Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation

Bleatings from the Ag Lobby

Before The Humane Society of the United States helped to pass laws in Arizona, Florida and Oregon to ban some of the most inhumane confinement methods on factory farms, there were virtually no legal standards to provide even the most minimal protections for animals raised for food while on the farm. Even the measures in these states addressed only the confinement of breeding sows in crates so small the animals were not even able to turn around, and the Arizona initiative also banned the confinement of calves in the notorious veal crate. The new laws ensure that the animals in these states will at least be able to lie down, turn around and extend their limbs.

© USDA

Steve Kopperud, an agribusiness industry lobbyist, gave a lecture yesterday in Little Rock to the Arkansas Farm Bureau and said I and The HSUS are the greatest enemies farmers have (read the story here)—more menacing than drought, global warming, locusts or bird flu, competition from agribusiness conglomerates, trade with Brazil or Argentina, manure regulations, the migration of young people from farming to other occupations, and anything else you can think of.

It's truly a fanciful and incredible statement—and an entirely false one. The HSUS has nothing against farmers—after all, every HSUS member is a food consumer and has a food budget as large as that of every other consumer. While we all support agriculture every time we sit down to eat, we do insist that farmers be more attentive to animals and the environment. We are particularly concerned about the harshest confinement systems, transport methods, and slaughter practices that are grossly inhumane and unacceptable.

Embedded in the age-old practice of animal husbandry was at least some concern for the well-being of animals. Now, increasingly, factory farmers and their allies in industry, government, and academia treat animals like mere meat-, milk- and egg-producing machines. They are thought of as commodities, or units of production, and not living beings who feel and suffer.

I guess for those who think of animals simply as things or commodities, we are something of an enemy, though I prefer to think of us as an adversary. But for those who care about animals, we are anything but an enemy or an adversary. The actual enemy more closely resembles industry lobbyists who demagogue the issues, who shill for giant agribusiness concerns, and who pull farmers away from a connection with the sensibilities of the American public and their demonstrable concern for the well-being of all animals, including those raised for food.

Talk Back: Common Cause

Readers responded to the blog about compassion for animals being a universal value and the new book by Mark Levin, an influential conservative, about his love for dogs and his concern for animal welfare.

Thank you for positively reinforcing the interconnectedness of all... can't wait to get my copy. —Andrea

I'm very glad to see Mr. Pacelle choose this issue to invite comments. It is very close to my heart. I am a right-wing conservative and a registered Republican. I listen to Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, et al every day, but I have very liberal views on animal rights and conservation. I do not seem to share any of the socially liberal views of my animal rights friends, yet I am opposed to conservatively acceptable issues like sport hunting, meat consumption and live animal testing.

I have been very pleasantly surprised lately to hear conservative radio talk show hosts speak out against foie gras, dogfighting and the Chinese cat and dog meat/fur industries. I heard one say that it is our responsibility to speak out on behalf of children and animals who have no other voice. I heard another say that "there must be a special place in hell" for people who abuse or neglect dogs. Many were very angry when the Michael Vick atrocities came to light, and very vocal in their opposition. They generally agreed that this was an issue worth attacking. It's nice to hear this from people who support offshore oil drilling, sport hunting and forest thinning (to which I am opposed)! It may not be enough, but it's a start!

Animal rights and environmental conservation feel like "conservative" issues to me but, as Mr. Pacelle says, they have always been associated with the liberal left and therefore ignored, opposed or ridiculed by right wing conservatives. I do not understand this at all. Animal rights issues should neither be "left" nor "right." I was delighted to see Matthew Scully write "Dominion" and I am equally thrilled to see Mark Levin write "Rescuing Sprite." He seems to be encouraging his listeners to consider adopting from shelters and rescue groups, although he does not oppose buying puppies in pet shops. The experience of having to euthanize his dog was agonizing, according to Mr. Levin. I found it really touching that the people who were the most empathetic to his grief about his pup were Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh!

Educating conservatives on the atrocities of horse slaughter or puppy mills or primates in research might bring the subject of animal rights into the mainstream and make it a more acceptable issue to fight for. I would love to hear what other people think. When I hear a very conservative radio talk show host become angry about dogfighting or passionate about animal adoption, I feel as if he or she might seriously consider speaking out against live animal research or meat consumption if educated in a manner in which they could relate. —Jill L Gershen

Evidence Against Science's Scare Tactics

One of the most frustrating industries to deal with in all animal protection is the animal research community. Although there are many scientists who care about animal welfare, demagogues abound within this fraternity, and they are the masters of Chicken Little scare tactics, as if every animal they prod, poke or cut open is going to yield some life-saving remedy.

There's a classic example of this at work in the current debate in Congress over legislation to ban Class B dealers of random source dogs and cats, including stolen pets—one of the true abuses in the sector. B dealers procure dogs and cats from "random sources" and sell them to a dwindling number of research facilities that use these animals in experiments. Recently, the American Heart Association sent around a letter opposing a measure pushed by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) to ban this practice. I asked Dr. Martin Stephens, our vice president for animal research issues, for his thoughts.

Scientists are trained to dispassionately weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis or a claim, including their own. As someone who was trained as a scientist and later pursued a career in animal protection, I’m continually appalled at how quickly some scientists shed their impartiality and critical faculties when their self-interest appears to clash with sensible reform for animals in laboratories. The latest case in point is the AHA’s defense of using Class B dealers as a supplier of random source dogs and cats.

