Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation

Slaughterhouse Shake-Up

It's been a hectic 24 hours since The HSUS released the results of a lengthy investigation into a California dairy cow slaughterhouse, operating under the banner of Hallmark Meat Packing and Westland Meat Co. (ironically honored as a USDA "supplier of the year" for 2004-2005). The Washington Post did the first reporting on the issue, and then I conducted a press conference at our downtown Washington, D.C. office, which was packed with reporters. I was joined at the press conference by Dr. Michael Greger, a medical doctor and HSUS's director of public health and animal agriculture. Eric Sakach, HSUS's West Coast regional director, simultaneously led a Los Angeles press conference at our Hollywood Office, which was also packed with television cameras.

© The HSUS

Upton Sinclair, in reference to his book The Jungle, said "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach." Well, our video, which has now been broadcast across the world and been viewed by millions, has hit people in the stomach, and that's where it was aimed. We think Americans and others need to see the harsh reality for what passes as “humane handling” and slaughter by some companies in this country. Only if people of conscience see these images will they get outraged and demand change.

Dozens of television stations did solid and compelling reporting on the issue, but here are a few of the most thorough news treatments: the CBS Evening News, KGO-TV in San Francisco, ABC 7 of Los Angeles, and FOX 5 right here in Washington.

As the story gained traction and millions of Americans learned about the cruelty, the new Agriculture Secretary, Ed Schafer (just on his second day on the job), issued a statement and announced the suspension of the agency's contract with Westland Meat Co. The USDA also announced that it was involving its Inspector General and sending a team of investigators that very day to the plant. In addition, throughout the day, Sens. Richard Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Daniel Akaka, and Tom Harkin and Reps. Gary Ackerman, Peter DeFazio, and Rosa DeLauro issued calls for action and statements condemning the cruelty and related food safety threats, especially to children.

© The HSUS

We are still working to get the San Bernardino District Attorney's Office to take enforcement action. That office is charged with enforcing state law, and the footage that we released shows clear violations of the state anti-cruelty statute and the state “no downer” law. Please write or call the San Bernardino District Attorney and politely ask him to take action and prosecute those responsible. You can reach him at 909-382-3660.

Finally, I want to say thanks to our undercover investigator who toiled for weeks at the slaughterhouse and documented the conduct of the people working there. He must remain nameless to preserve his identity for future investigations, but his bravery and ability to document what was going on may help have a transformative effect not only on the behavior of this company and other slaughterhouses, but on the consciousness of the American public. Bravo to you.

Torture on Tape

In 2007, the term "waterboarding" entered into the American lexicon. I never thought that knowledge of the practice would inspire animal abusers, but that's exactly what's happened.

An HSUS investigation we revealed today—as reported in The Washington Post—focused on the abuse of downed cows, unable to stand or walk, at a Chino, Calif. slaughterhouse. The slaughterhouse was a magnet plant for downer cast-aways from the dairy industry in the Southwest, even though California law and federal law bar with very limited exceptions the slaughter of downers.

The footage that we obtained revealed that the plant manager at the slaughterhouse viewed the cows as dollars on the hoof, and he didn't want to let a single animal not be utilized.

The result was that animals who were down and nearly lifeless were subjected to appalling acts of cruelty—repeated hot shots (electric shocks, including in the anus and the eye), tail twisting, shackling and dragging, ramming with forklifts, and, yes, even high-pressure water hosing in the mouth and nose to simulate drowning—right out of the waterboarding manual we heard about last year at Guantanamo Bay. The employees made the cows suffer so much that some of the sick and injured animals would rise and walk on their own.

These cows were guilty of nothing, and did not deserve this torment.

California prosecutors should arrest the miscreants at this plant. And the USDA needs to grab its inspectors who oversaw this plant by the Adam's apple and say never again. And while the USDA is at it, it must tighten its federal rule barring downers. The rule has a loophole that allows the slaughtering of downed animals on a case-by-case basis if they go down after they pass antemortem inspection. This rule contributes to the torment that we saw at the plant in Chino. Vicious managers will poke, shock, prod, shackle, slam, and even drown animals to get them moving, if they see an opening in the law. All downed animals should be immediately euthanized, not tormented further.

Take a look at the footage, and let the USDA know how appalled you are.

Talk Back: Humane Mission

Readers commended 11-year-old Haley Ham of Tennessee who, after losing her two dogs to antifreeze poisoning, spearheaded the introduction of legislation to help prevent such a tragedy. Among the comments we received:

Way to go Haley! Taking action through your pain took a lot of determination but because you persevered countless humans and animals will be able to live out their lives. Your story is an inspiration to us all! —Pamela Bertsch

I'm moved by this girl's courage to take the action necessary to protect other people's pets from suffering the same fate. And congratulations to her for winning such a distinction from the HSUS. —Lisa J

Good for you, Haley! You have learned a great lesson early in life—that we cannot undo tragedy, but we can take the energy of our grief and use it to give our tragedy meaning, and make the world better for everyone. I'm so sorry for your loss, but proud of you for seeing the simple solution and taking action! —Yodel's Mom

Dear Haley: I am so sorry for the loss of your beautiful friends, Sam and Jessie. Much love and respect to you for your terrific work in helping change this poison that is so available in many homes. I have heard of other animals passing by this. God bless you dear child. Animals are the "eyes of God" and are given to us as gifts. It is our responsibility to see they are respected and taken care of. —Linda Elliott

Why does it take legislation to force the makers of antifreeze to add a bittering agent? They should just do it to help save animals and humans. They are going to pass the cost onto us anyway. Seems like a no-brainer to me. —candacd

You Asked: Homes for Horses

Today I'd like to respond to a query that came in after last week's blog about the National Call-In Day for Horses.

