Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation

Humane Wildlife Solutions: An Entrepreneurial Model for a Humane Nation

The Humane Society of the United States sometimes has to use raw power to change the circumstances for animals—overcoming the opposition of animal exploitation groups and passing legislation or applying pressure on a company to mend its ways. To a degree, it requires some level of confrontation, and we believe it's something we must do from time to time.

But much of our work involves hands-on work and providing win-win solutions. Today, I am excited to tell you about an upgrade in a long-standing program of The HSUS. The program is called Wild Neighbors–Humane Wildlife Solutions®:, which is a model business we have set up to solve conflicts between people and wild animals in and around their homes.

© istockphoto

Typically, when someone has a conflict with a raccoon, squirrel, or other wild animal, they called a Nuisance Wildlife Control Officer and the "experts" often remove and kill the offending creature. According to their own materials “[t]he nuisance wildlife control industry is an outgrowth and convergence of two related fields—the pest control industry and the rural fur trapping industry.”

Clearly, these are not the concerns The Humane Society of the United States would recommend calling in an animal-related emergency.

Yet, until recently, they were the only option for the average homeowner with a raccoon mother and five babies in her attic. And demand for their services is growing. 

A surging U.S. population has led to steep increases in wildlife-related problems for homeowners and businesses. Increased suburban development provides plenty of food for wildlife, but natural den sites are destroyed every time a tree is cut down or a hedge row bulldozed. When animals decide a warm chimney or attic makes a nice den, even the most devoted nature lover feels intruded upon.

It is estimated that more than a million animals a year—squirrels, raccoons, skunks and other species—are killed when they set up house where they are unwanted.

Talk Back: Cultural Cruelty

Blog readers had a lot to say about two hot topics in American culture—dogfighting and horse slaughter.

These two comments are among those we received in response to Monday’s post about Nike’s romanticizing of urban culture and dogfighting’s cost to communities and animals:

As long as dogfighting is perceived as "cool" or "edgy" among those who do it or who see these ads, there will always be more kids to fill the spaces around the fighting rings. It's so important that companies that associate themselves with those who take part in this cruel "sport" distance themselves. These dogs are no more than slaves and their "owners" must realize that our "culture" in the United States does not condone this cruelty. —Lisa

A pit bull on a leash has become a fashion accessory among some who seek to emulate the "urban, edgy, hip-hop culture" that is being packaged and sold by corporate America. It is important to note that the consumers and emulators of this pre-fab "culture" now belong to all racial and economic groups.

Street culture used to be about self-expression and self-determination - about real courage and genuine protest. It still can be. An enormous amount of courage will be required to reclaim and maintain a credible vision and practice of non-violence (toward humans and animals) in this contemporary cultural environment where cruelty is packaged, promoted and sold as "hip."

Street culture has always been one of the most important moving and shaping influences in American popular culture. It can be just as "hip" to be humane and responsible as it is to be otherwise.

We all need to ask ourselves: What part do I play? Where do I fit in culturally? What can I do to make a difference? Am I waiting for someone else to "sell" me a "hip" identity?

When we acknowledge that we are all Americans and all in this together, we can begin to make a difference for ourselves and for animals. After all, humans and animals are in this together as well. How are we choosing to act with the power that we have? —Ginger Carter

The conversation also continues on the slaughter of American horses and the responsibility of those who care for the animals:

Keep the pressure on against the slaughter of horses. I couldn't believe when I first heard about this abhorrent practice. It makes me wonder about the type of people who run these businesses and the employees who are doing their dirty work. I wasn't an activist going into this, but I'm becoming one. Keep up the good work on behalf of all those who cannot speak or defend themselves. Beyond our horses, we must also continue to work for a more humane treatment of all animals. —Jack O'Malley

Two Key Wins and a Setback for Polar Bears

Not long after I became president of The Humane Society of the United States three years ago, and after we merged our operations with the spectacular folks at The Fund for Animals, we decided to concentrate some considerable resources in four major campaign areas: 1) animal cruelty and animal fighting, 2) factory farming, 3) seal clubbing and the fur trade, 4) particularly inhumane and unsporting types of hunting, (and we have since added "puppy mills" as a fifth campaign).

By putting more resources than ever into these areas, and co-mingling the talents of litigators, investigators, scientists, lobbyists, campaigners and others, we have seen robust activity and a host of successes—along with an occasional setback.  And today and yesterday, we saw major action in three of these four campaign areas—with landmark successes achieved in two of three areas.

First, in Louisiana, the state legislature took a historic step and gave final approval to a bill to outlaw cockfighting and make the state the 50th state to pass an anti-cockfighting measure, although it delayed the implementation of the ban until August 2008.  And while the delay is disappointing, there is a silver lining. 

Talk Back: Dog Days

While the nation observed “Take Your Dog to Work Day,” blog readers celebrated The HSUS’ dogs in the office policy. Among the comments we received:

Congratulations on your dog-friendly environment! I've worked from home for my entire career and I cannot imagine having to leave my greyhounds and my kitty alone all day. I have no doubt that bringing your dog to work improves performance, reduces stress and makes for a friendlier atmosphere. I'm sure even the grumpiest person couldn't walk by an office or cubicle, look into the eyes of a loved dog, and not smile and feel some of that love. And it warms my heart that people who weren't rescuing dogs before because they felt they couldn't meet their needs, now can. It's a win-win-win! —Mary Martin, Ph.D.

