Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation

The Case for Animals

Michael Van Dusen, the Center's deputy director, introduces me.

I had the privilege of speaking this morning at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars—a living memorial to former President Wilson. It is a setting where policy experts, authors, scholars, and others talk about the urgent issues of the day. I was delighted to have an opportunity to speak at the Center about animal protection. I prepared formal remarks, and want to share the full text of my speech with you. Video of the address will also be archived on the Wilson Center website next week.

More to the Story

Newsweek has an online story about the supposed divide between animal groups over the issue of euthanasia. It's an overly simplified and somewhat inaccurate story, and it bears some comment.

First, The HSUS does not oppose "no kill" sheltering operations as alleged in the article. In fact, we support that strategy—we just think it's easier said than done. There's a big difference between a single shelter going no-kill and a community achieving that status—and the latter is what we as a movement must strive to achieve.

© Bill Petros

It is a tragedy that there are about 4 million dogs and cats killed in private and public shelters in the nation each year. Euthanizing healthy and treatable dogs and cats at shelters is a failure, and it should not be accepted as a norm. While we've made steady progress on this front—30 years ago, there were 15 million or so dogs and cats killed in shelters—we still have a considerable way to go.

What stands in the way of achieving no-kill? Too few people are adopting animals from shelters; too many people are relinquishing their pets; too few animals are spayed or neutered; too many rental properties do not allow pets; and too little promotion of our ideas is reaching the public. I went into these points in great detail in a blog some months ago (you can read that here).

At this point, no-kill sheltering is our shared aspiration, but a difficult goal to achieve in more than a handful of communities throughout the nation. But that should not deter us from working diligently toward the goal of ending euthanasia, except for sick and very aggressive animals. In fact, it is a moral imperative. But achieving this goal takes more than a declaration—it's an operational state, and few communities, if any, are devoting enough resources to the task.

Again, we must stretch ourselves and find new ways to save the lives of dogs and cats. There are no shortcuts. And it's not a matter of wordplay. And while some reporters and advocates simplify the issue, we recognize the complexity of matching supply and demand for dogs and cats. But it's a challenge that every community in our nation should take on, and it takes all of us to get the job done.

Common Denominators

Tomorrow at 10 a.m. EDT, I will be speaking at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and you can watch it live here. The invitation to speak at the Center came from its director, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, whose name should be familiar for his service on both the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group.

© Constantin Jurcut/SXC

In my speech, “Making the Connection: Animal Protection as a Domestic and International Public Policy Issue,” I will take a big-picture view of animal protection and discuss its moral underpinnings. I'll talk about how animal protection is a worthy moral subject in and of itself, but I'll also discuss how its strength is further reinforced by its connection to other social issues. The Michael Vick case and the Hallmark slaughter plant investigation are just two examples of that principle at work. There is no question in my mind that the respectful treatment of animals is intertwined with some of the most urgent problems of human welfare, planetary health, and global survival. Whether the issue is abating climate change, curbing the spread of violence, assuring food safety, reducing crime rates, or mitigating the global risks of bird flu, I’ll argue, a proper regard for animal welfare must be at the heart of good public policy.

I was excited by the chance to speak at the Wilson Center, for it is known throughout the world as a center for joining the world of ideas to the world of public policy. Please attend if you are in town, or join the webcast.

Keep It Civil

I am not one who sees a conspiracy at every turn. While I have seen a fair share of greed and collusion and even corruption in observing the workings in our nation's capital, I do have a fundamental faith in our government systems and the integrity of the people in this country.

The major social and economic issues in our society—education, poverty, health care, civil rights, environment, and animal protection, to name a few—are matters that can be addressed only in a civil society. Democratic elections, a zero tolerance policy for corruption, transparency in government, and fair application of the law are the bulwarks of a civil society.

When I see corrosion in these processes in any nation, I know that these societies will not be able to address important social issues in a fundamental way—in fact, when the rule of law is disregarded, it often translates into havoc for people and the environment. To take a recent example, the autocratic actions of President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe are doing irreparable harm to what was once a beautiful and promising nation. His suppression of his political opponents and his disregard for the recent election result is a prescription for impoverishment of the people of that nation, the despoiling of the environment, and the destruction of animals there, particularly the remarkable wildlife populations that inhabit this southern African nation.

We must be vigilant about people and corporations that tamper with the levers of democracy and civil society in our nation. It's no Zimbabwe for sure, but I have nonetheless been disgusted by what I've been witnessing in Florida in recent years in the realm of voting rights. Today, Damien Cave of The New York Times has a front-page story about efforts by the state legislature to impede voter registration efforts and citizen participation in elections.

For me, this information is disturbing on its face. But I've been watching this same state legislature, conspiring with the Florida Chamber of Commerce, dismantling the ballot initiative process in the state over the last few years. They have passed a series of laws to weaken the process of citizen lawmaking and make it unusable by the people, as a way of consolidating their own power and shielding corporations from the perceived whims of the electorate (the same electorate that puts these lawmakers in office). State lawmakers have passed measures to shorten the signature gathering period to make it more difficult to qualify an initiative petition. They have pushed a supermajority (60 percent) passage requirement for citizen ballot measures, even though lawmakers themselves only need a plurality or majority to win. They have attempted to impose criminal penalties for people who do not turn in petitions in a timely manner. Seen collectively, their actions amount to a brazen attempt to destroy the initiative process and concentrate state lawmaking power in Tallahassee.