The AHA dusts off the “status quo is fine” argument: placing B dealers off-limits as a supplier of random source dogs and cats is “unnecessary because the Animal Welfare Act already requires these … dealers to obtain animals legally and treat them humanely…” This statement ignores: (i) more than 40 years of evidence of dealers not obtaining dogs and cats legally nor treating them humanely, including the recent case of C.C. Baird, (ii) the USDA’s own admission that it lacks the resources to effectively regulate B dealers, (iii) the limited value of the USDA’s efforts to confirm the identity of people who sold animals to B dealers, and (iv) the shadowy world of unregulated “bunchers” who supply dogs and cats to B dealers.

AHA’s second argument is a variation of the sky-will-fall scare tactic: Sen. Akaka’s amendment “would jeopardize medical research on heart disease, stroke, …, and digestive diseases that require non-purpose bred dogs and cats….” This argument ignores the fact that non-purpose bred (or random source) dogs and cats would not be outlawed, just the middlemen who now supply some of them. Moreover, AHA’s associated arguments: (i) confuse the source of animals with the genetic status of those animals (genetically uniform versus genetically diverse), and (ii) claim that genetically diverse animals are better human models, despite the fact that throughout biomedical research, genetically uniform animals have been thought to be better models. Good scientists seek to rigorously control their studies and not willingly introduce unknown, data-skewing variables.

Similarly, AHA trots out the old "medical progress versus animal protection" canard: Sen. Akaka’s amendment is “anti-medical research.” But one doesn’t learn from the AHA letter that many responsible scientists strongly endorse the Akaka amendment, including Dr. Robert Whitney, former Acting Surgeon General and former director of the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Research Resources, with 25 years of experience in the care and use of animals in biomedical research.

A dwindling number of research facilities continue to purchase random source dogs and cats from a dwindling number of licensed Class B dealers. They do so because it may be cheaper and it's the way they've always done things, not because of any loftier motives. The research community should face up to the evidence and cut this issue loose.

Penned Prey

Last night, Randy Travis of Fox 5 in Atlanta aired part two of his investigation into so-called fox pens—enclosures where foxes and coyotes are released and torn apart by hounds. The animals cannot escape, and the odds are stacked heavily in favor of the pack of hounds taking on a single, frightened animal. Although enthusiasts cast this as a form of hunting, it is in fact nothing more than a permutation on organized animal fighting.

Fox 5's I-Team investigation tracked a man from North Carolina who was trapping and smuggling coyotes and foxes, cramming them into small cages and crates, and selling them throughout the South to fox pen operators, who then used the animals for this perverse form of recreation.

On the scale of hunting abuses, let me know how bad you think this abuse is. Is it worse than canned hunts? How does it compare to bear baiting? Or aerial gunning of wolves in Alaska? Or contest shoots?

It raises the question: Who within the hunting fraternity serves as a watchdog? Is there anyone within the hunting fraternity who checks the excesses of rogue, reckless and vicious hunters?

Fenced-In Fox Hunting

Earlier this month, a Humane Society of the United States investigation revealed that the puppy mill industry in Virginia, and probably the entire nation, is much larger than any of us had thought. We found 1,000 commercial dog breeding operations in Virginia, and just 16 were licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

© iStockphoto

Alarm bells are going off for us on another industry—the fox pen industry, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. Coyotes and foxes are caught in steel traps or snares, kept alive, sold to fox pen operators, released in a pen, and then chased down and torn apart by packs of hounds. This practice is an amalgam of canned hunts and animal fighting—two of the most odious practices we contend with.

Federal and state authorities made arrests in a multi-state sting operation of fox pens earlier this month, bringing charges against pen operators and trappers from four states. In Virginia, there are 41 fox pens, and 36 were out of compliance.

Last night, Fox 5 in Atlanta aired an exposé of fox pens in Georgia. The investigation found 59 fox pens, and showed video of coyotes being torn apart by dogs, even though state regulations supposedly stipulate that the quarry are to have access to holes or enclosures that allow them to escape unharmed from the packs of hounds.

Tonight, Fox 5 is broadcasting part two of its investigation that focuses on the capture of foxes and coyotes, and how they are smuggled into the state. Fox 5 reporter Randy Travis, who led the investigation, has written more about the horror and secrecy of these operations at his blog. You might take a moment to post a comment of support for his work.

This entire sordid industry commands The HSUS's attention, and we will work hard over the next few months and years to eradicate these vile operations.

Starved for Space

I have been thinking a lot about space—not the virtually limitless area beyond our atmosphere where distance is measured in light years, but the very definite and measurable space in which we spend our lives on planet Earth.

I spend a great deal of time on planes. I keep expenses down by getting the cheapest fares and flying coach, often forgetting to check in online and having to suffer with a middle seat. I am a pretty tall guy, and I am shoe-horned in to these seats. I am learning to type on my laptop with my elbows pressed against my ribcage and the reclined seat in front of me inches away from my head. In the scheme of things, it's a minor and entirely bearable hardship, but it is a reminder to me about the importance of space and comfort.

© Compassion Over Killing
Egg-laying hens languish in restrictive,
overcrowded battery cages.

I have been thinking about it more because of the California ballot initiative The HSUS has launched, in concert with other animal protection groups such as our friends at Farm Sanctuary. The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act is, more than anything, about space—for veal calves, pregnant sows and egg-laying hens, who these days are kept in severe confinement in cages or crates barely larger than their bodies. The measure—now being circulated for voters' signatures to qualify it for the November 2008 ballot—would stipulate that these animals be able to extend their limbs, lie down, and turn around. It's a simple and modest reform, but one with many implications for these creatures.

