Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation

Out of the Ashes

Our Emergency Services team consists of 18 full-time staff members, but we rely on hundreds and even thousands of trained volunteers and also cooperative relations with other groups and local, state, and federal agencies. We do not respond just to natural disasters, but to human-caused disasters as well, such as hoarding cases, puppy mills, and animal fighting operations.

Like our advocacy work, our hands-on work increasingly knows no boundaries. After a volcano buried a community in Chile in more than a foot of ash, causing the evacuation of everyone in the community, we sent some members of our Emergency Services team far south of the equator to help. Scotlund Haisley, our senior director of Emergency Services, has this report.

© Jorge Cadenas/La Tercera
A dog amid volcanic ash in Chile.

Our Emergency Services team knows that devotion to animals is a universal value, and the people of Chile have this sensibility as well. A steady stream of distraught evacuees have pressed pet’s pictures and their addresses into the palms of our team members’ hands, begging them to help rescue their pets from the abandoned city of Chaiten.

Because of continued health risks to humans, the local police and military are not allowing us access to the city. We are working to streamline rescue efforts by gathering addresses from evacuated pet owners and creating maps that pinpoint the location of their pets. These maps will make rescue efforts as efficient as possible once we gain entry into the affected area, which is known as the “hot zone.” 

Thankfully, we have been working with dedicated local animal welfare groups to establish a base of operations and temporary shelters to accommodate animals removed from the affected areas. Military personnel have already removed more than 100 dogs from the region, and continue to transport more to safety each day.

Our team is also leading training sessions in advanced disaster animal care and sheltering. The goal is to train the residents, military and police in animal handling, sheltering and long-term care, with an emphasis on returning rescued animals to their owners and also providing safe and humane housing.

The team will remain in the area to provide additional assistance until May 22.

P.S. Our team members expect to return from Chile to be present for our National Conference on Animals in Disaster in Sacramento June 3-6. There's still time to register for the event.

Three Steps Forward, One Step Back

I am in Orlando today, at The HSUS's Animal Care Expo. It's one of our signature events, and attracts animal sheltering professionals from throughout the nation and the world, though it's a treasure trove of information and instruction for any animal advocate. We are 1,700 strong at the conference, and had a great opening session this morning with MUTTS cartoonist and HSUS board member Patrick McDonnell and Outland cartoonist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Berkeley Breathed, who both gave humorous and emotionally powerful presentations. Also this morning, Zootoo.com's Richard Thompson, in a joint project with The HSUS, handed out more than $100,000 in contributions to 20 shelters, and next week the winner of the $1 million Shelter Makeover will be announced on Fox News and in USA Today.

It's great to be down here, with so many caring animal advocates who are hungry for information on becoming better advocates and organizations.

This morning, I updated the crowd on the immense amount of activity that happened yesterday and today, and I want to share some of this information with you, too. Yesterday, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed legislation to phase out the use of veal crates and gestation crates, after The HSUS engaged in a seven-month negotiation with leaders in the animal agriculture industry and the Governor, Agriculture Commissioner John Stulp, and key lawmakers. We're very pleased with this outcome, and it's a model for future action to improve the welfare of animals in agriculture.

© iStockphoto

In Washington, D.C. yesterday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would list the polar bear as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act. This is a generally positive outcome and an acknowledgment of the long-term threats faced by the bears because of climate change. One consequence of the listing, which takes effect immediately, is to halt the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada into the United States. The United States does not allow sport hunting of polar bears in Alaska, but Canada does and most of the people who kill the bears are U.S. trophy hunters who have been allowed to import the heads in our country. The HSUS has been campaigning in this Congress for a policy to end the imports made by American trophy hunters. Last year, we prevailed on a Senate amendment to stop this killing of polar bears, but failed on a similar House amendment after the NRA, Safari Club, and U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance argued for more killing of the beleaguered and declining bear populations. The Administration's action should take care of the issue, and we'll be watching for maneuvering by trophy hunting extremists to continue their terrible behavior.

The other good news from yesterday was the House passed the conference report on the Farm Bill. It did so with what appears to be a veto-proof majority—the vote was 318-106. And today, the Senate passed the Farm Bill 81-15. So if the President vetoes it, both chambers should have enough votes to override the veto and that will mean three major new reforms for animals, which I wrote about earlier in the week: 1) sweeping new animal fighting legislation that will make all animal fighting and training and possession of fighting animals a federal felony, assuming it affects interstate or foreign commerce in some way; 2) legislation to ban the import of puppies from foreign puppy mills, which will save tens of thousands of dogs each year from misery and suffering; and 3) an upgrade in penalties from $2,500 to $10,000 for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. All in all, perhaps the biggest legislative achievements for animals for the entire Congress, and all in one bill!