While The HSUS is first and foremost concerned about protecting animals, we cannot separate our social reform work from the larger political context. We can only succeed if we operate within a civil society. We will raise our voice against political corruption, collusion, secrecy, and the erosion of voting rights. I hope you, too, pay attention to these issues because they are the substrate on which all social reform is built.

Art, Examined

During the last month, I've received a torrent of email about Costa Rican artist Guillermo Vargas featuring a starving street dog as “art” in a Nicaraguan gallery. According to accounts we've received, Vargas picked up the poor creature and displayed him in the gallery—attempting to make the point that such an animal on the street would go unnoticed, but in a gallery setting would be a spectacle. A local animal welfare group says the dog escaped after a day in the gallery.

This and other widely circulated photos show the dog
purportedly used in the exhibit.

Vargas's supposition about the shock value of his exhibit was prophetic. But even more so than he could have imagined, or bargained for. The image of the plaintive dog, presumably left to languish and suffer in the presence of gallery visitors and Vargas himself, was too much to fathom for many people who learned about it on the Internet. There was a spontaneous outburst of online petitions and condemnations of the supposed artist—a not uncommon phenomenon in the Internet age when shocking information goes viral.

Two observations. First, this circumstance underscores that there must be some limits in artistic expression, even if they are self-imposed by the artists themselves. Free expression is itself a moral imperative, but it is not absolute. It's one thing to document cruelty, but another matter to play a part in it, to exploit the suffering of other creatures, and to fail to provide any social context for it. Art and other cultural forms can be powerful media for promoting awareness of animal suffering and abuse, and for celebrating animals as creatures who deserve our admiration and respect, but this was not one of those cases. Obviously, if Vargas had taken photographs of starving street animals and called attention to the problem, then his art or documentary would not have provoked any calumny.

This controversy comes on the heels of a similar debate that erupted last month over an exhibit at the San Francisco Art Institute by the Paris artist Adel Abdessemed titled "Don't Trust Me." According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "the show included a series of video loops of animals being bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer in front of a brick wall. The animals killed included a pig, goat, deer, ox, horse and sheep." An outcry ensued, and the Art Institute pulled the exhibit, and rightly so.

My other reaction is that we should rechannel our anguish and anger about Vargas and direct our energy to combat street dog problems in the developing world. Vargas is probably no more than a struggling artist, and we need not waste our time with further denunciations. But let's focus our energy on fighting the street dog problem and working to develop programs and infrastructure that can bring some relief to these creatures. This is a massive problem in the developing world, affecting hundreds of millions of animals, and our global affiliate Humane Society International has a Street Animal Welfare program to develop humane care, spay and neuter, and vaccination programs. Please do get involved with HSI. Get on our email list and get plugged in to our many international activities to help street dogs, to fight factory farming, and to stem the wildlife trade.

We cannot turn our gaze from this terrible problem throughout the world. And when we do focus on the problem, we must turn our anger into action, and select the right targets. Let's pivot from Vargas and focus on the ongoing cruelty, rather than seek retribution.

Changing of the Guard

It is a special privilege to advance the work of The HSUS and to be able to serve our members and supporters, whose generous support and active participation in our programs enables the work of the organization. It is also a distinct privilege to serve the 27 members of the board of directors and the 15 members of the National Council—all of whom as volunteers devote extraordinary amounts of their time to govern, grow, and guide this organization.

During my four years at the helm, I have truly been blessed to serve with David Wiebers as chairman of the organization. David is emeritus professor of neurology and former division chair, professor, and consultant in neurology and clinical epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School in Rochester, Minn., and the chairman and chief medical officer of Preventive Medicine Inc. in Bethesda, Md. He is the author of more than 330 papers on medical topics, and the author of seven medical textbooks. But for all of his professional achievements, his greatest passion is animal protection and combating human-caused cruelty, and that's been a common bond that has made for a special relationship between him and me.

This past weekend, David stepped down as chair, after helping to triple revenues and quadruple assets of the organization during his tenure. He and I worked closely on corporate unions with The Fund for Animals, Doris Day Animal League, and the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights during his tenure. Upon relinquishing his role, he urged the election of Anita Coupe as chair and Jennifer Leaning as vice chair. It was not a hard sell. The board unanimously elected these two extraordinary women to these important posts, and when they walked back into the room after the election was completed, a room full of directors broke out into a standing ovation. In attendance were the other two living board chairs of The HSUS—K. William Wiseman, who served from 1987 to 1994, and O.J. Ramsey, who served from 1994 to 1999. Bill Wiseman and Joe Ramsey had served with the two new elected leaders, and they could not have been more thrilled with the outcome.

Anita is a person of very uncommon compassion for animals, strength, character, and judgment. A former partner in the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, she practiced labor and employment law in Washington, D.C. and New York City, and served in executive management in Philadelphia. Anita has been involved in various international, national, and local efforts to protect animals and preserve wildlife habitats. She told the board that “Being elected to chair the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization is an even greater thrill than the day I made partner at one of the nation’s leading law firms.” She joined the board in 1990, and became vice chair in 1999.

Jennifer, who has served on the HSUS board since 1991, is a professor of the practice of international health at the Harvard School of Public Health, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Senior Advisor on International and Policy Studies at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and co-director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. She has been immersed in international disaster relief and human rights programs, and brings her vast experience in those areas and more as The HSUS makes the connection between its work and the health of people and the future of the planet.