The veal calves and gestating sows are in crates just larger than their bodies, and multiple hens are crammed into a battery cage that gives each bird about 67 square inches, according to the egg industry standard (that's about two-thirds the size of an 8 1/2 by 11 inch piece of paper per bird). In these cages and crates, the animals are effectively immobilized for nearly every moment of their lives.

Yet, the industry and the animal scientists who shill for the industry try to tell us that it's better for animals to be crammed into cages and crates. They face fewer risks and less aggression if they are trapped in a cage, the assertion goes.

I guess we'd face little risk of human aggression and some other diminished threats if we lived in a cage our entire lives. But it wouldn't be much of a life. And that's the problem with these industry scientists. If you just take narrow measures—such as longevity, output, or production—and fail to see the whole, you can convince yourself that this extreme confinement of animals is acceptable. But it just doesn't pass the common sense test. Animals built to move should be allowed to move—in fact, that's the way much of animal agriculture was conducted for centuries before agribusiness interests developed factory farms that now dominate most animal production sectors.

The fact is, the industry did not opt for intensive confinement systems for the benefit of the animals. It moved in this direction because it returned more profits. By not allowing animals to move, you don't have to feed them as much. By packing more of them into smaller and smaller areas, you can raise more animals in a set amount of space. If your worldview is to think of animals like nothing more than commodities—simply as meat-, milk- and egg-producing machines—then the system seems entirely rational.

© Farm Sanctuary
Calves raised for veal are tethered in small crates, unable
to turn around.

But if you as a consumer fly in coach and experience a little discomfort in doing so, you know that space matters. You'd go mad if you lived your entire life in an airline seat. We as consumers go to great lengths to get a window or aisle seat. We are thrilled to be seated in Economy Plus on United or American, which gives us a whopping five additional inches of space. Virgin America, a new airline, now allows you to spend an extra $15 to get an economy plus seat. These little benefits do matter to us.

And they surely matter to the millions of animals on factory farms today, particularly the veal calves, the breeding pigs and the laying hens who endure the worst privations in modern agribusiness.

If you live in California, please volunteer to collect signatures to get this measure on the ballot. If you don't but know people of conscience who live there, forward them this blog and encourage them to get involved. If you'll do so, you'll help lessen the terrible suffering that these animals endure. Space matters.

Talking Turkey

Thanksgiving has always been a bittersweet holiday for me. I enjoy the idea of taking a respite from the frenetic pace of life and simply coming together as family or community, celebrating together and giving thanks for what we have. These occasions remind us of the important bonds in our lives, and it is too easy in the tumult of daily life to forget those ties.

© iStockphoto

On the other hand, there is no American holiday more associated with the use of an animal than Thanksgiving. In the United States, we consume 45 million turkeys on this holiday alone, and the increasingly distressing part of the equation for me is that the vast majority of these turkeys are raised in intensive confinement on factory farms. More so, the USDA excludes turkeys and all other birds slaughtered for human consumption in the United States from legal protections under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act—though a landmark court case filed by The HSUS could change that. The abuses these birds suffer should not be tolerated by our society.

Beyond the confinement and lack of oversight, we've morphed these poor creatures through selective breeding into meat-producing machines. The domesticated turkeys raised now on factory farms bear scant resemblance to the wild turkeys inhabiting our forests. The wild birds are alert, fast-flying, and roost in trees. The domesticated turkeys are grossly obese, they cannot run or fly, and they cannot even reproduce on their own. Yet for all of our redesigns of their bodies, we have not been able to take away their ability to suffer.

On Thanksgiving, we should not forget their circumstance, however convenient it may be to do so. Thanksgiving is an opportunity to choose a kinder approach in our consumer choices, and to renew our commitment to mitigating our impact on the lives of other creatures.

In a larger sense, I do want to thank you—the readers of this blog—for taking the time to read my entries. I enjoy writing the blog, and most of all, I enjoy your feedback and your support. We are in this fight for animals together, and it's nice to know we are not alone. The progress we are making is astounding, and that should encourage each of you.

Talk Back: Words of Encouragement

Readers echoed the feelings expressed by Michele, who asked how to keep a positive attitude when animal suffering seems endless. Among their feedback:

The question from Michele is so close to my heart. I feel these same emotions every day, some days are much worse than others in my sadness. I find resolve through the HSUS site in many, many ways; reading about the bad, the good and the uplifting things people do helps me balance. So many books have been written about animals and the good that can come from humans; the knowledge is powerful and does seem to help the pain go away. Most of all, I look to Wayne's words in this above answer for my energy. Thank you and let’s all take resolve in the changes that seem to be coming. —Debbie

Thank you for this very important blog entry. Depression and feelings of helplessness are, I think, afflictions that all in humane work suffer from. They can be devastating to some. Perhaps The HSUS can work with professionals in applicable fields to come up with information or guidance for those who are involved in humane work or support it, and provide ideas for coping skills and ways to persevere despite great emotional pain and sadness. —Ted

You are so right on this subject. We must never get discouraged. If the Michael Vick case had a silver lining it was this. The outrage on the part of the American people was so overwhelming. It crossed all demographics and all political party lines. This mass outrage clearly showed us that the huge majority of the American people care deeply and passionately about how we treat our animals. Yes, there is a ways to go. But we are winning, and will continue to do so. Especially with The HSUS leading the way for us every single day. I am so proud and thankful to be a member of The HSUS. —Grace

Race to Replace

Change for animals will come about with an evolution in consciousness about animals and a recognition that we must respect their interests. But change will also come about with innovation—as we discard old ways that involved the exploitation of animals in favor of activities that do not involve animals at all.