Q. If people can't afford to take care of their horses, besides slaughter and auction, what other avenues do they have? Just a question. There are not enough foster homes or adoption homes set up for the unwanted.

A. Owning a horse comes with responsibilities and horse owners, just like caretakers of dogs and cats, must be prepared to make humane decisions at all stages of the animal’s life. Providing food and water, protection from the elements, and paying for needed veterinary care are just the basics. In addition, horse owners must act responsibly should they decide they can no longer care for the horse. They can give or sell the horse to another caring home; they can relinquish or donate the horse to a rescue facility or therapeutic riding center; or, if no other option exists, they can have the horse humanely euthanized by a licensed veterinarian.

© The HSUS
Spared from slaughter, these horses now live in sanctuary.

While making the decision to euthanize an animal should never be made in a lax manner, humane euthanasia is generally a superior option to sending a horse to a suspect purchaser at an auction. It's at auction where "killer buyers " often misrepresent their intentions and purchase horses for slaughter. They cram dozens of horses into cattle trucks and ship them, often more than 1,000 miles, to a slaughterhouse in Mexico or Canada, and the horses there suffer a grim and harsh fate.

The cost of humane euthanasia and disposal for a horse is comparable to the cost of one month's care and is simply a part of responsible horse ownership. Frankly, if someone can't afford the cost to euthanize a horse, they can't afford to own a horse in the first place.

The horse rescue community in the United States is growing and The HSUS has a number of programs aimed at helping horse rescues operate as effectively as possible. For example, through a partnership with Pets911, we have developed a searchable horse adoption database. Last year, we partnered with several other national animal welfare groups and some of the best horse rescues in the country to form the Homes for Horses Coalition. We are in the midst of compiling a national database of horse rescues and, thus far, have identified hundreds of active facilities. In the coming weeks, I’ll share more news about these efforts.

Meaterial Excess

"Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago," wrote Mark Bittman yesterday, in a major piece in The New York Times' Week in Review section. He continued, "We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all of it from plant sources."

This HSUS ad spotlights animal agriculture's
environmental impact.

The excessive consumption of meat, dairy, and egg products has consequences, and one of the biggest yet least-discussed consequences is the extraordinary output of greenhouse gasses—not just carbon dioxide, but also nitrous oxide and methane. In 2006, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization released a report called Livestock's Long Shadow, which pointed out that the animal agriculture sector contributes 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO₂ equivalent—a larger share than all transportation combined.

Yet, many environmental organizations expressing alarm about climate change have no policy recommendations on mitigating the impact of animal agriculture, nor any exhortations to modify personal behavior to reduce our own greenhouse gas footprint. One can only conclude that it's a moral blind spot for these groups and their leaders. Perhaps it hits too close to home. Maybe they don't want to think about modifying their own behavior, or perhaps they do not want to ask their own members to make changes that would be uncomfortable, or there's a chance they simply don't want to look foolish.

We don't take that view at The HSUS. Our food choices have enormous implications for the planet's health, our personal health, and for animals, and we urge every HSUS supporter to start examining these questions, if they have not already.

A good start to your research is to carefully read Bittman's well-researched and important piece. For a deeper dive, we've detailed the meat, dairy, and egg industry's impact on climate change in a comprehensive report at humanesociety.org/climatechange. Keep clicking through the pages of our website and you’ll find an abundance of information on almost every facet of the animal agriculture industry.

Betrayal of Trust

There is always something that's disturbed us more about cannibalism than mere homicide. In either circumstance, the victim is dead, but the consumption of the corpse multiplies the level of social disgust by a major factor. It not only offends our aesthetic senses, but also upends the notion of community. A civil society requires a minimum threshold of empathy and trust between people, and without absolute social taboos and legal standards against this conduct, an enduring social contract would be difficult indeed to achieve.

It's a big leap from there to our killing and eating of non-human animals, but a cruelty case in Hawaii brought to light this week prompted me to think a bit more about our social relations with other animals and our expanding definition of community.

Caddy.

As Nelson Daranciang of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported yesterday, two former employees of Hawaii's Moanalua Golf Club—Saturnino Palting, 58, and Nelson Domingo, 43—were indicted on second-degree theft and first-degree cruelty to animals charges for stealing a dog from one of the club's members and then butchering and eating the dog, an 8-month old German shepherd-Labrador mix.

Frank Manuma, the dog's owner, apparently had permission to leave his dog Caddy at an equipment shack near the clubhouse while he played a round of golf. When he returned, the dog was gone, and several witnesses reported having seen the defendants abscond with the young dog. According to Manuma's wife, the two later confessed to police that they did in fact kill and eat Caddy.