I think that being allowed to have your animals/pets in a working environment is a wonderful concept that is obviously somewhat underway. Animals do make you more comfortable in certain situations, and can also reduce stress, creating a better working environment for all employees and customers. —Chelsea

I love reading this blog—it's especially nice when there is something happy and heartwarming from time to time too! Bravo Wayne for letting folks bring their dogs to work with them. I bring my three with me to work every day and it makes my job more enjoyable and less stressed. —Susan

Protecting Wildlife and Preserving Habitats

The depth and breadth of programs at The HSUS is pretty extraordinary.  To know all that goes on, you'd have to make a regular study of humanesociety.org. And even then, it's tough to keep up with all of the work.

You may have heard about the Humane Society Legislative Fund, the political arm of the organization. Or Humane Society Youth, our youth humane education program. Or Humane Society International, our international operation.

© iStockphoto

You may have also heard of our Wildlife Land Trust^®, established in 1993 specifically to protect wild areas and the creatures who live in them. From its inception, the Trust recognizes that in order to protect wild animals, they have to have a place to live. Any debate over hunting or trapping is irrelevant if animals have no place to live.

The Wildlife Land Trust embodies the ethic of concern for ecosystems and their health, but also concern for individual creatures. It works to protect habitat for all species of wildlife, not just condors, or wolves or polar bears, or other so-called charismatic megafauna; and not just those endangered or threatened, or—as we need to acknowledge—not those who are already endangered or threatened. The Trust recognizes that animals live in all sorts of habitats, whether they are wetlands and desert, coastal and interior, or urban, suburban and rural properties, and our sanctuaries include them all.

Habitat for all wild animals is being lost every day, everywhere, to such things as the increasingly commonplace development that marks urban sprawl. In the United States alone, more than 5,000 acres a day are being developed. The impact on our familiar wild neighbors is unyielding. The breadth of the Trust's work to protect habitat for all wildlife often brings to mind a quote from ecologist Robert Michael Pyle: "What is the extinction of the condor to the child who has never known the wren?" This serves as a reminder that animals commonplace to some of us may not be to others, and those common today may be rare—or gone—tomorrow. They all deserve a place on this earth, and they deserve protection from exploitation.

On our sanctuaries, we do not allow recreational and commercial hunting and trapping of wildlife. They are true sanctuaries, and even a hunter like Teddy Roosevelt, who helped establish the National Wildlife Refuge system, recognized that animals deserve some places where they are free from any harm.

© iStockphoto

Our Trust staff works with land owners across the country who share our vision to provide permanent protection for their property and the wildlife who also call it home. Sometimes that involves transferring the land to the Trust for protection. Other times, it involves permanent conservation agreements, known as conservation easements, which establish restrictions on how the land can be used to ensure it will always be a safe home for wildlife.

While there can be tax benefits for protecting land in this way, my colleagues at the Trust report that donors' motivations are usually their abiding love for wildlife and their desire to ensure that land they already protect for wild animals will remain that way forever. We're proud to have these unique and very special supporters of the Trust and The HSUS, each of whom certainly shares both the Trust's goal of Saving Lives by Saving Land and The HSUS' mission of celebrating animals and confronting cruelty.

Particularly if you own property that is already a safe place for wildlife and you'd like to see it stay that way forever, please visit wildlifelandtrust.org or call 1-800-729-SAVE. Be part of our efforts to protect wildlife habitat for all wild animals. 

Kinder Course for Chemical Tests

The United States has been overshadowed by Europe for well over a decade when it comes to being the world leader in advancing non-animal methods of chemical testing. In 2005, for example, European government and industry established the European Partnership on Alternatives to Animal Testing, with the long-term goal of replacing all use of animals in toxicity testing. This alliance has no counterpart in the United States.

A recent report by an influential American body, however, may chart a new, kinder and scientifically sophisticated course for the United States. The National Academy of Sciences report proposes a new approach to assessing chemical safety that moves away from animal testing. Indeed, the new approach could eventually eliminate animal testing altogether, according to a statement released by the Academy.

© iStockphoto

If the innovations detailed in this report come to fruition in the coming years, untold millions of animals will be spared annually from the miseries of laboratory testing, including dogs, mice, primates, rabbits and rats. Today, commercial chemicals, pesticides and other substances are typically tested for safety by dispensing large doses to groups of animals and then observing the animals for symptoms of disease. As the report notes, these animal tests are of questionable relevance for humans, are time-consuming and costly, and cannot handle the enormous backlog of untested agents or meet new and multiplying challenges of chemical safety.

Instead of poisoning animals and looking for overt health effects, the report, entitled “Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and A Strategy,” calls for an approach that focuses on monitoring “toxicity pathways” at the molecular level, emphasizing human cells and processes. The proposed in vitro testing methods would incorporate emerging biological information and technical approaches, combined with sophisticated existing tools that assess chemically induced changes in, for example, genes.