An article in yesterday's New York Times highlights the efforts of major cosmetic companies to meet a directive by the European Union to phase out animal testing of products and ingredients by March 2009. U.S. companies that want to market cosmetics in Europe will also need to abide by the ban.

Thousands of animals—rabbits, rats, mice and guinea pigs—are used annually in the European Union for cosmetics testing. A number of cosmetics companies are investing heavily in developing alternative methods. L’Oréal, which owns the Body Shop, a global cosmetics company that lobbied hard for the EU regulations against animal testing, has devoted more than $800 million in the last 20 years to alternatives development. And Procter & Gamble, maker of the Cover Girl line, has spent almost $225 million. The EU government is also funding research and development, with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods playing a leading role.

I asked Dr. Martin Stephens, our vice president for Animal Research Issues, to comment. Here's what he had to say:

In addition to the EU Cosmetics Directive, there are other policy and scientific developments driving change. The EU’s REACH legislation calls for industry to assemble toxicity information on tens of thousands of existing chemicals that lack full safety information—a task that would be too time-consuming and expensive if industry relied exclusively on animal-based methods. And here in the United States, the National Research Council recently issued a vision for the future of toxicity testing that calls for a move away from animal testing and towards more modern and efficient non-animal methods.

The HSUS family of organizations, including Humane Society International and the Humane Society Legislative Fund, is playing an active role in ushering in a new era of non-animal testing. A partial list of our involvement: serving on the NRC panel that issued the new vision, lobbying for animal-friendly amendments to the REACH legislation and for transatlantic harmonization in validated alternative methods, and preparing to launch a website devoted exclusively to non-animal methods of testing. We've also lobbied for federal appropriations to fund alternatives development and to require the use of alternatives in California and New Jersey.

The challenge now is for disparate stakeholders in industry, government, academia and nongovernmental organizations to better coordinate their efforts in developing alternative methods, and for the United States to play a greater role in these international efforts. The HSUS will continue to do its part to hasten the day when no animal is used in safety testing.

Defiant Slaughter at Sea

In 1992, presidential candidate Ross Perot spoke of a giant sucking sound—referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement and how its adoption was going to take away American jobs. Well, the giant sucking sound today is coming from Japan and China, whose governments and people are devouring marine and terrestrial animal life on a monumental scale to serve their consumption habits and self-professed cultural traditions.

© OAR
The once nearly extinct humpback whale
will be targeted in Japan's hunt.

Japan and China have established themselves as two of the world's most rapacious wildlife-killing nations. China is abetting the killing of elephants, tigers, bears, turtles and so many other creatures by providing markets for their products and allowing their sale to its billion-plus population. Several tons of turtles are exported every week from Sumatra to China, and that's just one species from one country. But the Japanese are reminding the world that its own destructive policies are every bit as pernicious, with its latest launching of a flotilla of ships to attack and kill up to 1,000 whales in the southern Pacific and the Antarctic.

The sad fact is, much of the whale meat that its commercial whaling fleet returns to the nation does not even get consumed. Killing humpbacks, fin and minke whales now seems just a point of pride to Japanese fishing leaders, who thumb their nose at the global animal welfare and conservation community and encourage the slaughter of the greatest living beings ever to live on our planet.

These creatures are larger than the dinosaurs that roamed the earth hundreds of millions of years ago, and killing them for these frivolous purposes is a moral crime against nature. Our descendants will judge the Japanese harshly, and we will never forget the failure of leadership in an educated and economically stable nation. It is greed, pride and a lust for killing that animates the nation's behavior—and there's nothing good or decent about it. We can only hope that young Japanese, worldly and connected to the happenings across the globe through the entertainment and the telecommunications industries, rebel and assert a more rational and sensible set of policies.

Weight of Our Words

The lives of people and animals have always been bound together—in prehistory and in the time since the advent of agriculture and modern civilization. But for most of human history, the dominant worldview has been to subdue and to dominate nature, including the animals.

Language has been a powerful tool in reinforcing that perspective. And it's only been in the last 150 years—at least in the Western civilization—that a challenge to this worldview has been mounted, with the emergence of the environmental and animal protection movements in the 19th century. They sought to reshape society's relationship with animals and nature, driven in part by enlightened self-interest and also an expanding sphere of moral concern in Western thought.

Today still, though, there are so many people who attempt to turn animals and the environment into mere utilities and instruments for people. The factory farmer calls animals "units of production." Animal experimenters sometimes call animals "tools for research." And state fish and wildlife professionals call deer, bears, ducks and other wildlife "game to be harvested on a sustained yield basis." In all of these cases, this use of language conveys that animals are things or objects. It makes the mistreatment of other creatures less morally relevant and the exploitation of these creatures all the easier.

Many children do not see the natural world in such hierarchical terms. They have an intuitive common sense, and an empathy for others. They see other animals as peers, though they happen to look and act differently than we do.

It's in this spirit that I was so pleased to read a short essay in The Hartford Courant last week from Noah Williams, a second grader who disagreed with classifying an animal as a "thing" during a recent grammar lesson.

