any way. We gain all the comforts, but we do not needlessly extinguish 20 or 40 animal lives for a single coat. In this case, human innovation has made the moral path obvious, and it’s up to us to travel down it.

Take the case of our ongoing campaign to require that sport hunters to swap out lead ammunition in favor of copper or steel. The evidence suggests that millions of wild animals – from as many as 130 species – die from lead poisoning after feeding on carcasses laced with lead shard left behind by hunters, or in some cases, by foraging on lead pellets left on the ground. The less harmful types of shot are already available for sale and they have all the necessary ballistic properties. A simple purchasing preference for less toxic or non-toxic shot does the trick.

Kathy Milani/The HSUS

Some wildlife issues are more complex, but that doesn’t diminish the need for active problem-solving. In recent months, with the release of a study from the Smithsonian Institution that sought to quantify the impact of free-roaming cats on wildlife, there’s been a high-pitched debate about the issue. We are one of the few non-profit organizations on the planet with world-class staff and programs devoted not only to helping cats and other companion animals, but also wildlife (including running the nation’s largest wildlife rehabilitation center), so we think we are uniquely suited to guide and lead the debate.

Cat predation on wildlife is a serious issue, but the answer is not to capture free-roaming cats and kill them – which some wildlife enthusiasts wrongly and impulsively suggest. Rather, it’s to encourage responsible pet ownership – including spaying and neutering and, to the greatest extent practicable, keeping cats indoors. And for free-roaming cats, it involves active management of colonies through trap-neuter-and-return programs. In this case, there are no simple answers, but The HSUS brings moral concern for cats and wildlife, and a realistic view based on long and practical experience with management issues.

The HSUS reminds thoughtful citizens that there are a dizzying number of moral choices we have when it comes to animals and our interactions with them. These are not moral burdens, but moral opportunities. By demonstrating mercy and intelligence, we have the power to exert a lasting, healthy, and beneficial impact on the lives of other creatures. And it’s that kind of transformational change that The HSUS, through decisions of every supporter like you, seeks to bring to life.

Two years ago, I wrote about a foal named “Moonstruck,” a colt who survived against all odds. While pregnant with Moonstruck, his mother, Catori, was crammed aboard a cattle trailer, bound for slaughter in Mexico, when the driver fell asleep at the wheel. The truck careened off the road. The grisly accident left only 17 of the 30 horses on board alive.

Catori was one of the survivors.

When our Oklahoma state director Cynthia Armstrong found out that the 17 surviving horses were again slated for slaughter, she worked with Blaze’s Tribute Equine Rescue and a few generous HSUS donors to secure safe haven for the horses. It was only then that it was discovered that Catori was pregnant. Ten months later, during the 2011 spring equinox – when the moon was closer to the earth than it had been in more than 20 years – Catori gave birth to a healthy, rambunctious foal. This miracle foal, born under the "supermoon," was appropriately named “Moonstruck.”

Moonstruck and Catori settled into their new life at Blaze’s Tribute, hopefully leaving behind a life of tragedy and danger. Their peace was short-lived, however. Just two months later, a major tornado hit Oklahoma and Blaze’s Tribute farm was destroyed. Miraculously, three of the 21 horses on the property survived: a blind horse named Fiona, Catori, and Moonstruck.

Desiree Fees Walling
Twister and Moonstruck are now inseparable.

Once again, Catori and Moonstruck had beaten the odds.

In May, two F5 tornadoes, including one purported to be the largest tornado in recorded history, swept through Oklahoma, destroying nearly everything in their path. Out of the rubble emerged a two-day-old filly named “Twister.” Twister's mother was killed in the tornado. Work began immediately to find a surrogate mother to care for the little foal. Several horses were evaluated, but Twister totally disregarded them.

Twister was then introduced to Moonstruck, now two-years-old, and the two became fast friends. They shared a connection, a legacy of near-death and amazing survival that connected them in a way that touches us profoundly. It was as if Moonstruck was returning a favor, caring for a foal that had a story of survival not unlike his own.

There are times when the debate about horse slaughter can seem abstract or distant or impersonal. Moonstruck’s story of tragedy, survival and friendship reminds us of the personalities, the unique characteristics, and the will to live that all animals have.

This week, New Mexico’s Attorney General Gary King shut the door on horse slaughter in New Mexico. And on Thursday, the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives is set to take up an anti-horse slaughter amendment. We hope that all the lawmakers understand what and who is at risk in deciding the fate of horses we’ve brought into this world and who we have a responsibility to protect.