The report recognizes that such a vision and strategy will require years and substantial resources to implement. What is needed now is the kind of government-industry partnership evident in Europe, bolstered by other stakeholders, including the animal protection community. The HSUS is proud to have had a representative on the committee that prepared this report, and we are prepared to take a lead role in ensuring that this vision becomes a reality. We have already started discussions with key stakeholders in the United States and Europe about the need to develop and refine available technology, and eliminate animal testing as soon as possible.

Street Cred and Cruelty

A couple years back, The HSUS criticized Nike for running a television ad called "The Battle"—an MTV-like ad featuring a one-on-one game of basketball interspersed with quick takes of a pit bull and a Rottweiler snarling at each other and poised for fighting. It was a barely subliminal glorification of dogfighting and a romanticizing of that aspect of urban culture. A Nike representative denied that the ad encouraged dogfighting, but explained, "People have to understand the youth culture we cater to. Our market is the urban, edgy, hip-hop culture."

© The HSUS
An abandoned fighting dog recovered by
The HSUS in Oakland, Calif. in 2006.

That's precisely the subculture where dogfighting has metastasized. "The Battle" was just one small contributing factor toward the promotion of dogfighting. It's gotten even more fuel from rap music and rap stars, such as Jay-Z and DMX.

Comes then Michael Vick. It's not clear whether he is a cause or a creation of the dogfighting subculture. But he is the most prominent star in recent memory to have been entangled in a dogfighting controversy.

Last week, I asked the CEO of Nike to end its commercial sponsorship of Michael Vick. I knew very well that Vick has not been charged with any dogfighting crime. The investigation is pending. Period.

But The HSUS does not reserve its criticisms only to actual criminal circumstances. We are engaged in some pretty complex sociological work and part of our goal is to establish laws to protect animals and to enforce them, but also to suss out how popular culture contributes to animal abuse and to offer course corrections. It's no science, for sure, but we get some pretty good hunches from time to time. Nike promoting Michael Vick and lionizing him sure doesn't sound good to us.

There is no doubt there was some bad stuff going down on Vick's property, whether or not charges are filed against Vick or anybody else with a hand in the game. There were lots of dogs on the property, and many were emaciated or scarred. There were also many of the accoutrements and tell-tale signs of dogfighting, including the presence of a bloody carpet, break sticks (used to separate fighting pit bulls), and even a rape rack (used to harness a female pit bull so that males can mount her for breeding).

Nike wasn't guilty of any crime when it ran "The Battle." Just bad judgment. In pursuit of its appeal to "urban, edgy, hip-hop culture," it leaves The HSUS, local law enforcement and local humane societies to pick up the pieces. The cost of dogfighting to our communities is enormous—not to speak of the cost for the dogs themselves and other animal and human victims of the dogfighting subculture.

It's bad judgment to keep Michael Vick on the payroll, too. Nike may like its association with renegades and outlaws. But it certainly doesn't help our communities or the animals.

Talk Back: Farm Bureau and Fur

This week, readers praised The HSUS’ outreach to the American Farm Bureau:

Again, you confirm why I support The HSUS. Educating people about humane treatment of animals is vital and approaching the Farm Bureau to begin this dialogue is brilliant. They have the ability to make huge changes for animals and developing a relationship with them could be very powerful for positively changing the way animals are raised and killed for food. —Nicke

Wayne, your article on Invitation for Cooperation is clever and fundamental for the animal welfare cause. But the last part where you write that most importantly the cause for improving the lives of animals is directly connected to understanding sociology and human behavior hits the nail dead on the head! Animal abuse in all its forms whether intentional or based on some naive prehistoric belief measures society's progress. Victories for a humane society begin with those lives for whom we are directly responsible—animal life included. Appreciating your good work by a proud constituent. —Diana Kelley

American Farm Bureau, please listen to us—the American public. Over and over, we feel that you are out of synch with mainstream American values. Many of us perceive your lobby as "backwards" and mired in the past. It is possible to improve farming techniques AND improve humane care of animals.

Please don't turn the American public into your enemies. Some of your members seem determined to do that now, but perhaps younger members can find a new direction. —Ted

Wayne, I am so glad you are the one in the position who is putting forth the effort to try and change those views. You have a delightful insight that can eventually soften those hardened hearts of folks like the Farm Bureau. —Ruth Caron

Readers also reacted to the news that after a shocking investigation and nine years of campaigning by The HSUS, the European Parliament voted to ban the import of cat and dog fur. Among the comments we received:

This is the happiest news I have heard in a long time. The fur trade, particularly in China, has been disturbing my sleep for a long time. Thank you for the tireless efforts to bring about these kinds of changes. These and other investigations take courage and persistence, and vigilance. Well done. —Mary

Animals Ascending

Our ideas about protecting animals were once at the margins. Now, they are in the mainstream.

More than ever, Americans and American institutions are embracing the protection of animals as a personal and societal responsibility, and the evidence is all around us.

© 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All rights reserved.

Today, The HSUS is being honored by USA TODAY as one of 25 charities to participate in USA TODAY's 25th Anniversary Celebration and its "Spirit of the USA" charity program. We are profiled in today’s paper with a snapshot (at left) on the front page of the print edition, on the front page of usatoday.com, and in advertisements in the paper and online. Thank you USA TODAY.