Take a look at his essay. It says so much, and if only the adults of our world would heed his simple and powerful thoughts.

Why Animals Should Not Be Called Things

By Noah S.B. Williams

Animals should not be called things because they are beings, not things.

Shame on the people who call animals things.

If I could I would give the person who first called animals things a
talking-to. I would not call animals things.

Think about this. If you loved someone, would you call them a thing? I
wish no one had ever called animals things.

Why would you call your pet a thing?

A rug or something is a thing, but not an animal. He or she is not a
thing! This is not funny, it's all true. I would not lie to you about
this. It's not a joke.

Do not lie to me, either.

Talk Back: Problem-Solving for Homeless Pets

Readers responded with a flood of feedback to last week's blog about the apparent rift in the humane movement over the no kill issue. I'll have more to say on the issue in a future blog, but I also wanted to hear from so many of you with an interest in the issue. Among the comments I received:

You voiced, in the most articulate way, the thoughts I have had about this issue. Every thing you stated makes perfect sense. I have been thinking about how there is still this air of complacency about the issue of euthanizing pets in our country. I've been feeling more and more troubled by it. I adopted a dog and two cats from my local shelter, and I am so happy I did. And this issue has been with me since then. I am glad you are taking a leadership position, and I hope to see more political action taken. I want to know what my candidates have to say about pet-related welfare issues. Our government should be doing something about unregulated puppy mills, we should be enacting mandatory spay and neuter requirements for pit bulls, we should continue to educate the public about this unacceptable, flat out unacceptable, practice of killing healthy pets due to overpopulation. Thank you for this straightforward, plain-spoken approach to this important issue. —Kathleen

Kudos on this article. It mirrors my own point of view to a T! Reverence for life MUST extend to these precious creatures. That must be the value system that governs decisions about how to deal with animals at shelters. As Dr. Albert Schweitzer said, "Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace." —Mike Schwager

Thank you so much for making such an important point. Chinese medicine believes you work on the "branches" of the problem to get to the "root"; you don't just attack the entire tree all at once. I strive to work with other advocates to create a community where no healthy, treatable or manageable animal is euthanized because of space or resources. But, (always a but) we are not there yet. We have to continue to fight cruelty, particularly puppy mills and fighting; continue to strengthen pet parent's understanding of the importance of spay/neuter; spend time with children teaching them about humane treatment of animals; and strengthen the positive reputations of the shelters and rescue groups within our community to encourage adoption. We can do this! But Rome wasn't built in a day. Whenever I get discouraged or overwhelmed I find inspiration by spending a day with my own pets doing something "extra fun" like going for a swim or hike or letting them on the bed with me for a movie and a nap. I absorb their energy and gratitude because once, not so long ago, they were homeless, too. Keep up your efforts and I will keep up mine. Together we will keep the torch of hope alive for all! —Shannon

I live in a very rural area of Maryland. There are three groups out in this area that help animals. I specifically do the TNR of ferals and help drive animals to rescues where they will not be put down. Our shelter has a very low adoption rate. It can only hold 12 dogs at one time. Adult cats are not often adopted. One of the groups has started a fundraiser to build a million dollar no kill shelter. This is a result of our county government not being willing to do it with our abundant county funds. I wholeheartedly believe that shelters can go no kill. Facilities must be made larger and more attractive so animals can have large enclosures and a great environment while waiting to be adopted by people that can't wait to go to this beautiful shelter. Thanks. —Linda

Very well said. I've told a lot of people that we should stop breeding dogs and cats and I'm always incredulous when they state “They'll die out.” It's the most inane argument I've heard with millions of dogs and cats in shelters. We're quite a long way from dogs and cats “dying out” and it's folly to think that we can shut down ALL breeding facilities or people who foolishly breed their pets. Too few people also understand why the “no kill” policy can be detrimental and simply lead to skipping cats and dogs to “kill” shelters. Thank you for enlightening people about that little known fact. I hope more and more people will think about the consequences before they accept from breeders or breed animals themselves. True animal lovers should consider the impact of their actions. —Sara N

You Asked: Save the Seals

As I write this, animal advocates are gathered at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., for a "Rally for Seals." With their efforts in mind, today I thought it timely to answer the following question from Kathleen.

Q. I would like to know why we are not more actively pounding Canada for their abomination that is the seal hunt each year. This is gross. I cannot think of a word that truly describes how wrong this is. It's like murdering babies in their cribs. Can we really stand by and not boycott all that is Canadian? I'm making a stink wherever I can; will you?

A. Please know The Humane Society of the United States is leading the global fight to stop Canada's commercial seal hunt. To have the largest impact, as an organization we are focusing our limited resources on the seafood sector in Canada. Our boycott of Canadian seafood has been strategically designed to hit seal hunters where it hurts the most: in their pocketbooks. And it's the closest connection to an internationally traded commodity that is closely linked to sealing, since it is off-season fishermen who are killing the seals and since seal hunters rationalize the killing by saying they are helping to protect fish from the seals.

Every day, more companies and individuals are pledging not to buy Canadian seafood until the slaughter of seals ends for good. Soon, fishermen will be forced to choose between the industry that brings in 95 percent of their incomes (seafood) and the small percentage earned killing seals.

In Europe, we are shutting down the markets for seal products—removing the financial incentive for sealers. In September 2006, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for an EU ban on the trade in harp and hooded seal products. Already, the price of seal skins has dropped dramatically from last year.