It’s a momentous day for chimpanzees, in captive settings in the U.S. and in the wilds where they still survive in their range states in Africa. About three years after The HSUS and a diverse coalition of groups filed a legal petition to extend federal protection to captive chimpanzees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a proposed rule that would list all chimpanzees, whether wild or in captivity, as endangered.

As I’ve discussed in a previous blog, captive chimpanzees in the U.S. have long been deprived of protections that their wild counterparts receive under federal law, through an unusual “split listing” approach that left captive chimps largely unprotected. The split-listing has allowed for captive chimpanzees to be exploited for experimentation, entertainment, and even the pet trade. Scientific studies show these captive uses actually hurt conservation efforts in the wild by, for example, leading the public to believe that chimpanzees are not actually endangered, and reinforcing negative conservation attitudes. This exploitation and the resultant erosion of public support is unacceptable given that the number of wild chimpanzees has been declining for decades, and that these highly intelligent animals are in danger of becoming extinct.

Kathy Milani/The HSUS

The HSUS, along with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Jane Goodall Institute, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance, The Fund for Animals, Humane Society International, and the New England Anti-Vivisection Society submitted a petition, prepared by HSUS attorneys, to list all chimpanzees as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act, regardless of whether they are captive or wild. The petition included extensive scientific evidence demonstrating the need for such a change in regulations, and in September of 2011 the agency initiated a formal status review of the species. The agency received more than 50,000 responses to their request for public input from scientists, conservation and animal protection groups, members of Congress, and the general public – the vast majority in favor of granting the request. We owe a special debt of thanks to Jon Stryker and the Arcus Foundation for their support of our efforts and their broader work to help the great apes.

This proposed rule comes on the heels of another decision by USFWS which also signals a big change for endangered species living in captivity. Last week, the USFWS denied petitions submitted by the Exotic Wildlife Association and Safari Club International that asked the agency to remove the captive populations of three endangered antelope species from the endangered species list – in effect split-listing the species so that the captive populations would not receive protection, while wild antelopes would continue to be protected under the ESA. Both of the trophy hunting organizations argued in their petitions that the differential treatment of captive chimpanzees was precedent for a similar rule for antelopes. But the USFWS did not take the bait, instead announcing a new policy that such split-listings are unlawful under the ESA and thus taking a great step forward for captive endangered species.

But today is largely a celebration for chimps. With recent announcements by the National Institutes of Health about moving chimps from laboratories to sanctuaries, it’s been an exciting turn-around in the fortunes of our closest living relatives. Much work remains, in a practical sense, to get the chimps out of labs, private homes, and television commercials, but we are on the path, and today’s announcement brings us closer to our aspirations for these great apes.

Act now! Urge U.S. Fish & Wildlife to protect chimpanzees >>

Earlier this month, the European Union agreed to tighten an existing ban on shark finning, the practice of cutting off a shark’s fins while the animal is still alive, and then throwing the shark overboard to die. Once the change comes into effect, the ban will forbid the removal of shark fins at sea by all vessels in EU waters, and by all EU-registered vessels anywhere in the world.

The proposed new law closes a loophole in EU rules that allowed fishermen with special permits to remove fins from sharks at sea and then land fins and bodies in separate ports. Hundreds of large commercial vessels were granted these permits annually, and these exemptions made enforcement nearly impossible. Under the tighter rules, all fishermen will have to land sharks with their fins attached. This amendment to the 2003 legislation is significant because the EU is one of the largest exporters of shark fins to Asia.

Iris Ho/HSI
Shark fins for sale in Beijing, China

The United States has strict shark finning bans in federal and state waters (with one exception for smooth dogfish sharks) and comprehensive shark management and conservation policies.

However, despite the prohibition on the practice of finning off of our shores, it may come as a surprise that the U.S. is the largest market for consumption of shark fins outside Asia.

Several states and territories have enacted legislation prohibiting the possession, sale, trade and distribution of shark fins within their jurisdictions – a critical consumer and sales complement to the fisheries policies. Just in the last few years, we’ve successfully pushed for anti-finning policies in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington, and all the three Pacific territories. New York, which is the largest market for shark fins on the Atlantic Coast, should follow soon, after Governor Cuomo signs a bill passed overwhelmingly in both chambers of the legislature.

But the fight to halt finning isn’t over. The National Marine Fisheries Service recently issued a proposed rule that may threaten these positive state laws by claiming federal legislation on fisheries management preempts the state bans. We will be submitting comments urging the NMFS to reconsider and we ask that you do the same. As the EU moves toward stronger shark protection measures, let’s not let our country move in the opposite direction.