If you have a chance, pick up the paper and check it out, and please post a comment at humanesociety.usatoday.com.

It’s exciting to have America’s largest newspaper recognize us. But there are many other associations that we are proud of, too.

We are also pleased to be one of 10 organizations Microsoft has chosen to benefit from its recently launched i’m™ Initiative—an instant messaging program. Every time you have a conversation using i’m™, Microsoft shares a portion of the program's advertising revenue with The HSUS. Microsoft has guaranteed a minimum contribution of $100,000 to The HSUS, but there is no cap on the amount the company will donate.

Bank of America is another corporate supporter. The HSUS' credit card affinity program generates significant funding for our animal protection programs, thanks to more than 60,000 card holders. The HSUS gets a donation from Bank of America for every new card opened and then gets a small portion of every purchase. (By the way, if you don’t have an HSUS affinity card and want one, you can sign up online right now.)

There are other measures of common sense, mainstream progress too.

Just yesterday, we saw evidence from around the country of lawmakers embracing our cause.

On Thursday, in Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an HSUS-backed amendment to protect polar bears—perhaps the iconic species for the effects of global warming—from needless killing. Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) offered an amendment to ban imports of polar bear heads and hides taken by American trophy hunters in Canada. Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) helped Reed push the amendment to passage, which had a great assist from Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). With polar bears facing threats to their very survival, they do not need additional killing for such a frivolous purpose—for simply a head-hunting exercise by American trophy hunters.

In Louisiana last night, House lawmakers followed the lead of the Senate and banned gambling at cockfights. The bill was introduced by Senator Art Lentini. Banning gambling at the fights eliminates one of the two major motivators for participation in the practice—the other being a lust for bloodletting. Now, we continue the fight to ban the cockfights themselves and make Louisiana the 50th state in the nation to outlaw this form of staged animal cruelty.

And finally, in New York yesterday, the state Assembly followed the lead of the Senate and passed a bill to ban electrocuting fur-bearing animals on fur farms in the state. It’s the first time a state legislature has banned this inhumane method of killing. Thanks there go to Assemblywoman Deborah Glick and Senator Frank Padavan—both stalwart advocates for animals.

Take stock of this. Animals are part of the policy debate in Congress and in state legislatures around the country, and we are winning. And never before could you send an instant message or make a credit card purchase and make a difference for animals. Now you can.

I am hopeful. Our cause is ascendant.

Take a moment to celebrate. And then once you do that, get busy again by helping animals.

You are not alone. You are part of a larger social movement, and when we act in concert, the results are tangible and inspiring.

Working Like A Dog

Tomorrow we celebrate one of the more obscure observances in the workplace—“Take Your Dog to Work Day.” It doesn't rival Martin Luther King Day, or President's Day, but it's a subject worthy of some reflection, especially from me as CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.

© The HSUS
Jennifer Fearing and her dog Yoda take
a momentary break from work.

Here at The HSUS, every day is a take your dog to work day. And you might think that it has always been this way—we are, after all, the nation's largest animal protection organization. But while our field offices have had canine colleagues under desks for many years, dogs are relatively new to our DC-area offices. Our densely packed “cube farms”—at first blush—didn’t seem like an ideal environment, and frankly, there was a view that with so many animal lovers working at the place, they might be a bit more attentive to their canines than to the reports and other pressing duties they were hired to execute. 

This time last year, a new HSUS employee requested a meeting with me. Jennifer Fearing, The HSUS’ chief economist, came from a dog-friendly workplace and, as is her wont, made a detailed case for moving in that direction. She gave me a report that looked like a book manuscript. Given our strong commitment to the human-animal bond, she implored, how could we at least not try to foster that bond—held dearly by our employees—in our own offices?

Jennifer's report provided compelling evidence that a change in policy benefits both employers and employees. According to a recent survey by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, one in five U.S. companies allows dogs at work. That same survey revealed that a significant percentage of Americans believe having pets in the workplace increases creativity, decreases absenteeism and fosters better relationships among colleagues.

These potential workplace improvements seem obvious to those who treasure relationships with pets. A recent journal article notes some of the trends:

In a world of growing global uncertainty and violence, and a trend towards increased prevalence of single occupant homes, household pets will potentially play an increasingly important role in many people’s lives, providing company and respite from the outside world. Moreover… pets live in the moment, and interacting with pets reminds owners of the joys and idiosyncrasies of living in the present, as well as prompting their owners to think beyond themselves.

At The HSUS, we spent six months conducting internal surveys to identify concerns employees had about instituting a dog-friendly policy. Will the dogs become a distraction? Will the dogs contribute to a less sanitary environment? What if someone is allergic? How would we avoid aggression between dogs?

A “dogs in the office” committee was formed and after much diligent work, by year’s end, a policy was ready for implementation. You can spot the cubicles with canine colleagues from the tell-tale baby gates and the posted “My name is: ________” signs. Handouts entitled “Working around canine colleagues” and “Being a considerate canine colleague” are must-reads and have helped prepare employees and dogs for successful interactions.

I was especially pleased to learn recently that in the short time since our policy has been in place, several of my colleagues have made the lifetime commitment to rescue dogs in need—owing their ability to do so to our dog-friendly workplace.

© The HSUS
Catherine Hess and her rescued dog Daisy.