And every year, the ProtectSeals team is on the ice to document the slaughter, expose the cruelty to the world, and facilitate journalists, scientists and parliamentarians to do the same. The international outcry generated by our reports and video footage has driven the Canadian government to resort to desperate tactics in order to cover up the cruelty that takes place on the ice.

This October, five members of the ProtectSeals team went on trial on the unfounded charges that they had been slightly within the 10-meter distance from sealers required by their observation permits. At the close of the prosecution’s case we disclosed the full extent of our video evidence, which objectively shows that no offense ever took place. The prosecution immediately asked for an adjournment. The trial is scheduled to resume on May 6, 2008.

Check our action toolkit for a list of ways you can support our work to end the Canadian seal hunt.

If you have a question about The HSUS, offer a comment through the blog or email your query. I may post it in a future blog.

Spreading the News

Watch our new PSA featuring Russell Simmons.

One of the big challenges we face at The Humane Society of the United States is a lack of awareness about what we do. We fight hard to bring awareness to the American public on a whole range of subjects—horse slaughter, pets in disasters, factory farming, animal fighting, puppy mills and pet overpopulation, and so much more—and the exposure we've gained this week on a range of issues provides a case example of how we get the word out.

Yesterday, The HSUS and BeKind, created by stalwart HSUS supporter and HSUS National Council member Frances Hayward, released a television public service announcement against dogfighting featuring hip hop mogul Russell Simmons. I saw Russell this summer at a house party Frances held for The HSUS on Long Island, and the three of us hatched the plan to do the PSA. Russell's been a long-time advocate of animal protection and he did a fabulous job in the spot. Please pitch the spot to your local TV stations—encourage them to air this important message and make sure it is seen by millions. If you find a station that is interested, let us know.

Also this week, I have a column in Newsweek about my own path toward animal protection. The autobiographical piece traces how I gained a major measure of resolve on the issue after witnessing a live pigeon shoot when I was in college. Newsweek wanted a picture with me and an animal for my column, so I asked them to join me at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary in Maryland, a favorite retreat where farm animals get a second chance at life. Poplar Spring founders Dave Hoerauf and Teri Cummings introduced me to more than a dozen 700-pound rescued pigs, and it was a blast. Dave fed them pumpkins to get them moving around the barn, and watching them munch whole pumpkins brought out-loud laughter from me.

Click to see a larger version of
our ad against Wendy's.

In Sunday's New York Times, I was pictured with my cat Libby in a story about nonprofit mergers. The story included The HSUS's combinations with The Fund for Animals and the Doris Day Animal League, and how all three groups have synchronized operations and eliminated duplicative operational and support functions. Through these actions, we have saved donors $1.5 million a year and rechanneled that money into programmatic activities, such as an expanded Campaigns section and an Animal Protection Litigation section.

And on Monday of this week, The HSUS placed a full-page ad in USA Today on our campaign to pressure Wendy's to adopt better standards in terms of its egg-buying practices. Wendy's now only buys eggs from hens crammed into battery cages on factory farms. Its competitors, including Burger King, Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., are now purchasing some cage-free eggs, and that's a trend that Wendy's should no longer resist. We are asking supporters to contact Wendy's and urge the company to make a meaningful pledge to improve animal welfare in its supply chain.

And by the way, The HSUS should have a full-page ad about our work in tomorrow's New York Times, and our puppy mill investigation should be featured tomorrow morning on ABC's "Good Morning America." Watch for them both if you have a chance to pick up the Times and tune into GMA, which airs at 7 a.m.

Talk Back: California Animal Relief

Readers continue to react to the wildfires that ravaged Southern California in late October and were relieved to hear the animals and staff of the Fund for Animals Wildlife Center escaped harm. Among the comments we received:

THANK YOU so much for your help. I work at the Escondido Humane Society in Escondido, Calif. I was evacuated from my own home. Luckily I got all of my 10 animals, but I know many who did not. Like your blog said there are many animals running free, and even worse some were left trapped inside homes. The situation at my shelter and every other animal rescue in SoCal is dire. We appreciate the nationwide support TREMENDOUSLY. Love and hope, Liz

Thank you for the coverage of trouble we in the animal world are going through here in SoCal, and for the efforts of your organization! —Nikita

I was so very thankful that Cindi and Chuck and the Fund [for Animals] came out safe! I am a former volunteer from the Fund and have tried to keep up to date regarding it. I was so worried about the fires, as was everyone across the U.S. and wish I could be there to help. Thank you for all your hard work. —Elizabeth A. Prim

I just wanted to say I am so relieved to hear the animals have made it through this horrific ordeal. I live in Northern California and have wanted to get in my RV and come down to help out, but I knew I would not get through. By the way, Sampson is adorable!!! Thanks Chuck and Cindy for all you do with animals… I have such a love for all animals! —Shelly Campbell

Thanks so much for this terribly important work you're doing. I saw some video on CNN of horses that had been burned in these horrible fires, and my heart just broke. It's excruciating, knowing that these poor, defenseless creatures are suffering like this, but knowing The HSUS is on the case makes me feel less hopeless and helpless. Bless you for this work. —Mary Shafer

Cruel New Twist for Trapped Animals

There are some sport hunting practices that are simply beyond the pale. Bear baiting, high-tech hound hunting, pheasant stocking, contest kills and canned hunts are among the worst. These practices are at odds with the rhetoric that hunters and hunting leaders employ in defending hunting, such as hunting playing a role in controlling populations, hunters abiding by fair chase standards, and the wildlife management industry not allowing the commercial and market exploitation of wildlife populations. All of the hunting practices mentioned above violate these self-expressed norms.