Hawaii is the most recent state to have adopted felony-level penalties for animal cruelty, and this case is likely to be the first prosecution under that new statute.

Stealing and killing this vulnerable, trusting dog was appalling. But yes, it did compound the crime—even if it did not compound the suffering—for the men to have eaten this dog. We have developed social and legal codes to protect dogs and cats, and a pet-loving society rightly has a zero tolerance policy for people stealing dogs or cats and making them an ingredient in a stew. We have rules and standards, and those standards must be applied in the real world.

Indeed, our democratic society is in the throes of a larger debate about extending these standards, and the lines can get a bit blurry. For example, Americans do not eat horses, but some people in other nations do, and The HSUS has been driving the effort to halt the export of American horses for slaughter for human consumption in certain countries in Asia and Europe.

Our relations with animals in society are fraught with contradictions—we profess to be an animal-loving society, and we are capable of great philanthropy for animals, yet we live in the presence of enormous institutionalized animal cruelty. Still, the trajectory of the debate is clear—more empathy, more compassion, more protections for other beings that feel and suffer like we do. Where the lines are bright and clear—as they are in the case in Hawaii—the law should speak, and with resounding force.

From Tragedy to Triumph

Last month, 11-year-old Haley Ham of Tennessee wrote to us about her two beloved dogs, Sam and Jessie:

"From the time I was 7 and he was just 8 weeks old, I knew Sam belonged to me. We were inseparable. Jessie was big and affectionate. He would follow me around the neighborhood and when I visited my friends he would wait by the door for me. He was like a guardian. I really loved him, and I'll never forget his loyalty to me."

Haley with a photo of Sam.

Haley then sadly reported that last April she lost these two best friends to antifreeze poisoning. In her letter, she continued, "Sam and Jessie suffered so much, I couldn't believe something so deadly was just sold at nearly every store."

Heartbroken but moved to do something, Haley embarked on a campaign to require a bittering agent be added to antifreeze sold in Tennessee, making the normally sweet substance unpalatable to pets, wildlife or small children. Five states have already passed legislation requiring the additive, and several more are considering bills.

In the wake of her tremendous loss, Haley wrote letters to all of her state legislators and collected hundreds of signatures of support at her county fair and through an Internet petition.

State Sen. Raymond Finney agreed to help. He introduced S.B. 2399, which would require that antifreeze sold in the state contain the bittering agent. State Rep. Janis Sontany introduced the companion bill, H.B. 2808.

Finney recently sat down with Haley and her mother, and HSUS Tennessee State Director Leighann McCollum, to plan a strategy for the bill's passage. And yesterday, Haley spoke before the Senate at a hearing on the bill, and served as a Senate page for the day.

Hats off to Haley, an incredible kid on a mission to spare countless children and animals from horrible suffering. Because of her efforts, today Humane Society Youth named Haley its KIND Kid for 2008. We hope her story inspires people of all ages to turn love and concern for animals into action.

Sounding Off on Sonar

In March 2000, the U.S. Navy conducted a mid-frequency sonar exercise in the Bahamas, and 16 whales turned up stranded on the beaches. It had been theorized for some years that the intense underwater sounds are responsible for marine mammal deaths, but the strandings provided compelling evidence of that impact. In the years following, the evidence mounted that mid-frequency military sonar was implicated in many more mass whale strandings—including several that occurred in the decades before the Bahamas incident.

Beaked whales are among the species affected by naval sonar.

The issue came to a head a few weeks ago when a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled—in response to a lawsuit led by the Natural Resources Defense Council—that the Navy’s sonar training violates several environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

However, the Court did not order the Navy to scrap its sonar system, nor did it demand a halt to all Navy training activities. Instead, the Court simply ordered the Navy to improve its existing measures to protect whales from the harmful effects of its sonar operations.

In a post-9/11 world, sensible people agree that national security is a priority concern. But here, too, there must be limits. What is the military protecting if, in protecting us, it destroys our environment and kills our wildlife? By forcing the Navy to heed both its security interests and its duty to protect the environment, the Court’s ruling was a model of balanced jurisprudence.

But the Navy thumbed its nose at the courts. Rather than work with the plaintiffs and the court on implementing the new restrictions—rather than live up to its rhetoric of being a “good steward of the oceans”—the brass went straight to the White House, asking for an exemption from the nation’s environmental laws.

On Jan. 16, President Bush granted the extraordinary request, in full.

This was a tremendously disappointing example of the Administration acting like it is above the law.

The military must play by the rules. We should not suspend our environmental and marine mammal protection laws simply because the Navy wants it that way.

Congress should now step in, and restore a rational balance between our need to protect our country, and our need to preserve the marine life and the health of our environment.

Make the Call for Horses

If you are on our email list, this morning you may have received an alert about today’s National Call-In Day for Horses.

I don’t have to tell you that this is a crucial time to make your voice heard. Our horses are being shipped to foreign slaughterhouses, enduring harrowing journeys and facing grisly, inhumane slaughter, while groups aligned with the horse slaughter and livestock industries try to bottleneck federal legislation that would protect horses from this fate.