With two women now serving as the board leaders, it is a historic moment for The HSUS. And to all members of the organization throughout the nation, I assure you that with these fine people at the helm, we are in a position to continue our growth and to confront the many challenges that lie ahead.

Response Required

Every animal protection organization worth its salt has known that trafficking in "downed animals" is inherently inhumane. This moral question was brought to light in a dramatic way with The HSUS's Hallmark/Westland Meat Co. investigation—with large, ailing downed cows being tormented in the most barbaric and cruel ways to move them in the direction of the slaughter area.

© The HSUS
A cow is struck at Hallmark/Westland.

But as we saw the costs associated with this case roll up—the largest meat recall in the nation's history, the dissolution of Hallmark itself (a $100 million company), the strained U.S. trade relations with beef-purchasing nations, the further loss in consumer confidence in the food supply and the regulatory systems that oversee it—it has become obvious that mistreating downed animals does not make good economic sense, either. The industry was trying to squeeze more profits out of these hapless animals, but the costs of this practice far exceeded the profits from slaughtering sick and crippled cows. The accountants within the meat industry had to rise up eventually and trump the lobbyists and corporate kingpins.

Finally yesterday, some of the most recalcitrant forces within the livestock sector—the American Meat Institute, the National Meat Association, and the National Milk Producers Federation, which had long worked to keep legal a trade in downed cattle, thwarting repeated efforts for a ban in Congress—made an emphatic statement urging a complete ban on slaughtering downer cows. They're awfully late to the game, but their central role in the trade in downers makes their statement important and significant. But it's also not enough.

The Hallmark case has made it plain that a series of reforms are needed within the slaughter plant industry. It starts with a ban on downers. But we also need criminal penalties for egregious abuses—ramming animals with forklifts, jabbing them in sensitive areas with electric prods known as “hot shots,” dragging them with chains, subjecting them to high-pressure water hoses to simulate drowning, and the like. We also need more meaningful civil penalties for plants that are defying the law; the current enforcement tool of simply suspending the plant's slaughter lines for very short periods is not enough. And we need greater oversight and transparency, achieved in part through the use of video cameras in the off-loading and handling areas.

USDA had a "no downer" policy on the books from January 2004 through July 2007, but it subverted it with orders to its on-the-ground personnel to allow downers to be slaughtered. It was a thoroughly dishonest maneuver by the agency. Maybe under new Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer there will be an honest application of the law, if the USDA does indeed modify its current pro-downer policy and accede to the chorus of voices demanding a ban on the slaughter of all downer cattle. But there's no substitute for congressional action—the kind of comprehensive congressional action that constitutes a proportional response to the raft of policy and regulatory and industry "best practice" defects that came to light from the Hallmark investigation.

If a downer ban is the only significant policy outcome, then the nation will not have responded properly to Hallmark. Congress and the USDA must do more.

Put a Fork in Global Warming

It's Earth Day, and we rightly hear exhortations on recycling, responsible energy use, and lightening our step on the planet. This year's celebration of Earth Day is dominated by discussions of climate change, and the personal and public policy responses to the crisis. Indeed, the matter has become a top tier public policy matter, since the effects of climate change may have life-altering implications for animals, human settlement, business, and the global economy. But still, there is a nagging lack of attention on one of the primary generators of greenhouse gases: farm animal agriculture (cartoonist and animal advocate Dan Piraro dedicated today's strip of his popular comic, Bizarro, to the subject, and it's worth a look).

This HSUS ad makes the link between
animal agriculture and global warming.

I've asked one of our specialists, Danielle Nierenberg, to offer some comments on the issues. I also urge every HSUS supporter to study the issue, to modify your own consumption habits appropriately, and to spread the word, whether through conversation, letters to the editor, or other means. Also, please make a donation to our campaign to run the advertisement you see on this page and support our other efforts on behalf of farm animals. Danielle's thoughts follow:

Recently I attended two meetings that made me more hopeful about agriculture, and particularly the state of the world’s farm animals. They focused on how agriculture can feed the world in the face of threats from population growth and climate change, while also reducing poverty and environmental degradation.

The important nexus of the two gatherings was the acknowledgment that past policies promoting agricultural “productivity” have come at huge environmental and social costs, including extraordinary contributions to climate change. According to a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the animal agriculture sector contributes a larger share of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions than all transportation combined, and farm animals are “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.” And, of course, the billions of animals raised and killed each year for milk, meat, and eggs—increasingly confined intensively in barren factory farms—suffer enormously.

We cannot continue to support today’s animal agricultural practices, which are increasingly degrading the land and the water, and harming citizens. For the Earth, the people, and the animals, we must address the harrowing consequences of factory farming.

This Earth Day, in addition to celebrating the planet and pledging to improve your individual efforts to live more lightly, each one of us can—and must—also commit to making more environmentally sustainable and animal welfare-friendly food choices. It is one of the best ways to lessen your individual environmental footprint.

For comparison, as reported by the New York Times, a 6 oz. beef steak requires about 16 times more fossil fuel energy to produce than a dish of vegetables and rice, and generates 24 times more greenhouse gases. And an article published last year in The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, advocates a 10-percent reduction in meat consumption—to 90 grams (or about 3 ounces) per person, per day—in order to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. The authors write, "For the world's higher-income populations, greenhouse-gas emissions from meat eating warrant the same scrutiny as do those from driving and flying."