I am sorry to report that there was also a dose of bad news yesterday, too. At the insistence of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the Chicago City Council reversed the city's ban on the sale of foie gras—a product that comes from the diseased livers of ducks and geese force-fed so much that their livers swell to ten times their normal size. It's a cruel and degrading practice, all done for a table treat. Mayor Daley has shamed Chicago with his action, and the City Council exhibited not only a lack of compassion, but also a failure of resolve and fortitude. We'll be following up and urge you to contact the Mayor, who has certainly demonstrated he's no friend of animal protection. Polite, professional phone calls can be directed to his office at 312-744-3300.

Talk Back: Racing Breakdown

The death of Eight Belles at last Saturday's Kentucky Derby has spurred a national debate over horse racing and the safety and welfare of the animals (NPR's Tom Ashbrook led a discussion of the contrasting perspectives on Wednesday's "On Point" program, which you can listen to here).

In my blog earlier this week, I argued that the industry had no major watchdog organization, and that I thought this was an unhealthy situation. It would be better for the industry to have an organization nipping at its heels and making it stronger from a humane perspective. In terms of spectator sports involving animals, The HSUS decided years ago to concentrate on dogfighting, cockfighting, hog-dog fighting, and greyhound racing (which we oppose), not horse racing (which we do not oppose). You can read our policy statement here.

That said, we feel an obligation to weigh in and work with industry to improve the treatment of the horses. There are very obvious and identifiable problems in the industry, and no responsible voice can deny these deficiencies. My strong preference is for industry insiders to drive change—partly because there are many racing enthusiasts who care about horses.

For years, there have been bursts of attention to the problems with horse racing generated by breakdowns, drugging scandals, or other highly publicized cases where horses have been caused harm. The big issues that the industry must confront are the racing of 2-year-olds (the animals' skeletal systems are not developed enough to take the pounding from racing), the widespread use of drugs on race days (horses should be racing just on hay, oats, and water), track surfaces (there are superior alternatives to dirt tracks), overbreeding ("surplus" horses are being sent to slaughter), and selective breeding that has made horses more vulnerable to breakdowns. These issues have been debated for years, but there's not been enough action to institute lasting reforms. The very public death of Eight Belles is a moment for the industry to drive change, and we'll help the industry with these changes.

Blog readers have weighed in from varying perspectives. Among the comments we received:

I'm sorry Wayne, but you do not have all the facts about horse racing. Yes, I agree, do not change your priorities. The horse racing industry is trying to take care of its problems. I am a member of HSUS and I totally disagree with your "position" as far as horse racing is brutal and inhumane. Get off the subject. —Sandra Kozlowski

I'm sure there are well over two breakdowns a day in pastures with horses "just being horses" running around on their own time. I've been a long supporter of The HSUS, and there are issues the horse racing industry needs to address, but to downgrade horse racing and call it inhumane is incorrect in my opinion. Most trainers and owners want the best for the animals in their charge. You can find poor trainers and owners in any area involving animals. —Kelly Woodham

As an animal lover and a horse owner, I am OUTRAGED by the most recent "accident" at the Kentucky Derby. This must stop. I don't care what argument the opposing sides come up with; it is cruel and wrong to force a 3-year-old baby horse to run its heart out for the glory of man. It's no "freak accident"; the horses are forced to run and run and run and run. Their whole short three years are filled with running and training. No one asks them if they want to; they are conditioned to know they have to. Most never get to spend time in a grassy pasture, play with other foals, or just be a horse. They only know hard training, and a small stall because they are worth too much money to let out and possibly get hurt before they earn their owners lots of money. When does it end? Horse racing isn't about the love of horses; it's about the love of money. It's time those of us who have had the unbelievable experience of having a loving and respectful relationship with this magnificent and giving creature stand up for them and end this cruel practice of running them until they drop. —Christi

I was relieved to see The HSUS take on this issue. I think pressure should be put on those involved in the sport to make racing safer for the horses. If that's not possible, then maybe we shouldn't be racing horses in the first place. —M.B.

Why are the animal welfare groups waiting for them to change themselves? I have read some of the comment postings included with some of the news articles and the horse owners, breeders, and trainers that are posting have no intent to change. Mostly they say that the treatment the racehorses receive is better than the treatment most people get. I really don't know who exactly it is that they are kidding. Many people don't pay attention to the horse racing industry because they think it is abusive to horses. I doubt the industry will change itself. —BD

Weigh in we must! An industry so motivated by revenue will not police itself. These animals must be defended! —Susan Mudrey

Bull's-eye!