Catherine Hess in our Online Communications section rescued her first-ever dog Daisy, an 8-year-old beagle, from a life of misery. Daisy languished most of her life not as a companion, but as puppy mill “breeding stock” in a small, dirty rabbit cage. Now Daisy spends her days sleeping (letting out the occasional snore) under Catherine’s desk. Catherine says the new policy gave her confidence that she could give a dog like Daisy the attention and love she deserves.

Rebecca Judd, an attorney with our Animal Protection Litigation section, recently adopted 4-year-old greyhound Shooter, short for “Straight Shooter,” his racing name. Prior to finding his way to Rebecca and her husband Steve, Shooter received little human contact—either cooped up in a too-small crate or being raced—as one of thousands of dogs bred to participate in the greyhound racing industry. Coming to work each day is hastening Shooter’s much-needed socialization. Rebecca says that “Shooter seems to have blossomed as a result of coming to work and having more regular interaction with people.”

Six months in, while there's a little more dog hair in our offices, there's a warmer and better feeling that infuses the work environment. Personally, I just like having the dogs around. They don't talk back to me as much as the staff members do, either. We plan to share our research and our experience through a new Humane Society Press book about creating dog-friendly workplaces, due out in late 2007.

Big Lawsuit for Little Victims

Puppy mills are factory farms for dogs. The animals are confined in small cages. The females are bred time and again with little concern for their health. They receive no love or human affection. And they are treated like agricultural commodities—not as our closest companions.

Approximately one-third of the nation's 11,000 pet stores sell puppies—with the preponderance of the dogs originating on puppy mills, most of them clustered in the Midwest. For the puppy millers and the pet stores, the profit margins are large, and so are the misrepresentations. Unsuspecting animal lovers make an impulse purchase after seeing an adorable dog, but the acquired animals are often sick, poorly socialized and genetically unfit from inbreeding.

But on Monday, The Humane Society of the United States sent a shot across the bow of the pet store industry and its suppliers: no more business as usual.

This puppy, purchased from the Wizard of
Claws, was plagued with health problems.

A groundbreaking class-action lawsuit was filed Monday on behalf of HSUS members and more than 100 other individuals against a notorious Florida puppy dealer known as Wizard of Claws. This is the first class-action lawsuit organized by The HSUS in our 53-year history, and we believe the first class-action suit against a U.S. puppy dealer.

The suit—the latest legal dust-up involving Wizard of Claws—alleges that the dealer has defrauded customers by misrepresenting the origin of puppies, and by selling puppy mill dogs who suffer from severe health problems and genetic defects—all in violation of Florida law.

The complaint includes a litany of heartrending accounts of Wizard of Claws selling sick or dying puppies and then stonewalling when consumers complained. “Tator” had a contagious parasite and died two days after being brought home; “Vanna” had a severe liver defect that resulted in constant seizures and she died just weeks after she was purchased; “Misha" had severe pneumonia and a collapsed lung, and she only partially recovered after months of intensive treatment.

Miami's WTVJ-TV NBC 6 documented similar accounts in its 10-part series, “Puppy Heartbreak.” Their investigation traced a trail of 276 complaints from Wizard of Claws customers and included undercover footage of terrible conditions at a puppy mill from where the shop obtains puppies.

Businesses like Wizard of Claws get by defrauding one customer at a time. But The HSUS and NBC 6 are helping add it all up for consumers.

You can help fight this by signing our pledge to stop puppy mills, and then asking your friends and family to do the same. By choosing not to buy your next pet or any pet supplies from retail stores or Internet sites that sell dogs or cats, you are directly helping to end this cycle of cruelty. Spread the word.

Talk Back: Horse Slaughter Is Wrong

Readers responded to comments posted last week and the claim du jour of horse slaughter advocates—if we shut down horse slaughterhouses, people will abandon horses or even abuse them. Below is a sampler of the comments we received.

What do you think? Join the conversation by offering a comment below.

The assumption that the backers of this bill are "city people" is made by those who typically have a utilitarian view of animals in general. Cats are worth no more than their ability to catch mice, and dogs are for catching gophers and groundhogs. They are oblivious to the fact that horses have a variety of partnerships with people far beyond the rural milieu of labor. That's why thousands of horse owners and organizations are in favor of this bill.

Like dogs and cats, horses have a status of companion animals in our culture which excludes them from slaughter like other animals that we typically raise for food. Consistency demands that we stop the slaughter. —Craig DiBenedictis

Slaughter is not humane. Every horse has an owner and every owner has a responsibility to treat and care for their horses humanely... slaughter, neglect and abuse are not humane.

Banning slaughter and enforcing the laws that require owners to treat animals/horses humanely is the answer. Responsible breeding, owning and training are the answer. If you want to mistreat, starve, neglect or be cruel to your horse(s), you're a sick, cruel and inhumane owner. Horses are not part of the food chain and the foreign plants should be closed, the land/equipment auctioned off, and the proceeds given to horse rescue groups. —Sarah Anne Gill

Bravo for the Unwanted Horse Myth... Horses can be euthanized, adopted, leased or sold—not sent to slaughter, as slaughter perpetuates the utmost of cruelty and perpetuates neglect and abuse. Killer buyers fatten up the horses also—more bang for the buck or money on the hoof... I can't believe we allow this on our American soil. —Sherrie

The statistics showed that the majority of horses going to slaughter were not old and sick. Ours was stolen and confiscated off of a haul truck going to the Dallas slaughterhouse. A registered Thoroughbred. There is even another side to this issue. Think about that. —Angela Sera, Houston, Texas

Having read all of the above comments pro and con regarding horse slaughter, I stand firmly on the anti-horse slaughter side.