Please make a personal pledge to reduce your consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs. If each American cut back on animal consumption by just 10 percent, approximately 1 billion fewer animals would be raised for food. Our online guide to reducing, refining, and replacing animal products can get you started.

Talk Back: Save Our Seals

Readers have responded full force to Canada's slaughter of baby seals and to Rebecca Aldworth's dispatches from the ice with calls for the killing to come to an end. Since the hunt began, messages of outrage, sympathy, encouragement and despair have poured in. Among those we received:

I found myself following the seal hunt with more attention than usual this year. Thanks in no small part to Rebecca's undying loyalty to this cause, her passion and her articulate, yet insightful journals. The photos by Nigel Barker are stunning—literally taking my breath away whether the subject was a peaceful pup or one being slaughtered. Let's hope the EU ban on Canadian seal products actually becomes a reality. Let's get the fishermen back in their boats and away from the pup nurseries. —Lisa J.

I've been following your work on Canada's seal hunt. Your work is so necessary and extremely commendable. It must be challenging to remain focused and retain the stamina needed to keep up with the intense nature of this work. We're all behind you in spirit! Your commitment, determination, and cause must triumph if we are to set foot into a better future. Keep up the remarkable work! —Debby

I am so ashamed of the country of my birth. How can I be proud of a country with no integrity or no compassion, to allow the slaughter of these beautiful, HELPLESS baby creatures? Shame on Canada… I am ashamed to be Canadian! —Daniel Land

Every year I just pray for this slaughter to end. To call it a hunt is a joke. These small seals have no chance to survive against these brutal human killers. At times I am embarrassed to be a Canadian. I don't understand how the government allows this to go on. Sustenance hunting by Inuit is one thing but this commercial hunt for vanity fur is a disgrace. I pray that the EU will ban seal products and put an end to it once and for all. —Adione

Thank god that The HSUS got involved in this campaign many years ago. I do truly believe much of what has been achieved on this campaign is the direct result of your pressure. We thank you here in Ireland. —John Carmody

I am repulsed. Saddened. After viewing the footage of the seal hunters screaming, 'Get him!', chasing down a fat, stationary baby seal, my life has forever changed. I've donated money today. I've gotten my company to match my donation. I've emailed the campaign to my friends and emailed the groceries and restaurants in my area that ban Canadian seafood, congratulating them on their show of compassion and that I would support them as long as they supported the humane treatment of animals. But none of this is satisfying. All that I do can't take away the image of a hook coming down on a little fat body staring up at the gleam of the metal and at the violence that stands over them. Animals are not ours for food, entertainment, research or clothing. The men who kill the seals lack a sense of compassion, a proper sense of right and wrong. All living things deserve to live and breathe, just as they are, without being chased, hooked, skinned, clubbed, mutilated, killed. —Michelle McAlister

Dear Rebecca, to you and to everyone who is out there dedicating your time and your spirits, and bearing the grief that goes along with witnessing and chronicling this hunt, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I was reminded again of how much I want to go and see the baby seals when all this is over, to celebrate that day when Canada does the right thing at last. I know I will be crying too. —Lorraine

Historic Crossroads for Seals

©The HSUS/Marcus Gyger
Alternatives to the seal slaughter make more sense.

We've known for a long time that Canada's mass seal slaughter makes no moral sense. In looking at the revenue generated by the kill, and the many costs associated with it, we now know it makes no economic sense. No sense at all, in fact.

Given these moral and economic realities, it's no surprise that people in Canada and throughout the world are demanding an end to this reprehensible slaughter. I've asked Rebecca Aldworth, our director of Canadian issues, to offer additional perspective on these questions:

Over the ten years I've witnessed the annual slaughter of baby seals in Canada, what has frustrated me most is that the killing is not only inhumane, it's completely needless.

Economists have repeatedly concluded that the commercial seal kill costs Canada's economy nearly as much—or more—than it brings in. In 1997, Professor Clive Southey found that the seal kill provided the equivalent of only 150 fulltime jobs, and that Canadian taxpayers were subsidizing those jobs to the tune of $30,000 each. At the time, many people began to ask why we didn't just pay the sealers to stay home.

© USDA
The Canadian Coast Guard during the 2008 seal slaughter.

Today, a National Post article detailed the hidden costs posed by the seal slaughter to Canadians—including millions of dollars for Coast Guard icebreaking and search and rescue services, government funded delegations to Europe and the United States to lobby on behalf of the sealing industry, and the economic losses resulting from the HSUS ProtectSeals boycott of Canadian seafood products. With the value and volume of Canadian seafood exports to the United States in a serious decline, it is clear that the boycott alone has cost the Canadian economy many times what the seal slaughter is worth.

And even as the costs resulting from the seal hunt escalate, the revenue generated by killing seals is falling. This year, the low prices offered for the skins of baby seals convinced many sealers to stay home. They said the low returns this year wouldn't allow them to break even if they participated in the hunt. Canadian media has just confirmed that European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas intends to ban imports of seal products in the European Union—a move many believe will cause the prices to plummet further, and potentially spell the end of the commercial seal slaughter.

Now, Canadian politicians are speaking out about the senseless situation. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, issued a statement yesterday calling for an end to the commercial seal hunt. She said it brings in few economic returns, risks human lives, and costs Canadians too much in subsidies.