© iStockphoto

But truly one of the most appalling practices is the live leghold trapping or snaring of coyotes and foxes, keeping these wild animals in cages as captives, selling them to hunting clubs, and then releasing them into penned or caged areas where they will be chased and attacked by hunting dogs. These "coyote pens" or "fox pens" provide a way to train hunting dogs and instill greater aggression in them, and are also just plain entertainment for the "hunters" who organize these spectacles. One coyote or fox may be pitted against as many as 20 hunting dogs, with the hunters periodically releasing "fresh" dogs to continue the chase. It's a fee-for-service program.

Yesterday, the law came down on individuals perpetrating this cruelty in a multi-state sting. Law enforcement personnel from Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia shut down 36 fox and coyote pens for violations of their permits, and charges will be leveled against those involved.

Fifty-five foxes, 25 coyotes and two bobcats, along with a moonshine still and 33 cardinals apparently used as bait, were seized in yesterday's probe—the culmination of a two-year undercover investigation.

This is a sick practice—an amalgam of canned hunting and animal fighting—and it must be put to an end. We've been working for the past few months in Indiana to crack down on the practice there. Indiana and other Midwestern states are major suppliers of coyotes to pen operators in the East and South.

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has proposed a rule that would require trappers to kill coyotes within 24 hours of taking them—during off-season only*. This would prevent individuals from selling Indiana coyotes into the live market for only part of the year. The Indiana DNR and the state legislature need to take action and stop this practice year-round. All states should close their borders to this commercial trade in live wildlife and this odious cruelty.

*Editor's Note: The proposed rule would apply outside of Indiana's coyote trapping season, not during the season as previously stated.

Lights, Camera, Animals

The Humane Society of the United States is headquartered in Washington, D.C., but we have offices all over the nation. We believe in work in the field as a means of spreading our message and organizing the nation. We have 35 HSUS state directors, and we are on our way to having directors in all 50 states.

Bianca Kajlich (with our new logo shirt)
and David Spade of "Rules of Engagement."

For a number of years, we've had an office in Hollywood—and one of its functions has been to organize and produce the Genesis Awards, which honors members of the media and the entertainment industry for incorporating animal protection themes into their works.

The HSUS Hollywood Office works throughout the year to provide information and encouragement to writers, producers and other entertainment industry professionals to shine the spotlight on animals. On tonight's episode of "Rules of Engagement" (airing on CBS at 9:30 p.m. EST/PST) Bianca Kajlich debuts our new logo shirt to a prime time audience of nearly 10 million viewers. My thanks to TV writer/producer Carol Leifer ("Seinfeld," "Ellen") for casting The HSUS in this role.

You may remember that Carol was the winning bidder for notes used by Michael Vick, which were auctioned to support our animal fighting campaign. Look for more about Carol, her six rescue dogs and her support of The HSUS in the upcoming winter edition of All Animals, our quarterly magazine for HSUS supporters who have made a minimum $25 gift within the last year.

And to help spread the word, get one of our new logo tees at Humane Domain, The HSUS's official online store.

Committed to Exposing Puppy Mills

© The HSUS/Kathy Milani
A dog from the Virginia puppy mill with her newborn pups.

You may have read a story on humanesociety.org or read news accounts in the last day or two about the rescue of  hundreds of dogs at a Hillsville, Va., puppy mill in southwest Virginia. The plight of more than 1,000 animals there in overcrowded cages came to light after The HSUS released the results of a five-month investigation of commercial dog breeding operations in the Commonwealth. Horton's Pups was selling dogs to pet stores, yet was not even licensed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture—a violation of federal law. 

HSUS staff from our Companion Animals, Disaster Services, and other sections deployed to Carroll County on Thursday and worked with county officials and others to take possession of the dogs—poodles, shih tzus, Yorkshire terriers, King Charles spaniels, and other small breeds.

The dogs, first  examined by vets, were moved to shelters for further care and later adoption. 

Please do read our website accounts and take a moment to review our video news report from the site. The HSUS is committed to exposing puppy mills, educating the public about not buying dogs from pet stores or through the Internet, and strengthening state and federal laws to crack down on these operators.

We will keep you apprised as we continue to work with county officials in this case. To help, you can take the pledge to stop puppy mills and spread the word.

Setting Aside Semantics: Not Killing Pets Must Be Our Goal

If you discern a difference between the words, 'no kill,' and the words, "No-Kill," you understand that I'm about to wade into a quarrel.

If, on the other hand, you don't see much difference except for capital letters and a hyphen, well good for you. You're on the right track.

You see, America views those of us in the animal protection movement as being against the needless killing of animals. America happens to be correct. Everyone sincerely committed to the cause of animal protection embraces the concept of animals living complete and quality lives—uninterrupted by torment or cruelty.

Addressing pet overpopulation is essential
to helping animals in shelters.

The organization I lead has been committed to the principle of protecting animal life since its inception more than a half-century ago, and so are our members and staff. It was The HSUS, more than any other group, that pioneered the concepts of legislation, education, and sterilization to combat the pet overpopulation problem.

We don't just say it, mind you. It's the foundation of everything we do and of every aspiration we hold.