P.S. Please join me during a live virtual interview I’ll be doing as a participant in Spring of Sustainability on June 12, at 4 pm PDT/ 7 pm EDT. Interviews and panels by more than 60 sustainability leaders are taking place until June 14, and all are available to listen to for free via phone or Internet. Register Here. You’ll have a chance to ask me questions at the end of my interview.

One might look at the whole of American history and see one strand of it as an expanding sphere of ethical concern for others – first, in the 18^th century, a legal concern for propertied males; in the 19^th century, after the Civil War, the abolition of slavery and the establishment of basic rights for African Americans; in the 20^th century, the granting of women’s suffrage and the advance of civil rights for minorities; and now in the 21^st century a pulse of gains for gays and lesbians, and in the area of our core concern, for animals – all predicated on widely shared societal values of fairness and decency and a basic concern for the individual.

Jennifer Fearing/The HSUS

In a less well-known strand of history, one might also say that there’s been an ever-expanding effort by dogs and cats to claim more ground in our lives. Most all of them used to live outside, never knowing the comfort or warmth of a human home. Then, with their ears down and the eyes pleading, they snuck into our living rooms. Then they came into our bedrooms, and even our beds. They can even fly for free, if they are the right size, in first class. And now, thanks to Reps. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., and Steve Cohen D-Tenn., they may soon be able to travel on Amtrak!

“This important measure is long overdue,” wrote Washington Post writer Kathleen Parker this week in her nationally syndicated column. “It’s sensible, pro-family, humane, smart business and no one’s bother. It is a bipartisan measure that finally offers and opportunity for humans to be the kind of people our dogs think we are.”

“My dog, Lily, is part of our family and travels with us to and from California all the time,” said Denham, the prime sponsor of the measure. “If I can take her on a plane, why can’t I travel with her on Amtrak, too?”

The congressmen and the journalist have it just right. Dogs and cats are part of our lives, and they are members of our families, they are part of our communities. With so many of us traveling, for so many reasons, we want them around and they want to be around us. 

It may seem like a small matter, and on some levels it is. But the small matters count, especially to dogs and cats, and the people who care about them. Here’s an easy one for Congress. And livening up our train rides a bit by sharing some space with our canine and feline friends won’t hurt the soul one wit.

Tomorrow and Saturday, President Barack Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping will meet in California. While the two have a laundry list of issues on their agenda, I truly hope they'll find time to discuss how the two countries might work together to address the growing security crisis in Africa, where in recent months, 82 or so elephants have been slaughtered by poachers for their ivory tusks every single day.

Recently, the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reported to the U.N. Security Council that elephant poaching was a growing security concern, particularly in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, and Gabon, and that the illegal trade in ivory may be an important source of funding for armed groups, including warlord fugitive Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army.

Sergey Khachatryan/The HSUS

What does this have to do with the U.S. and China? China is the world’s largest consumer of illegal ivory, and the U.S. is second; both countries have a legal ivory trade that is being used as a cover for trade in illegal ivory from poached elephants. Ivory trinkets sold in both countries are like blood diamonds, the sale of which funds wars that are not only wiping out elephants but are destabilizing governments and posing a security risk to African people and African governments.

Matthew Scully – one of the animal protection movement's most talented writers and thinkers, a former senior speechwriter for President George W. Bush, and author of “Dominion” – has advanced a remarkable written appeal to President Obama to put this international wildlife protection and international security issue on his to-do list with the Chinese leader. He's done so in the form of 12,000 word essay on the web site of The Atlantic.

If you can, take the time to read it and see how Scully argues that the welfare of elephants is as closely intertwined as it can be to the political and economic health of so many countries in Africa.

For years The HSUS has been pressing the Bureau of Land Management to reform its broken wild horse management program. In March 2011, we’d hoped that the BLM had turned a corner and that long-awaited changes in the agency’s failed management paradigm were imminent when the agency announced its intent to open “a new chapter in the management of wild horses, burros, and our public lands” by fast-tracking “fundamental reforms” to its current policies and procedures. But then Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s promises never translated into the desired practical improvements, and the BLM continued on a reckless round-up and removal treadmill, characterized by surging captive horse management costs and a breakdown in public confidence in the agency, along with pain and separation for the horses.

Part of the BLM’s proposed strategy in 2011 called for the commissioning of a National Academy of Sciences panel to review previous wild horse management studies and make recommendations for future approaches. Today, the National Research Council Committee to Review the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program released its report and we’re pleased to see that many of the committee’s key findings echo the longstanding concerns that The HSUS has raised with the agency about the need to end its reliance on short-sighted roundups, and instead, to keep horses on the range while humanely limiting reproduction, through the application of a contraceptive vaccine.