The Canadian government is at a historic crossroads. It can continue this slaughter in the face of global condemnation, costing the Canadian economy far more than the sealing industry will ever contribute, and causing the suffering and deaths of millions of defenseless wild animals. Or it can live up to Canada's progressive reputation by ending the slaughter and providing a generous compensation package for sealers.

Common sense and humanity demand the latter.

Pope Benedict: A Voice for Animals

During his historic visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI probably will not address the question of human responsibilities to animals and the environment, but his thinking on these issues is particularly important to The Humane Society of the United States given our new Animals and Religion program. 

.

As the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, with 66 million members in the United States, the pope speaks with force on the major moral issues of the day, with Catholic clergy following his dictates and many millions of adherents paying close attention to his declarations.   

It may come as a surprise to many that Benedict has commented on factory farms, and on several occasions, the importance of protecting animals and the natural world. His statements are corroborated by similar statements from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Catechism.

The pontiff addressed his concern for animals and the environment in his annual statement for the Vatican World Day of Peace, delivered on the first day of this year. “Respecting the environment,” he said, “means not selfishly considering [animal and material] nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests.”  And just last month, the Vatican declared pollution a sin, expressing the idea that sin is not simply an individual act but can also be an offense against the larger community.

In 2002, when the current Pope was known to the world as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he offered highly critical remarks about factory farms that deserve repeating here. In a published conversation with a German journalist, Peter Seewald, he  was asked, “Are we allowed to make use of animals, and even to eat them?”

© USDA
Pigs in gestation crates.

Ratzinger responded: “That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that they are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God’s creatures and even if they do not have the same direct relation to God that man has, they are creatures of his will, creatures we must respect as companions in creation … Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.”*

Did you know the pope has a cat?  Chico is his name, and a biography about the pope, entitled, "Joseph and Chico," was written from his perspective. In a passage, Chico describes the animal-friendly pope:

“Do you know how I know he is friends of us cats?  Because in his garden he has a sculpture that represents one of us cats.”

It is the work of our Animals and Religion program to activate people of faith and religious leaders on the important questions of animal protection.  We encourage you to get engaged, especially if you are a member of a religious community, and to help spread the good news of animal protection.    

*Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald."  (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), 78-79.

Protecting the Vulnerable

© North County Times
The infant bear cub.

Warning: dangerous video. Your heart may melt more than just a little watching the footage of a baby bear cub, rescued on a road in southern California and then taken to refuge at The Fund for Animals Wildlife Center in Ramona, Calif. 

In the video, you'll see not only a cub who is beyond adorable, but also more than just a little needy.  She was born to bond with her mother, and she is unrelenting in her efforts to get closer to her surrogate human mother. Despite their own instincts to bring him close, the staff at our center are keeping some distance to avoid human habituation. If the bear cub becomes too accustomed to people, that would make her release back into the wild—some months down the line when she can fend for herself—all but impossible.

© The HSUS/Marcus Gyger
A seal pup, photographed just days before the 2008 hunt.

She's every bit as fetching as the baby seals in Canada, who have been featured on our website now for several weeks. These babies miss their mothers, too. It's almost unthinkable that any decent person would harm any creature so vulnerable.

That's the emerging consensus world opinion, and the sealing industry and its enablers are scrambling to defend and justify their conduct. Yesterday, the Premiers of Newfoundland and Nunavut proposed banning the use of clubs, or hakapiks, to kill seals. They are now in full panic mode over the European Environment Commissioner's proposal to ban the import of seal skins from any hunt that is inhumane. They suggest just shooting the pups as an alternative, even though the loss rate is so high because the animals may be struck and lost in the water.

At the end of the day, the government officials are defending something that just does not pass the test of civilized comportment. It's archaic and inhumane, and their vain attempts to put a nice sheen on their killing tools won't sway the public.

Killing a helpless baby seal is an indefensible action, no matter the instrument of torment and death.

Safer Fate for Seals

More news from Rebecca Aldworth, our director of Canadian wildlife issues. She's been monitoring the seal hunt and speaking to press throughout the world about the horror of this slaughter.

As we leave Newfoundland—bringing the observation of the 2008 seal hunt to a close—I think forward to a time when this is all over.

When the skin of a baby seal has no value on the international market, and the Canadian government has finally ended the seal hunt.

I imagine coming back here—anonymous again amongst the people of the East Coast of Canada.

© Nigel Barker
A harp seal pup seen on March 27.

I’ll charter a helicopter for a few hours on a still and sunny day, and fly out to sea. We’ll land on a pristine ice floe, and I'll walk across to where the seals are, spellbound as always by the brilliant colors reflected around me.

Fat, silvery baby seals will look up at me trustingly, their luminous eyes full of curiosity. I’ll lie down on the ice and slowly move into the group—a temporary guest in their nursery. The pups will touch noses, moving quietly around me. Soon they will begin to fall asleep. For awhile, I’ll lie there with them, knowing that peace has been restored to the ice.

And then I’ll apologize to the baby seals, tears streaming down my face.

For all the seals I saw brutalized and killed and did not intervene because the law prevented it. For all the suffering I bore witness to helplessly. For not being able to end it faster.

But these seal pups won’t know what happened here. They will live their lives as they were meant to, sleeping in their nursery, taking turns splashing in shallow pools on the ice. Becoming more and more confident until they finally slip into the ocean and silently swim away.