© The HSUS

Please take just a few minutes today to help rally support for H.R. 503/S. 311, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which would prohibit the slaughter of American horses for human consumption and prohibit their export for slaughter. In order for H.R. 503/S. 311 to be enacted in the 2007-2008 Congressional session, it must pass both chambers within this two-year period (the bill passed the House in 2006, but time ran out before the Senate was able to consider it).

First, check to see if your U.S. Representative is already a co-sponsor of H.R. 503 and if your two U.S. Senators are co-sponsors of S. 311. If they are, please call and thank them for their support, and urge them to do all that they can to pass this important legislation. If they are not, please call and urge them to co-sponsor H.R. 503/S. 311. You can reach your members of Congress by calling the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121, or look up their Capitol office phone numbers.

After you’ve made your calls, let us know how things went. And finally, to maximize our impact, please ask all of your friends and family to also call their legislators today.

Your calls do make a difference. Today, you can help send the message that Congress needs to act now to protect American horses.

All Bets Off

We are in the thick of the presidential primaries, and no candidate has a lock on his or her party's nomination. These next three weeks are likely to be decisive in the selection of the major party nominees, with more than 20 states conducting primaries on Feb. 5—so-called Super Tuesday. Elections for local, state, and federal officeholders have major implications for animals, and I urge all HSUS members and other animal advocates to register to vote to make your voice heard.

There are also ballot initiatives or referendums that will appear in many states, and a few of them center on the treatment of animals. California may have a sweeping farm animal measure on the ballot in November, Massachusetts voters may have the opportunity to ban greyhound racing, Alaska citizens may vote for the third time to stop aerial shooting of wolves, and North Dakotans may decide a question on banning canned hunts.

© iStockphoto

But the first measure to be considered in 2008 is Question 3 on the Miami-Dade County (Florida) ballot on Jan. 29. Question 3 is an attempt by wealthy greyhound track owners to prop up their cruel industry by installing Las Vegas-style slot machines at their tracks. The HSUS urges all registered voters in Miami-Dade County to vote "no" on this measure. If you know people in Miami-Dade, I urge you to forward them this blog.

Greyhound racing is a fading industry, but it still causes harm to dogs. The only long-term survival strategy for this industry is to introduce Las Vegas-style gambling practices at the tracks to generate revenue from slots. And that's precisely what Question 3 will allow. Under Florida law, in order to have other forms of gambling at tracks, you must have live racing. This means that dogs continue to run, even though that aspect of the business is not all that profitable.

Records shows that dogs suffer serious injuries, especially broken bones, while racing, and deaths are known to occur. They are treated like racing machines. What's more, the dogs at the track endure almost constant confinement when not racing. And when they don't perform well, they are discarded, killed by track henchman or put up for adoption to compete with humane societies and rescue groups already overburdened with their awesome adoption responsibilities.

There are 34 states that do not allow greyhound racing, and it is no point of pride for Florida to be home to one half of the nation's 38 dog racing tracks. (If you live in one of the states that operate greyhound racing tracks or in a state that has not yet banned the sport, contact your elected officials and express your opposition.)

Voters in Miami-Dade already rejected the profit-schemes of wealthy track owners once before, defeating it by a 53-47 vote in 2005. They should do so again.

Talk Back: Progressive Nations, Veterinarians and Laws

Readers celebrated the European Union's decision to eliminate battery cages for egg-laying hens and the prospect of a European ban on seal products:

Absolutely incredible. When I read the Canadian news article I realized that the efforts of animal protection societies (of which the HSUS is a prominent leader) may actually be close to stopping the seal hunt. I'm so proud to lend you my support. —Lorraine

Congratulations to the EU for abiding by their promise to ban battery cages! It's really a shame how powerful the animal agriculture business is in the U.S. So many politicians from both parties (including mine in Maryland) want to vote for change, but are often blocked by powerful lobbying groups. I'm sure you are vastly aware of this problem most of all given the immense difficulties it took to finally ban horse slaughter in the U.S. I'm glad these reforms are finally taking place here in the U.S. I can't believe that the seal hunt was so vicious this year in spite of the melting ice floes which already damaged the seal population. Here's hoping that the Canadian seal hunt will finally come to an end in 2008! —Sara N

Readers also praised the launch of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association. Among the comments we received:

Wayne, since you've been President and CEO of The HSUS, tremendous changes have taken place on behalf of animals. For that, I thank you. But this has been the best. For too long, the AVMA has used its voice of authority to betray the very creatures they are supposed to protect. And they carry a lot of weight because they are vets and that makes them sound credible. Yet they have too many ties to industry and government to be an advocate for the animals. What a wonderful and much needed move this is to give a more powerful voice to the vets who will not be bought. Thank you and The HSUS. —Craig DiBenedictis

And we heard opposing views in response to the call to get involved with state animal protection legislation:

Seriously, how many laws do we need? Most states already have felony laws for abuse and dogfighting. I'm all for helping animals and giving them better lives, but 86 laws this year, and our goal is to get more next year? The goal should be better lives (for people and animals), not more laws... —Brent

Thanks for alerting HSUS members to the importance of citizen advocacy. While Texas doesn't have a session this year (our legislature meets in odd-numbered years), there are many advocates hard at work now determining issues of importance... bills for consideration in the January 2009 session. The Texas Humane Legislation Network meets this coming weekend in Dallas and we encourage people to become involved in our efforts. For in a state the size of Texas, the year the legislature doesn't meet is equally as important as the year they do. Hoping more Texans join our team (www.thln.org). —Cile Holloway, President, Texas Humane Legislation Network

Want to share your two cents? Offer a comment below or submit it by email.