There is no question that all animals raised for food, i.e. cows and pigs, should be treated humanely and with dignity though ultimately meant for slaughter. The HSUS is fighting for them as well, to be treated humanely despite their fate. Horses on the other hand are not raised for food. To see horses at auction is sad, yes. Particularly the ones with health problems which, according to statistics, are very few.

So, kick them when they're down and send them to slaughter even when the opportunity to live out their days peacefully and usefully is an option provided by many?

To me, that is where the sickening moral character of humans is these days: Get rid of it if it serves no use to them and make some money even if there are people and organizations in place to accept these unwanted horses.

I stand strong in my faith that the anti-slaughter laws will be implemented and efforts of The HSUS and hundreds of thousands of Americans who oppose slaughter will be victorious in ending it. —Margaret Bunce

No matter how you look at it, horse slaughter is wrong! I am behind The Humane Society 200 percent. And I will fight this fight until all slaughterhouses are closed for good. Slaughter is not euthanasia. It is cruel and must stop now. In stables, not on tables. —Patricia Monahan

Triumph Against Fur Trade

The Humane Society of the United States did an investigation in the late 1990s in China and other Asian countries and discovered that millions of dogs and cats were being killed for their fur, and the pelts were being exported across the globe, including to the United States and Europe, for use as trim and even for full-length fur coats. The investigation was a wake-up call to people in the United States and Europe that no animals were off limits or too sacred for either the global fur industry or for China itself.

© The HSUS/Karremann
A dog raised for fur in China.

For the last nine years, The HSUS has stayed on the case. Just within the last six months, we released the results of an investigation in the United States that exposed major American retailers and designers who were not properly labeling the fur trim on their coats. Tests revealed that some of the fur came from domesticated dogs. In the wake of the investigation, several major retailers announced they'd stop selling fur of any type, and several members of Congress, led by Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.), introduced legislation to stop the sale of raccoon dogs and to require labeling of fur garments of any value.

And this week, we have a major and long-awaited victory to announce from Europe. This morning, the European Parliament (the equivalent of our U.S. Congress) voted unanimously to ban the import and export of cat and dog fur in Europe by December 31, 2008. This could save the lives of more than 2 million cats and dogs raised in Asia under horrible conditions and then mercilessly strangled or stabbed for their furs and skins.

For The HSUS and Humane Society International, our global affiliate, it signaled a major moment in a nine-year campaign to get this fur off the market and stop consumers from being duped into buying it. 

When we started this journey based on a few “tips” that cats and dogs might actually be slaughtered for their fur, we had no idea where it would lead. Our undercover investigators (led by HSUS' former chief investigator Rick Swain) posed as fur dealers in Asia for 18 months and penetrated this industry like no one has ever done before. They were astounded to find warehouses filled to the ceiling with pelts of cats and dogs. They also witnessed macabre killings, including the nauseating slaughter of a German shepherd chained to a gate and stabbed to death on a street corner, as he wagged his tail and could not believe that death was imminent. Asian merchants bragged to our undercover investigators about how they used fraudulent labels or dyed the fur to dupe consumers. Cunning and cruelty clearly fueled this lucrative business, and Swain's video brought the images and the gruesome story to millions of people throughout the world.

The Congress moved with dispatch to ban dog and cat fur. Cruelty like this had no apologists in either the House or Senate. The European Union bureaucracy demurred however, and claimed it was just an American concern, despite abundant evidence showing otherwise.

Invitation for Cooperation

If you look at the history of the relationship between The HSUS and the American Farm Bureau Federation, there’s not much we agree upon, and there has been a noticeable scarcity of goodwill. We seem locked in regular political combat.

© iStockphoto

The American Farm Bureau and its federated state groups put more than $100,000 into a failed effort to defeat an HSUS-led ballot initiative campaign in Arizona to ban veal and gestation crates in November 2006. The Farm Bureau is fighting legislation that would require animal producers supplying federal programs with meat, dairy and eggs to comply with a most basic set of animal welfare standards. The Farm Bureau has fought, at every step of the process, our campaign in Congress and in the states to stop the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. The Farm Bureau fights HSUS’ efforts to curtail the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program, which spends millions executing indiscriminate and inhumane predator control programs in the West. And that’s just a taste of the polarities that have developed between the organizations.

But the American Farm Bureau Federation asked me to address the members of its policy gathering last Wednesday, and for me, I saw it as an opportunity to establish better dialogue. I took the dais with optimism, and the folks there were more than polite and welcoming. 

We talk to members of the animal welfare community a great deal of the time—and that’s vital in educating, motivating and organizing our core constituency. Our “base” provides the financial support that enables our work; they carry the message in their communities; they write letters to lawmakers; they rescue and shelter animals in need, and so much more. Without this core group of supporters, The HSUS and the other organized entities of the humane movement simply could not exist.