I wonder if the images of the slaughter will slowly start to fade, if time will make the suffering of these seals somehow seem more distant. But I know that will not happen. There are some things that can never and should never be forgotten. So instead I’ll hope the pain of the past can serve as a lesson for the future.

© Nigel Barker
A sealer swings a hakapik on March 29.

Coming back to the present, I know that our battle to reach that day—when the hunt is over for good—is at its most critical.

This year, sealskin prices are so low that most sealers are saying it is not worth their while to participate in the hunt. In the Front, less than 100 sealing vessels have hailed out—down from 700 in previous years. Just the thought of an EU ban on seal products has been enough to stop the majority of sealers from hunting this year.

Then days ago, the European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas confirmed he will propose a ban on seal products originating from inhumane hunts. Back in Canada, the ProtectSeals team rejoiced. Because if the EU adopts such a ban, seal products from Canada will never again be traded in the EU.

Our observation out here has been difficult, but we have gathered the evidence we need to prove that Canada's commercial seal hunt remains every bit as cruel as it has always been. That evidence will be provided directly to the European Commission and Parliament.

And we have more good news from the United States, with more major grocery chains and restaurants joining the boycott of Canadian seafood products. Because of this economic pressure, Canadian fishermen are fast realizing they are losing more from hunting seals than they can ever hope to gain.

Thank you for standing with us and bearing witness to the 2008 commercial seal hunt. We are so close to stopping this cruelty—with your support, we’ll make it the last slaughter of baby seals in Canada.

Cause and Effect

Animal cruelty is a vice, and our society should fight it with every ounce of energy we can muster. Abusing animals is a moral issue, and it commands the attention of people of conscience, lawmakers, and corporations. Given the public's love and appreciation for animals, we have a built-in advantage in taking on human-caused abuse and exploitation.

But our cause is buttressed by the connectivity of animal cruelty to other social ills. The fact is, when we cause harm to animals, there's usually some other closely correlated negative effect. Animal fighters do not just perpetrate acts of cruelty; they are often knee-deep in other criminal behavior, such as narcotics, human-on-human violence, money laundering, or some other form of mayhem. In our investigation of the Hallmark/Westland Meat Co., we documented cruelty to cows. But we also saw that abusing animals resulted in demonstrable food safety threats—to say nothing of the devastating effect on the beef industry itself.

Those of us immersed in animal protection know of these connections. And these ideas were elegantly knitted together in Barbara Cook Spencer's essay in last Friday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor. Spencer writes:

Much as bullies demoralize themselves when they dominate or ride roughshod over those who are meek, vulnerable, or defenseless, it should be obvious that human beings are the ones demoralized by the commission of inhumane acts.

I've touched on this argument before. But it bears repeating. Cruelty is indivisible, and when we do harm to animals, that's just one manifestation of how this behavior erodes the fabric of a civil society.

Horse Sense

Stopping horse slaughter for human consumption has been a long-standing priority for the organization. In the past year, we’ve seen the closure of the last three domestic horse slaughter plants, and we are pushing Congress to pass legislation to ban the export of live horses for slaughter in Canada and Mexico. However, the path to slaughter starts years before the animal is loaded on a trailer bound for a slaughter plant in Canada or Mexico, and the long-term solution to this problem is to foster a sense of greater responsibility to horses.

Horses end up at slaughter plants because of basic human failures. It happens when people overbreed horses with no thought of placing them in a safe setting. It happens when a horse owner fails to establish any meaningful bond with a horse, treating the animal like a commodity rather than a companion. It happens when people do not know how to handle or train a horse, and frustration causes them to cast off the animal.

To avoid these scenarios and to assure better outcomes for the animals, we are working with horse owners, equine experts and industry groups to provide options for training and care so that horses don’t end up, six years and six owners later, walking into the auction house ring.

These basic ideas are captured comprehensively and clearly in "The Humane Society of the United States Complete Guide to Horse Care." I’m pleased to announce this amazing and valuable new book is available for order.

This guide has been a labor of love, not only for coauthor Erin Harty, a writer, horsewoman, and longtime moderator and administrator of The Chronicle of the Horse’s ten online discussion forums, but also for the HSUS staff members who supported Erin.

"The Humane Society of the United States Complete Guide to Horse Care" provides horse owners and prospective caretakers with an ethical framework for dealing with the knotty problems of buying, caring for, and possibly re-homing the horse in their life. It urges every one of them to make the same commitment to their horse that they would to a dog or cat—as a companion for life deserving of care and concern at every stage.

Here at The HSUS, we’ve redoubled our commitment to equine welfare. We hope this book will further our mission to celebrate animals and, by providing a resource for understanding the emotional and physical needs of the horse, help owners develop a special bond and enhance the wonderful experience of sharing their life with an equine friend. You can help in this mission by making this book a bestseller and getting it into the hands of every horse enthusiast in the country. We need to elevate the place of horses in our culture, and to foster a commitment to lifelong care and responsibility for these extraordinary animals.

The Hunt Goes On

The HSUS's ProtectSeals team has returned to Canada, where the slaughter of baby seals is set to resume tomorrow. As our team makes preparations to document the hunt, I've asked Rebecca Aldworth to provide an update.

© Nigel Barker
A seal pup seen on March 27.

While Canada's commercial seal hunt continues into its third week, we can take some comfort in the fact that many of the baby seals have so far been spared the hunters' clubs and guns. The Canadian government has reported that 2,900 seals have been killed to date—far less than would have been by this time in a normal year.