Gaining Ground for Sows

At The Humane Society of the United States, we've concentrated much of our anti-factory farming activity on three of the cruelest confinement practices—veal crates, battery cages, and gestation crates. We are seeing major changes in all three areas, and especially so on gestation crates.

When we pushed a ballot measure in Florida in 2002 to ban gestation crates, it seemed like the first step in a very steep and long climb. But it actually seems like we are now walking downhill, and the pace of progress is brisk.

This editorial from an agriculture industry publication—Lancaster Farming in Pennsylvania—is yet another example that industry leaders are accepting the phase-out of gestation crates and preparing for life after the crates are gone.

Crate Phase-Out Shouldn’t Hurt Pig Producers in Long Run

Dave Lefever
Editor

Tracy Sutton
Northern Editor

“Basically you’re asking a sow to live in an airline seat.”

That’s Temple Grandin, quoted in Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia, on sow gestation crates. The Colorado Pork Producers Association last month decided to voluntarily phase out the crates over the next decade.

Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer, also disavowed the practice last year.

Sow gestation crates, or stalls, are 7- by 2-foot enclosures in which a sow may be confined during pregnancy, and in effect for most of her adult life.

Gestation stalls have been the science-backed industry standard since the late 1970s, according to Dr. Ken Kephart, Penn State professor of animal science, specializing in pig production.

Kephart expects the stalls to be phased out of the industry entirely over the next 10 years. The public, he says, “is the driving force” behind it.

Grandin, of Colorado State University’s Department of Animal Science and internationally known for her work on animal handling systems, told the Brownfield ag news organization that ending the use of sow gestation crates in pork production is the right thing to do. According to Grandin, the public just doesn’t like sow gestation crates and that’s reason enough to stop using them.

FDA Says: Let Them Eat Clones

Clogged arteries. Global warming. Animal cruelty. Mad cow disease. Salmonella. Manure lagoons. Overgrazing.

These are just some of the public relations problems faced by the meat, dairy, and egg industries.

Now add animal cloning to the brew. Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration—defying the wishes of Congress to slow the approval process—cleared the way for meat and milk from cloned farm animals and their offspring to be sold for human consumption. This follows closely on the heels of a similar decision by European authorities.

The FDA did so despite more than 30,000 public comments opposing the action. And reputable polls of the American population reveal that two-thirds of respondents oppose animal cloning.

The Humane Society of the United States has criticized the FDA for failing to take into account the animal welfare implications of the process.

What amazes me most is that the meat and dairy industries haven't even been clamoring for cloning opportunities, yet we are on the cusp of commercial sale of these products. It's been venture biotech companies, and their allies in the for-profit branch of academia, that have been doing harm to animals and developing clones as the latest new money-making scheme and as the latest jolt to traditional American agriculture.

Why the FDA and USDA are actively supporting this move is mystifying. Why, with all of the public relations challenges they face, would they want to weaken consumer confidence in animal products?

But it's par for the course for bureaucrats and industry leaders who think in narrow, reductionist terms. I always wondered why the meat industry and its allies in government allowed downed cows—those too sick or injured to walk—to be channeled into the food supply. There were perhaps 200,000 downer cows being slaughtered for human consumption, out of 35 million cattle sent to slaughter. It seemed like penny-wise, pound-foolish conduct, and after the mad cow disease case in Washington state in December 2003, that view was validated. More than 40 nations closed their markets to American beef after a BSE-positive downer was ground up and the animals' parts scattered into the food supply.

Now, the animal agribusiness industries are charging forward again, despite the obvious risks to their industry and the deep-seated skepticism of the American public. You can be sure that The HSUS won't sit on the sidelines as the debate advances.

Citizen Politicians

Today's Washington Post has a story about how animal issues have become high-profile, priority measures for this year's Virginia legislature this session in Richmond. Michael Vick's arrest and prosecution and the high-profile HSUS investigation into puppy mills have drawn enormous and unprecedented attention to animal issues in the state.

© iStockphoto

The Post story is a good opportunity to remind you that legislative sessions in 45 states are in progress or soon to be in progress, and we have remarkable opportunities to make legislative progress for animals. Last year, the states passed 86 new laws for animals—and that's a number we hope to eclipse in 2008. But that will only happen if we redouble our personal investments in lobbying activities.

Please become a citizen lobbyist. Stay tuned to humanesociety.org/stateleg and find out what bills have been introduced. Then, contact your state lawmakers (there are 7,000 state legislators) and urge support for these measures. You can make your involvement easy by signing up for our action alerts at humanesociety.org/join. After taking action, you can write letters to the editor in support of these bills and try to recruit other animal-friendly citizens to contact their lawmakers.

You can also visit your state capitol to lobby your elected officials directly. To help you prepare, The HSUS hosts Lobby 101 trainings and Humane Lobby Day events across the country. Check our list of upcoming events to see when we're coming to your state (we’ve organized Lobby Day events in 23 states on Feb. 13) and to RSVP.