We also need to talk to that large mass of Americans who love animals, but don’t know much about the gravity and varieties of animal abuse and are not consciously active on our issues. Yet that group—when it comes to voting behavior, consumer choices and general perceptions about animal welfare—unwittingly exerts an enormous impact on the lives of animals and the outcomes of many a political battle (such as ballot initiatives). Our goal must be to transform these sympathizers into advocates and invite them to join us in our cause to protect animals from cruelty and exploitation.

But the third leg of the stool—the people working in industry or making decisions or taking actions that have negative consequences for animals—is a vitally important group to have dialogue with, too. Groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation have enormous power over the lives of animals, and we would be foolish not to talk with them and open a channel of communications. 

Abandon the Myth of the Unwanted Horse

I must say that the proponents of horse slaughter have done a pretty good job of staying on message and thereby confusing the issue. They know that Americans care about animal welfare, so they have been forced to concoct an argument that somehow makes horse slaughtering for foreign gourmands seem well justified and humane. The argument they’ve come up with is as novel as it is spurious: if we shut down the slaughterhouses, then people will abandon horses or even abuse them because they won’t know what else to do with them.

© The HSUS
Amazing Grace, a former show horse, was among 30 that
were rescued from slaughter by The HSUS.

This argument not only places little faith in our fellow citizens and their sense of responsibility, but also amounts to unvarnished conjecture.

If someone were to abandon or abuse a horse, then these individuals would be subject to prosecution under state anti-cruelty laws. Neglect and cruelty are forbidden in almost every state, and people who resort to such behavior would be subject to strong and appropriate penalties. So let’s be clear that there are consequences for individuals who would resort to abandonment and neglect.

If you take on a horse, just as if you take on a dog or cat, you take on a solemn responsibility—to care for a dependent creature. You have a moral and legal obligation not only to feed and care for the animal, but to dispense properly with the creature if you decide you can no longer care for the animal. If you cannot do that, you should not have a horse in the first place. The HSUS is developing programs to lay out the facts for would-be horses owners, so that people will make even more informed decisions.

Horse owners have a number of options if they decide to no longer care for their horse. The vast majority of these horses will be purchased or leased by others who are looking for riding or companion horses. Horse rescues and sanctuaries are able to take care of others, and there is a growing network of more than 400 in the United States (The HSUS operates one of the largest sanctuaries—the Black Beauty Ranch near Dallas). Rescue groups take in horses, give them loving care for a short while, and then adopt them to new homes, making space for new horses at their facility. Proponents of horse slaughter fail to mention that these operations can rehome tremendous numbers of horses each year, even if they have limited space on any given day.

A less desirable option is euthanasia, but it’s still a far better option than hauling them long distances and sending them to a slaughterhouse, where the animals experience fear, pain and terror in the killing process. Humane euthanasia by injection generally induces unconsciousness and results in a rapid and humane death. Humane euthanasia and disposal costs amount to less than one month’s care in most parts of the country.

© The HSUS
Sahara and her mother were spared from
slaughter and given sanctuary at The HSUS'
Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch.

All of that aside, I feel that the horse slaughter advocates are basically threatening lawmakers and others taking a look at the ethics of horse slaughter. Their proposition is simple: if some people are not allowed to slaughter horses, then they will be cruel to horses. Well, I don’t think we should look to them for ethical decision-making or put much stock in the credibility of people who would deal with horses in that way.

For those who would choose that route, then they should be prosecuted, as I mentioned above. But I do believe that we’ll see people exert more self control than the horse slaughter advocates suggest.

The best place to look for hard evidence to validate the abandonment theory is California, which banned slaughter by voter initiative in 1998. One would think that abuse and neglect would have been steadily on the rise in California in the past decade, if the horse slaughter advocates' theory was to play out. But in the last 10 years since the ban was imposed, law enforcement and animal care and control agencies have reported no corresponding increase in neglect or abuse cases. There has, however, been a 34 percent drop in horse theft—and one of the purposes of a horse slaughter ban is to halt the illegal acquisition of horses for the slaughter trade.

And let’s look at the larger picture. The American horse population is about 9 million animals, and it’s been on the increase. On average, for the past 5 years, approximately 100,000 American horses have been sent to slaughterhouses annually—slightly more than 1 percent of horses.

And the number has been on the decline for market-related reasons. Not long ago, there were about 10 horse slaughter plants in the United States and twice as many horses being sent to slaughter as there have been in recent years. Earlier this year, before The HSUS and others went to lawmakers and the courts to shut the operations down, there were three operating plants.

So the question is, if the total horse population has been on the increase, and if there are fewer horses going to slaughter, what’s happened to all of these horses? If we accept the argument of horse slaughter advocates, it would stand to reason that we’d have 100,000 or more horses roaming the streets or starving in pastures. But that’s not been the case, and people have been much more responsible than the slaughter industry would give them credit for.

© The HSUS
These horses were led to the very brink of slaughter, then
given a new chance at life.

The objective data also shows that horse slaughter is not the choice of owners who are dealing with lame and very old horses. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture reports, more than 92 percent of horses that are slaughtered are in “good condition,” so could easily lead productive lives in new homes.