So am I in favor of no kill? You bet I am. Have been and always will be. And, yes, so is The HSUS.

There is, of course, more to the story. Some in our movement have been advancing a different kind of "No-Kill." This "No-Kill" means operating animal shelters in which healthy and treatable dogs and cats are not euthanized for time and space considerations.

The "No-Kill" crusade, as embodied by its responsible voices, has done its share of good for our humane movement. It has asked tough questions and prompted a re-examination of the purpose of animal shelters in the United States. That's healthy and needed.

So, no kill as a philosophy is noble; no kill as an objective or aspiration is essential. Really, nothing else can be our goal.

But ... and naturally, there is a "but" here. But "No-Kill" as an outcome cannot be universally expected to occur overnight, and it cannot succeed without multi-pronged efforts by committed communities. Its conscientious backers recognize that. It's simple mathematics. If euthanasia is not occurring and intake of dogs and cats is significantly exceeding adoptions, then overcrowding and warehousing—and the attendant suffering—are the undesirable and also unacceptable outcomes. Or if shelters close their doors to animals in need, then the problem is just being pushed off to someone or someplace else, with euthanasia the likely outcome and with the fundamental dynamics essentially left unchanged.

© The HSUS/Petros
A cat at the new Humane Society
of South Mississippi shelter.

On the other hand, we must not accept routine euthanasia as a social norm. We should raise expectations and set aggressive goals, but recognize that shelters can't do it without community engagement at every step. We must continue to reduce rates of relinquishment by ramping up affordable and accessible spay and neuter options and helping people resolve normal pet behavior issues. At the same time, we must show a renewed commitment to bring additional resources, a sustained sense of urgency, diligence, volunteerism and creativity to expand the number of suitable homes and adopt more animals. We can redesign shelters to be more inviting to potential adopters, make it possible for apartment dwellers to have pets, develop sophisticated and research-driven marketing campaigns, partner with other community-based institutions, and so much more.

The problem is not unsolvable. Nationwide, only about 20 percent of dogs in homes come from shelters—the rest come from other sources. It would only take a relatively small increase in the adoption rate along with a modest reduction in the birth rate to go a long way toward solving the problem of euthanizing healthy and treatable dogs in many communities.

Yet there are countervailing forces. Many puppy mills are now completely unregulated by the federal government, and they are selling animals direct to the public over the Internet. These marketers of dogs make it easier than ever for consumers to be duped into obtaining a puppy mill dog. The HSUS's recent investigations into the puppy mill industry suggest that the problem is larger even than we imagined, with perhaps as many as 10,000 puppy mills churning out dogs for the pet trade. The dogs suffer immensely, and America's shelters are left to pick up the pieces.

© The HSUS/Kathy Milani
Two dogs rescued from a Virginia puppy mill this week. Their
rescue comes on the heels of an investigation by The HSUS.

And there are other types of challenges. There are too many pit bulls being bred, mistreated and discarded in this country. Many urban shelters are packed with them—with pit bulls, in some communities, accounting for as many as 70 percent of all dogs in the shelters. Many people who want to provide a loving home won't consider these animals. And many people who want a dog as a weapon or a fighting animal do want them. This dynamic does not lend itself to an easy solution, and that's why The HSUS has been advocating mandatory spaying and neutering of pit bulls in our communities—partly because these animals are the most abused companion animals in our society and they deserve extra protections. They are the dog of choice for dogfighters, who are responsible for incalculable suffering.

Our communities also face large populations of feral cats. If admitted to a shelter, feral cats face no adoption prospects—nearly 100 percent are euthanized—and other cats spring up to take the place of those removed. Recognizing these population dynamics, we side with the growing number of organizations that advocate Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) strategies, and active management of colonies. TNR, combined with ongoing management of feral cat colonies prevents reproduction, brings down the population over time, improves cats' quality of life, and reduces their impact on wildlife.

© iStockphoto
Trap-Neuter-Return strategies help bring down feral cat
populations over time.

Even with these major challenges, the situation is improving. In the 1970s, shelters in America euthanized 12-20 million dogs and cats when there were 67 million in people's homes. Today, we euthanize around 4 million animals while there are more than 135 million dogs and cats in people's homes. From perhaps 25 percent of dogs and cats in America euthanized every year, to about three percent—that's major progress for animals.

Let's keep moving forward until no healthy and treatable animals are euthanized. Let's focus on that, and not deplete our energy or divide our strengths with evermore strident internal debates—no kill vs. "No-Kill." These two words belong to all of us, no matter how they are punctuated. Every day we spend criticizing each other in the circular argument between rightness and reality is a day when the puppy mill operators and the dogfighters and the Internet sellers and puppy importers get something less than our full attention. If we're willing to challenge ourselves and work together, we can get to our lifesaving goal far quicker. And this we must do—lives are depending on us.

I welcome your thoughts on how to speed up progress so that no one can fathom a difference between the words, no kill and "No-Kill."

You Asked: Joining Forces for Animals

Today, I'd like to take some time to respond to a question sent in by member Sandra Siims—a question I often hear from our supporters.

Q. As a member of the Humane Society [of the United States], NWF, WWF, Doris Day, Defenders of Wildlife and other animal groups, I wish you could all band together as one big organization not only for us, the people who send you money, but for the joint membership that would bring you much more clout when lobbying for votes in congress. I just got two groups asking for money—my SPCA and ASPCA. I am not made of money; however I want to help those without voice