But tomorrow everything will change.

Newfoundland sealing boats are already making their way through the ice into the Gulf of St. Lawrence (map). Tomorrow, half an hour before dawn, the killing will begin in earnest. The Canadian government estimates 100 large sealing boats from Newfoundland, along with 200 smaller boats, will take part in the slaughter in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. On Saturday the hunt in the Front, off the northeastern coast of Newfoundland, will open, with hundreds more vessels moving into position to kill the seals.

We will be there, continuing to bear witness to this unfolding tragedy. It is our hope that the evidence we gather this year will be enough to shut down this slaughter forever.

But even as we prepare for tomorrow's traumatic events, there is good news. Our efforts to close markets around the world are clearly having an impact. The prices paid to sealers has fallen again this year—down to $33 for a flawless skin, compared to a reported $105 in 2006. Sealers are saying it may not be worth their while to take their boats out into the treacherous ice floes for such a low return. We can only hope that the trend so far this year will continue, and that some of the baby seals will be spared a horrible fate.

For those unlucky seals who are met by hunters ready to club, shoot and skin them, we'll be there. Our cameras will document what the Canadian government and the sealing industry does not want the world to see: the horrendous cruelty that has always existed in this brutal slaughter, no matter how the spin doctors in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans try to cover it up.

Thank you for standing with us through this difficult time. With your support, we will continue our fight to save the seals, for as long as it takes to end this brutal slaughter for good.

Biting Back Against Puppy Mills

"Change can't happen fast enough" declared Christopher Barrett, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and Visitors Bureau. "What's happening in these puppy mills is atrocious." That's Barrett's reaction to last week's "Oprah" exposé of the puppy mill industry, and his remarks make plain that the people in and around Lancaster County, Pa.—where some of the images broadcast on "Oprah" came from—are not circling the wagons. Barrett knows that the region he cares about and promotes is going to be saddled with a negative image unless something is done.

But how do we take on the larger problem of dogs being churned out by mills as a cash crop? Through the years, many people have condemned puppy mills, but that has not translated into systemic change. In fact, through The HSUS's own investigations, we've revealed that there are probably more puppy mills than ever. At some level, that stands to reason, given that the number of dogs in homes has steadily increased year after year—in short, the mills are attempting to supply a growing market. To thrive economically, the mills merely have to capture a small portion of the market for dogs. With mill dogs going for $300 to $3,000, it's a lucrative industry, and with little or no regulation, their operations are unfettered.

© The HSUS

As I've said before, this problem would be solved if people simply did not purchase dogs from pet stores or through the Internet. The best place, bar none, to get a companion animal is at the local shelter, or through a rescue group. Every time someone adopts from a shelter, he or she is directly helping to diminish the tragedy of animal overpopulation. We all need to do more to promote adoption in the first instance.

But the traffickers of puppy mill dogs are adept at misdirection, and succeed in selling people a bill of goods about the superiority of other sources for animals. They purport to sell dogs only from responsible breeders, even though nothing could be further from the truth. To succeed, the mills only have to dupe a portion of the public.

That's why we'll probably not solve this problem until we have strong laws. There are about 20 states with legislation pending that would have an impact on some mills, and many of these bills are worthy of support. But most of the bills do not address the fundamental problems associated with puppy mills. We need bolder policy solutions, and that will only happen when lawmakers hear a clamor from the public.

The government should limit the number of puppies that any operation can sell, and that alone would put a crimp on mills. Lawmakers should require that all animals be socialized. And they should place limits on the frequency of breeding for females, who are often bred every heat cycle. And elected officials should not allow imports of puppies from foreign operations, which could easily flood the American market with dogs from China, Eastern Europe, and other nations that treat the dogs as a commodity.

And the federal government should be licensing, inspecting and regulating puppy millers selling direct to the public or through the Internet. This entire class of individuals is unregulated and no minimal provision of the Animal Welfare Act applies to these facilities. Congress needs to change the law to reflect the vast lack of oversight of these puppy mills.

We need a zero tolerance policy for puppy mills, in both our laws and our consumer behavior.

It is important for every HSUS supporter to write to your elected officials at the federal and state level and demand action on puppy mills. So please take that opportunity today.

Talk Back: Puppy Truths on TV

"The Oprah Winfrey Show" has a worldwide audience of 40 million people. So once word began to circulate that Oprah Winfrey would be dedicating an episode of her show to the abusive conditions at puppy mills and the related issues of pet overpopulation, euthanasia, and spay and neuter, there was anticipation and excitement in the comments that came into the blog:

I know a lot of people who are really looking forward to this show. I used to foster for a rescue organization, and it's all we've been talking about for the past two days. I was glad to learn today that Wayne was on the show. I'll be taping it and watching it tomorrow night. —Tracy Habenicht

As our nation prepares to watch "Oprah" tomorrow (hopefully everyone here loves Oprah like I do!), I'll be praying the impact of the show will reach far and wide. I look forward to seeing you live for the first time; I’m so proud of you. When I gathered signatures for the farmed animal initiative all I could think about for weeks was where is Oprah. If only she could get wind of the animal suffering around the world, I know she could help bring about REAL change. So I'm holding out for the best outcome for all you do in the name of animals. —JG

The response amplified as the show aired across the country, and I’ve included a sampler of your comments below.