The fact is, horse slaughter provides an easy out for indiscriminate breeders and owners who would rather sell their horse to the highest bidder than take proper care of the animal. We should stop rewarding these people with the easy route of slaughter and stop allowing them to profit from irresponsible behavior.

The horse has a special place in the American experience. We do not eat horses, and we do not want them subjected to the cruelties associated with long-distance transport and slaughter so that foreign-owned corporations can profit. If you agree, write your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative, and urge them to support the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, S. 311 and H.R. 503.

Talk Back: Heard on Horse Slaughter

Readers responded from both sides of the fence to last week’s update on the combination of setbacks and progress in the battle to stop the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. Below is a sampler of the comments we received:

This news is really upsetting. But the only way I can keep fighting is knowing that there are thousands and thousands of people also fighting the good fight. There is no excuse for slaughtering pets, companions and wild animals. No excuse. I have faith that we will win this battle. Thank you for all you do and for your strength in keeping this in the fore. —Lisa

What is more humane: slaughtering a horse for protein that some people in this world consider a delicacy or letting hundreds of thousands of horses sit in bare lots and starve to death? You cannot save them all and it is a waste of valuable resources (hay, grass, grain) to keep them alive for what? Because they have feelings. No, they are an animal put on the Earth for man’s use, certainly not to be abused, but for our use either for work or food. Are cows and pigs next? If horses are so dear to your hearts, why not pigs and cows. I have raised both and tamed them to the point of a pet but I knew they were for slaughter and that is where they went. Be reasonable!!!! —David Cooley

Save our horses...THE MOST GRACEFUL ANIMAL ON PLANET EARTH. They are as much a part of family life and culture as our dogs and cats. Considering the action of our state's legislature, in closing the slaughter plants here, I am proud to call myself a Texan. Without horses, this country could not have been tamed and settled. Thus, their historical significance to America. We owe them our love and respect. —Ray Parsley

Thank you for leading the way. We will NEVER stop until this legislation is the law of the land. —Elizabeth Thompson

Help Save Dogs Like Baby

On Monday I told you about my friend Jana Kohl and her adopted dog Baby. Though it's painful to hear, it is at times important to focus on the suffering that animals endure, as a reminder of what we are working to prevent in the future.

Baby, after she was rescued from a
puppy mill.

Because the puppy mill owner did not want to be disturbed, he cut Baby's vocal chords with a scissors so she couldn't bark.

Because the puppy mill owner did not want to clean up after Baby, she was confined in a cramped cage with a chicken wire floor—that was her living space.

One day, Baby's left front leg was broken. The leg was left untreated for more than 10 years, and ultimately had to be amputated.

Sadly, Baby’s story is just one of many that have come across our desks at The Humane Society of the United States. Stories arrive daily of dogs with physical ailments and emotional scars who survived long enough to make it out of the puppy mill, and some who died not long after.

Puppy mills operate largely out of sight and out of mind, but The HSUS is working hard to shine the light on this unseen industry. Today, we need your support to help save dogs like Baby and stop the cruel cycle of puppy mills. I hope you’ll consider making a donation.

Your gift will provide the critical resources we need to investigate and expose this brutal industry, advocate for stricter regulation and enforcement, and educate the public. And then, ultimately, put this inhumane industry out of business for good.

Protect Sharks, Predators of the Sea

If you haven’t yet read John Balzar’s interview with Jean-Michel Cousteau on humanesociety.org, it’s worth your time. Balzar is an award-winning journalist (recipient of the Pulitzer, Ernie Pyle and Robert F. Kennedy International Humanitarian Award, to name a few) who became HSUS’ communications czar after a decade and a half at the Los Angeles Times, where he did some of the nation’s best reporting on nature and the environment, including human assaults on the oceans. Cousteau, carrying on the remarkable legacy of his father, is perhaps the world’s leading advocate for protecting marine environments and marine creatures.

© Undersea Hunter

Cousteau is a leader in the campaign to rehabilitate the image of sharks—the marine world’s apex predators. And the intervention comes not a moment too soon. One-fifth of all sharks and rays are considered to be threatened with extinction, and the annual human-caused toll we take on these sea creatures is staggering, with body counts that rival the slaughter totals we see amassed in industrial production of farm animals for food.

Shark finning and commercial fishing probably claim more than 100 million sharks a year, though precise numbers are impossible to come by. Shark finning is particularly indefensible and grotesque. Live sharks have their fins cut off and then the animals are often thrown back into the water, descending to the ocean floor and enduring agonizing deaths.

The fins are collected and sold to make shark fin soup—a broth that broadcasts wealth and prestige in Asian communities, particularly China. A more atrocious waste of life you will be hard-pressed to pinpoint, even in this world where so many people treat animal life as cheap and expendable.

There’s also homegrown mayhem on the shark front. Shark contests and tournaments now dot America’s coastline, and we are at the height of the shark tournament season. At these spectacles, commercial fishermen pursue and capture sharks, in order to win prizes for landing the biggest creatures. The prize-winning catches are hoisted up and displayed so the winners can bask in the adulation of spectators. It’s little more than contest killing, and the motivations could not be more gratuitous.