I am listing below the start and adjournment dates for state legislative sessions. These bills will pass only if thousands of citizens get involved and demand change.

Veterinary Corps

© The HSUS/Topinka

Veterinarians and veterinary groups should be in the forefront of the animal protection movement. But often times they have not occupied that leadership position. And much to my great disappointment, the leading veterinary organization in the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, has often taken positions at odds with animal welfare and proved to be an impediment to social progress for animals. That group, which certainly does have many dedicated staff and members, has gotten off course on a range of subjects and taken stands that favor animal-use industries, not animals.

It is AVMA that is in the forefront of the effort to halt federal legislation to stop the slaughter of horses for human consumption. The AVMA has also taken a stand against legislation to crack down on Class B dealers, who collect random source dogs and cats and sell them to research. AVMA does not oppose the force-feeding of ducks or geese for foie gras production or the confinement of laying hens in restrictive cages and veal calves and breeding sows in crates so small the animals cannot turn around or extend their limbs. It opposes legislation to halt the overuse of antibiotics on factory farms for non-therapeutic uses. And we just learned last week that the AVMA supports the continued use by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of M-44 explosive devices for predator control (the devices explode and release poisonous sodium cyanide into the mouths of their victims, including unintended targets such as endangered species and pets).

We want to give a home to veterinarians who want to associate themselves with progressive leadership on animal protection issues. To that end, today I am announcing that The Humane Society of the United States and the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, a group formed in 1981 to organize veterinarians to help animals through advocacy programs, are uniting. We are combining forces, and from that union there will be a newly constituted organization: the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA).

The new group—which will combine the veterinary assets of both organizations, and then infuse the new organization with additional resources—will do advocacy and hands-on programs to help animals. Over the next weeks and months, you'll hear more about the operation we are building.

HSVMA will put the interests of animals at the forefront of its thinking. And we will work to recruit veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and veterinary students throughout the nation to join HSVMA. We hope you will talk to your private veterinarian and urge him or her to join HSVMA and add a strong veterinary voice to animal protection in the United States.

Veterinarians should be the best advocates animals have. HSVMA wants to help rank-and-file veterinarians achieve that noble goal.

From the Industry's Mouth

The horse slaughter industry and its allies, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, seem to predicate their policy stance opposing a ban on horse slaughter for human consumption on bare conjecture. Their argument: if slaughter plants aren't allowed to acquire and kill American horses, peel their skin off, and cut up their bodies for export to Belgium and Japan for human consumption, then American horse owners will starve and abandon their horses as an alternative. It's a dim, pessimistic view of American horse owners, and something of a backhanded acceptance of this unscrupulous, unethical, and illegal behavior.

Today's New York Times ran a story about some of these dynamics, and it was a generally balanced treatment of both sides' positions (far more objective than the lopsided piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal this week).

I was quoted in the Times' story and said that the shutdown of the horse slaughter plants in the United States last year, which The Humane Society of the United States helped to engineer, was a first step in our plans to ban all horse slaughter in North America, and certainly a first step toward a ban on slaughtering American horses here in the United States or in Canada or Mexico.

© The HSUS
Our investigative footage amplifies the need
for a ban on horse export for slaughter.

We've always feared the grossly inhumane slaughter of horses in Mexico, and it has been The HSUS that has long advocated for a cessation of live exports to Mexico and Canada. It has also been our investigators who have delivered gut-wrenching images of Mexican-style slaughter to the American public and to lawmakers in Congress. We've delivered those images to document what really goes on (again, no conjecture here—just the facts) and to help pass federal legislation to ban the export of live American horses to other countries for slaughter.

There are a number of groups standing in the way of the legislation. Some are predictable opponents of animal protection in the livestock sector. They claim they just don't want any precedent in the law to ban the slaughter of any species, especially one used for food (even if the consumption is entirely for foreign markets).

But the most influential group standing in the way, for the purposes of this policy debate, is the AVMA—a group that takes the animal protection position on some important issues of the day (e.g., animal fighting and the use of dangerous wild animals for the pet trade), but against animal protection on others (e.g., selling random source dogs and cats to research and confining veal calves or breeding sows in tiny crates that do not even allow them to move). The problem lies with the AVMA's fealty to animal-use industries. The group seldom deviates from the opinions of veterinarians who work for the very industries that we are working to reform. If there are no vets working for the industry (e.g., animal fighting and imported dogs from foreign puppy mills), then it can take a more principled and objective stance, and it often does so to great effect.

The result, in the case of horse slaughter, is tragic. The AVMA is giving a pass to the killer buyers and transporters in the United States who are shipping horses to Mexico because it opposes, on principle, the federal American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 503 and S. 311. That Act does codify a ban on horse slaughter in the United States, but now that provision has no practical effect—because key states have themselves already outlawed slaughter. The only practical effect of the federal legislation is to ban live exports of horses to Canada and Mexico—a practice the AVMA should condemn not only because of the grueling and harsh transport to slaughter, but also because the slaughter methods put to use in Mexico are not sanctioned by the AVMA. (We documented that in some Mexican slaughter plants horses are stabbed in the spine as a crude method of slaughter.)