Wayne, I watched Oprah's show yesterday, as painful as it was at times. I'm a volunteer with a rescue group here in Austin, but I've never seen a puppy mill firsthand. Let's hope the show enlightened a few thousand more people. I'm grateful for The HSUS and all the great work you do. Thank you. —Sue Rostvold, Austin, Texas

Thank you for being on Oprah's show on Friday, April 4, regarding the horrors of puppy mills. It was excellent, but so much more needs to be done. Please encourage Oprah to do follow up shows about these horrible puppy mills. The next show needs to focus on the need for federal legislation and tell viewers what they can do to convince their U. S. Representative and Senator to force these commercial breeders to improve conditions for these dogs! Thank you! —Gayle K. Randol

I just finished watching Oprah's show about puppy mills. It was a wonderful show and I am very happy that she now considers herself a changed woman who will, in the future, adopt from shelters. I hope that this does not prove to be her last show on this subject. What I do not understand, however, is why the people who presented the material did not take the opportunity to ask viewers to contact their elected representatives about the lack of USDA inspections of these mills and the need for better laws to govern these breeding facilities. You can preach forever and encourage people to do the right thing, but only legislation and enforcement will make the HUGE changes that are necessary. —Janet White

Great news! After seeing the heartbreaking “Oprah” show today, I called my Congressman, Frank LoBiondo, who is a tireless animal advocate, and before the show even aired he had sponsored legislation that will shut down all puppy mills in this country! Kudos to the Congressman, Wayne Pacelle, HSUS and Oprah! —Maria D. Dicino

Thank you so much Wayne Pacelle from HSUS, Bill Smith from Main Line Animal Rescue, investigative reporter Lisa Ling, and Oprah for airing the recent exposé on puppy mills on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” And all the others out there that have committed to this tremendous feat of ending puppy mills forever! I can't imagine how one can sleep at night after visiting these mills and looking into the eyes of these poor little souls. I haven't even been able to get any of the images out of my head since I watched the show. However, as difficult as it was to watch, I knew it was my responsibility to do so. I can be a part of the solution to stop these mills. In fact, I'm so thankful that I do know now so I can spread the word each and every day. I, like many people, had heard of them but had NO idea that the conditions are so horrific. This is a horrible tragedy and it takes place in our country. I'm ashamed that the United States, our government, is aware of what's happening to these animals in these mills and they’re not doing anything to stop them immediately. How is this legal? I thought we had laws to protect animals from abuse and cruelty. Now I learn that we actually allow it. It's sickening. Our government should be ashamed for allowing this to take place and for not banning all puppy mills and bad breeders immediately. Thank God for The HSUS, the rescues and all the animal lovers. We all have to work together to do whatever we can to save these fur kids today… I'm in 100 percent to do whatever I can to help. I've started sending my donations for the fight to stop puppy mills, I've emailed everyone I know and asked for their help. I've emailed my local legislators and asked all my friends and family to do the same. I'm going to post flyers everywhere I know I can. What else can I do? I need to help these animals. We all do… —Sherry

Collaborating Against Cruelty

Last Friday's "Oprah Winfrey Show" on the mistreatment of dogs at puppy mills and the related issues of pet overpopulation, euthanasia, and spay and neuter has people of conscience throughout the nation hankering for reform. The intensive confinement and other forms of mistreatment of dogs, particularly the breeding males and females conscripted to mass-produce puppies for the pet trade, is an embarrassment and a moral failure. The HSUS has done three major investigations into the mills in the last year—with footage from these investigations broadcast on "Oprah"—and we are committed to using the full resources of the organization to achieve reform. Thanks to the efforts on Friday of Oprah and her team, our campaign has been turbocharged.

Meanwhile, the machinery of The HSUS continues to advance our cause on other fronts. Today, good news out of Colorado.

© Farm Sanctuary
Veal crates will be phased out as part
of Colorado's historic measure.

Just six months ago, I started discussions with leaders in the agriculture community in Colorado about farm animal confinement practices, specifically veal and gestation crates and battery cages. I told them we intended to file a ballot initiative for the November 2008 election, but would prefer to reach an accommodation in the legislature to avoid an initiative fight that would be costly to both sides.

Much to their credit, the leaders in the world of agriculture in Colorado embarked with me and my colleagues in a series of discussions without quite knowing where we'd end up. We had a series of honest and productive meetings, and did our best to put aside stereotypes and bias. We ran across our share of bumps in the road, but we were able to keep on track, thanks due in large part to Gov. Bill Ritter and his aides and also Agriculture Commissioner John Stulp. The Governor and Commissioner Stulp were committed to a positive outcome for all parties. Dr. Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University—an academic with credibility in both the animal protection and agriculture communities—was also indispensable in these discussions.

Today, we saw the culmination of these efforts. The Colorado House of Representatives, following the lead of the Senate, passed legislation to phase out veal crates in four years and sow gestation crates over 10 years. Gov. Ritter has agreed to sign the legislation, and we've agreed to withdraw our ballot initiative.

The public has an expectation of agricultural producers, and intensive confinement of animals for their entire lives is at odds with their commonsense understanding of how animals should be treated. If The HSUS and agriculture interests can work cooperatively to rid agriculture of these particularly inhumane systems, then we are all that much better off. We are grateful to all of the legislators, executive officials, and industry officials who exhibited such good faith. I send them my thanks and appreciation, and hope that what we've jointly accomplished in Colorado can be a model for the nation.