The NRC committee report states that the BLM’s procedures for monitoring and surveying wild horses and burros are flawed, inconsistent, and may be “the product of hundreds of subjective, probably independent, judgments…of animals counted during surveys,” which means the agency doesn’t really know how many wild horses and burros are living on our public lands. It also states that the BLM’s practice of managing wild horses “below food-limited carrying capacity” by rounding up and removing a significant proportion of the herd’s population every three to four years is actually contributing to the high horse population growth rates. This is one of the factors contributing to a costly roundup and remove cycle (i.e. population growth rates are “increased by removals through compensatory reproduction from decreased competition for forage…As a result, the number of animals processed through holding facilities is probably increased by management.”).

The report also supports the need for the BLM to use a more comprehensive population and management modeling system “that evaluates the population dynamics of horses or burros in the western rangelands and in short-term and long-term holding facilities and the costs and consequences of management alternatives,” which could “help to identify the most effective or cost-effective management options to achieve the objectives or the achievable goals given available funding or policy constraints.” This is exactly what The HSUS envisioned when we commissioned economist Dr. Charles DeSeve to develop the Wild Horse Management System, a robust economic model that projects the costs and optimized outcomes of various wild horse and burro management regimes.

The Wild Horse and Burro program has been the subject of several NAS and congressional reports and investigations beginning at least in 1980 and the BLM leadership just never got it right in applying the recommendations. We are hopeful that the new leadership at the agency will take these new findings seriously. As the report concluded “The continuations of ‘business as usual’ practices will be expensive and unproductive.”

Finally, the report encourages the BLM to make management decisions that have been reached through a “collaborative, broadly based, integrated, and iterative analytic-deliberative” process that involves both the agency and the public. To that end, for the past six months, The HSUS has been developing a proposal to present to the agency for a bold new program that meets the challenges of the budget, the numbers of horses and land use issues head on. We hope that Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has the ability and the fortitude to implement these recommendations and to finally turn around this long dysfunctional wild horse management program.

During my visit to India last November to announce the launch of our affiliate there, our delegation’s itinerary included a stop at a government-run sanctuary for lions and tigers once living as circus animals. The nation had, more than a decade ago, banned the use of big cats, bears and monkeys in all performances, including circuses. The nation also invested resources in allowing them to live out their remaining years in peace and safety. India has again shown the way forward on captive wildlife issues – in this case by passing national standards to outlaw dolphinariums.

Kolesnyk Tobias/iStockphotography

In 1998, the city of Chennai opened a dolphinarium, with four dolphins conscripted to perform for tourists. But every one of these marine mammals died in short order, due to inadequate care and unsuitable enclosure design.

Despite this tragedy, the state governments of Chandigarh, Goa, Kerala, and Maharashtra worked with various foreign investors to develop business proposals for new dolphinariums.

Humane Society International (prior to the establishment of our India office) and other domestic and international animal organizations fought these proposals. More recently, with direct input from our staff and working with well-placed local animal groups, the Animal Welfare Board of India (a statutory governmental body) issued an advisory earlier this year urging state governments not to permit the establishment of dolphinariums.

Now, only a few months later, the central Ministry of Environment and Forests has issued a directive prohibiting dolphinariums in India, citing the existing Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. Perhaps even more significant, the MoEF’s directive acknowledges research supporting the view that dolphins are “non-human persons.”

The number of dolphinariums is declining in the developed world. Documentaries such as “The Cove,” “Fall from Freedom,” and “Blackfish,” and books such as “Death at SeaWorld,” by David Kirby, are shifting the debate. In the developing world, however, the situation is moving in the opposite direction. There is no good census of whales and dolphins in captivity world-wide, but the best guess places the total at 1,500 or so.  

We are working hard to arrest the expansion of Chinese dolphinariums, as many of the new facilities are acquiring whales and dolphins directly from the wild. The capture operations China is drawing upon – dolphins from the Solomon Islands, and beluga whales from Russia – are likely unsustainable, as well as inhumane. Solomon Islands is under scrutiny at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species for its captures and exports of bottlenose dolphins, while Russia’s beluga trade is causing considerable controversy in the U.S., where the Georgia Aquarium is asking for an import permit for 18 belugas.

Nations with maritime industries should invest in responsible whale and dolphin watching activities, rather than capture and captivity programs. There’s more economic activity and benefit to be had in the long run, and vastly more consumers interested in that kind of humane economic enterprise.