That stand and other outdated positions of AVMA have compelled The HSUS to take more aggressive action on the broader issue of the role of veterinarians in public policy debates in this country. More on that first thing next week. And in the meanwhile, keep contacting your U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senator in favor of H.R. 503 and S. 311. The horses desperately need our voice. Others have failed them.

Talk Back: Woe for Captive Wildlife

Readers responded to the recent escape of Tatiana, a Siberian tiger who attacked three men at the San Francisco Zoo, and shared their concerns about the treatment of captive wildlife by zoos, circuses and private owners. Among the comments we received:

There have been reports that Tatiana might have been teased by the men that she attacked. Aren’t there people overseeing such things at the zoos? Why should animals have to live in such conditions! Also, why didn’t they "dart" Tatiana? Why was she killed? Where were Tatiana’s keepers? It wasn’t her fault that she got out if the wall wasn’t high enough! And if she had been teased or rocks thrown at her why didn’t anyone stop it! If zoos don’t want to spend money on adequate habitats and protection for the animals they shouldn’t be allowed to put animals on display. Animals should not be for our entertainment! —Deborah

Thank you so much for the great entry. Middle-of-the-road activists should understand the inherent cruelty in keeping large animals, who live active lives and travel miles a day, confined in tiny enclosures. They are susceptible to many awful illnesses, including arthritis in elephants. I was so proud of the San Francisco Zoo for releasing its elephants into sanctuaries. I'm also so pleased that you raised awareness of the cruelty of circuses. The video was really powerful and sad. I wish people were more aware of circuses. Circuses use so much misinformation to insist that their animals are treated humanely despite the fact that circuses are just a bad idea. I'm so glad that the CEO of the Humane Society is such a well-spoken, bold crusader of animals not afraid to confront cruel institutions. —Sara N.

I visit the San Francisco Zoo occasionally with my kids. Every time I go there I feel so sorry for those animals. I am glad the elephants are gone and I feel so bad for the big cats and the bears. I think the zoo would still be nice for kids even if it left out those animals. They don't belong there! —Lisa

I totally agree with this article. I believe we need zoos to educate the public about our wildlife, but at the same time we need them to set higher guidelines for the public's safety. I don't believe anybody but accredited zoos and sanctuaries should have exotic animals. There is no reason for an individual to house such animals as pets. I have seen video footage of individuals placing exotic pets in the hands of children or posing with the animals beside them. These children do not know the danger they are placed in. The adults that put these children, not to mention other adults, at risk—they should be ashamed of themselves. It sickens me to know that our government allows such thing to take place. I would definitely support new laws to prevent people from breeding and owning exotic animals. —Linda Liebersbach

You Asked: Winning Worldwide

Last week, a comment from blog reader Sara caught my eye. It builds on my blog from yesterday about some exciting developments in Europe. Today, I offer a broader round-up of some of our international advocacy.

Q. Can I request that you detail some more international victories?

A. In 2007, The Humane Society of the United States and our global affiliate, Humane Society International, have been steadily building alliances with a host of international animal protection organizations. By empowering local non-governmental organizations in different regions of the world, we can help them to more effectively bring about positive change for animals. For example, working with local partners in the Philippines this year, we were able to pass and enact legislation to protect dogs and to mete out penalties for anyone who catches and kills dogs for the nation’s illegal commercial dog meat trade.

Another important aspect of our work is putting pressure on global corporations, their subsidiaries, and local retailers to act responsibly toward animals. Among our successes in that arena for 2007:

• Japan's fourth-largest fisheries company, Kyokuyo, stopped selling whale and dolphin meat in its Japanese stores, and dropped its shares in the Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd.
• Last month we launched a campaign against Japanese seafood conglomerates and their subsidiaries, urging them to apply pressure to the Japanese government to stop the planned slaughter of endangered humpbacks and other whales. Japan announced on Dec. 21 that it would not kill humpbacks, but our campaign continues because Japan continues to kill other endangered whales each year.
• Our boycott of Canadian seafood now has the support of more than 3,000 restaurants and food businesses and half a million individuals, costing Canadian fisheries close to $500 million since the boycott began. We are also pushing ahead with partners in Europe to close markets there to Canadian seal products.

Through our international policy work, we have also made some truly significant strides for animals this past year:

• On June 19, the European Parliament voted unanimously to ban cat and dog fur from being imported or exported into Europe by Dec. 31, 2008, marking the end of an eight-year campaign to stop the trade.
• At the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) we secured a ban prohibiting the international commercial trade in elephant ivory for nine years; got countries to reject China's bid for international approval of its tiger breeding farms; successfully fought off U.S. efforts to ease CITES restrictions on the export of bobcat skins for the fur trade; and blocked efforts by Japan to strip great whales of CITES' highest level of protection.
• At the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission we reversed a 2006 resolution that called for the resumption of commercial whaling, affirming an international commitment to maintain the moratorium and to continue to protect whales (over the objections of Japan, Norway, and Iceland).
  
• At the United Nations we were able to get language adopted that encourages all member nations to take immediate action to protect shark populations from the cruel and unnecessary practice of finning.

And sometimes we don’t have to go any farther than the U.S. government to help end abusive animal practices in other parts of the world.

• In April, after seven years of legal appeals, we were able to maintain the integrity of the U.S. dolphin-safe label. The U.S. Commerce Department, in conjunction with Mexico, had tried to weaken the label’s definition to allow dolphins to be intentionally chased and harassed with tuna nets—a method that kills approximately 4,000 dolphins annually. By preserving the strong U.S. definition of dolphin-safe, the market incentive to set nets on dolphins in other countries has now been greatly diminished.
• To the dismay of wealthy trophy hunters around the globe, we were able to secure report language approved by the House that encourages the U.S. Agency for International Development not to fund programs that support or promote recreational, sport or trophy hunting as a conservation tool. We have to keep on this, but this action brings us closer to stopping the U.S.-subsidized trophy hunting programs in Africa.

To stay current with our work to protect animals globally, please sign up to receive Humane Society International's email updates and alerts and join our growing list of international email advocates. To share just one example from this year, our online advocates bombarded the mayor of Ethiopia’s capital city with letters after he announced a dog poisoning campaign to eradicate rabies. The mayor listened, and the local government is now in communication with us regarding the development of a humane approach to the street dog overpopulation problem.

We know all too well that animal cruelty and suffering do not end at our nation’s border. Neither does our ability to effect change for animals.

Allies for Change

The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International do not restrict their work to the boundaries of the United States. We live in the era of globalization, with information, commodities, people and animals moving routinely across national borders.

With our economic and cultural ties, the United States and Europe have always had a special and enduring connection. With its recent expansion, the European Union now encompasses 27 nations and includes 500 million people. Though an extremely diverse set of nations, the EU has been a thought leader on animal protection issues and a laboratory for the application of animal protection policies on a range of issues, including animal testing and animal agriculture.

© Compassion Over Killing

That's why the recent news from Europe is so important. First, defying predictions that the ban would be delayed, the European Union has held firm to its original judgment to eliminate barren battery cages for egg-laying hens by 2012. This is a devastating blow to the worldwide battery cage industry. If the large majority of nations of Europe can make this change, and halt this abuse of laying hens, then surely the United States can—a nation that has prided itself on innovation and adaptability throughout its history.

We are already moving in that direction. Now, more than 330 colleges and universities have adopted cage-free practices, and just last month, the world's largest food service provider with thousands of accounts in the United States, Compass Group, announced it would go cage-free. The fight against factory farming is starting to tip in our direction, but we must continue to press the fight harder than ever—including now in California, where a ballot initiative has been launched to ban veal and gestation crates and battery cages.

© The HSUS/Skerry

There's another important development in a major HSUS campaign: the quest to ban the barbaric slaughter of baby seals in Atlantic Canada. The nations of Europe are closing their markets to the pelts of Canadian seals. Loyola Sullivan, Canada's fisheries ambassador and a leading proponent of the seal hunt, told the Canadian Press this week that the boycott of seal products has "a tremendous foothold in Europe." He added, "most people close to the situation feel that a ban by other countries is imminent, that it's gone too far. It would be unpopular now for a member of parliament in a European country to support the hunt."

The deed is not done yet in Europe, but there is promise and hope in the steep climb to end this hunt. Let's make sure it's at least a two-front war, and renew our efforts in the United States to boycott Canadian seafood products. More than 3,000 U.S. companies and more than 490,000 concerned individuals are now part of this growing boycott. Let's provide further encouragement to our friends in Europe in our joint effort to halt the world's largest marine mammal slaughter.

Real or Faux: Shoppers May Not Know

Many coat retailers have an incomplete knowledge of the fur trim on the coats they sell. And they are not taking the time to find out—even though it's a legal responsibility.

Last winter, HSUS investigators did a little bit of pre-holiday shopping and sniffed out suspicious-looking winter coats. We found major retailers and designers selling fur-trimmed coats as faux. Others advertised the fur as real, but misidentified the species type. A good number of coats were not labeled at all. We found domesticated dog fur in some of the coats from China, and we found fur trim from raccoon dogs, a member of the dog family raised for fur in China and Finland. It was double-barreled deception for consumers.

© iStockphoto
Our investigations revealed falsely advertised
or labeled fur-trimmed coats (see our reports
from last winter and this winter).

In response, several major designers and retailers decided to give up selling any fur: Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, and Foot Locker. But other retailers and designers stonewalled and just pressed ahead with their buying and selling of falsely advertised and mislabeled fur-trimmed garments. And that forced us to press ahead, too—with the filing of a petition with the Federal Trade Commission last spring naming 12 major retailers and designers for violations of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act. That petition is still pending before the FTC.

A year later, when our investigators did some additional holiday shopping, we had hoped the industry would have cleaned up its act. But the results reveal that the industry hasn't changed its spots. We've again found real fur advertised as faux and other forms of mislabeling galore. And many of the companies at fault were the same as last year: Neiman Marcus, Andrew Marc, Lord and Taylor, and Federated Department Stores (Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s).

Buying a coat with a little fur trim is not a minor moral offense. It's a core part of the fur business, and if we ever hope to halt the sale of the pelts of fur-bearing animals for fashion, we must contend with the killing of millions of animals, many from China, for trim.

Take a look at our video, and spread the word. If you think you have purchased a f