Thank you U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. The Ohio-based radical hunting organization derailed a program we launched with Meijer to generate an additional $5,000 for our fund to help pets and shelters affected by the home foreclosure crisis. I updated you on the issue yesterday—noting that we'd eclipsed our goal of raising twice the amount ($10,000) in order to help animals and teach USSA a lesson.

Well, in this update, I am happy to report that we have continued our fundraising surge, thanks to you. As a result of my call to action we've now raised $43,000 for the foreclosure fund, and more than $10,000 for the wildlife abuses campaign—for a total now exceeding $53,000—more than 10 times what USSA tried to deny us, and the animals. A hearty thanks to all of you who stepped up to help and to send USSA a signal.

Now that we have this tool in place, we'll use it every time USSA tries to rear its ugly head and disrupt a business relationship. We'll not take their nonsense any more.

So, I say to USSA—thanks for the lift in fundraising to allow us to help pets and take on the wildlife abuses you so happily defend. They'll be receiving a formal letter of thanks from me soon, indicating that they've hurt their cause and allowed us to expand our programs in a major way.

P.S. Outdoors writer Ted Williams, in his blog on Fly Rod & Reel, had a great post on the issue that I wanted to share with you.

We Did It

You responded, and we are sending a major message to the extremist wing of the hunting lobby. Yesterday, I issued a call to raise $10,000 after the radical U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), in a despicable move, intimidated Meijer department stores into dropping its support of a fund we created to help keep pets with their families during home foreclosures. Already, supporters have donated more than $25,000—and counting—to help the pet victims of the foreclosure crisis and to save wildlife from horrible abuses such as captive shoots and polar bear trophy hunting. If you’d like to join me in giving USSA a pointed lesson about compassion, please donate to our campaign to end wildlife abuses or to our Foreclosure Pets Grant Fund.

I will soon send a letter to the Sportsmen's Alliance and let them know that they've helped us raise money for pets and for fighting canned hunts and the other inhumane and unsporting practices that are the group's favored activities.

And if they attempt to tamper with our business relationships to help pets or other animals, we'll do the same the next time.

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Let's not let them get away with this. I need your attention to an important issue—and I need your help.

Last week, in a cynical and destructive maneuver, the Ohio-based U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) targeted Meijer department stores for agreeing to donate up to $5,000 through a pet photo contest to a restricted fund administered by The HSUS to provide relief to pets abandoned during the foreclosure crisis. As you probably know, as people have had their homes foreclosed, we've seen a rash of animal abandonment cases, with dogs and cats even left in locked-up homes to languish and die. We've been hearing reports of this from shelters across the country, and we set up a fund to help shelters deal with the influx of animals.

The Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Meijer agreed to help with the foreclosure fund. But for some reason, Meijer capitulated to the extremists at the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, which is a de facto trade association for arms and ammunitions manufacturers, bowhunting companies, hunting guides and outfitters, and other suppliers of hunting equipment and services. The group has a very small rank-and-file membership, but it masquerades as a group speaking for sportsmen. It's really just an arms and bowhunting industry front group.

It's time to teach the USSA a lesson, and I hope you'll help.

So this group has denied pets the help they need. They'll continue to attempt to intimidate businesses from helping animals until they see that their actions are counterproductive.

Here's the plan. Let's raise at least $10,000 right now, with $5,000 to go to pets who are the victims of foreclosures and an additional $5,000 to fight the horrible wildlife abuses that the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance loves.

So, in short, every time USSA tries to bollix up a deal, they'll actually motivate us to generate more revenue not only for the specific cause we're looking to help with, but also to raise funds to fight the abuses that USSA so dearly wants to preserve—like captive shoots, polar bear trophy hunting, bear baiting, aerial gunning of wolves, and the use of steel-jawed leghold traps.

If the USSA nixes a $5,000 deal, we'll raise $10,000. If they disrupt a $10,000 donation, we'll raise $20,000. We'll use their tactics to motivate our supporters and double the money going to the cause of protecting animals. More money will mean more pet protection, but also more ballot initiatives to restrict inhumane and unsporting hunting practices, more state legislation, more local ordinances.
And when we succeed, USSA will have second thoughts about such petty tactics—and, more to the point, the group may realize that it makes no economic sense to launch these campaigns.

I'm putting in $250 today to start us off. Will you please donate $10, $50, $100, $250, or $1,000 right away? This is no gimmick. This is a fundraising plan with a programmatic purpose. I'll keep you apprised of our progress on the blog, and then I'll personally send a letter to USSA thanking them for helping us raise money to fight their inhumane hunting practices, as well as to help the pets that their misguided campaigns are structured to harm.

I assure you that the leaders of the USSA read this blog. They are now notified. They've awakened us now, and we are on their trail.

Alarm Bells Over Eight Belles

It's happened again. A horse breaks down in one of the signature events of horse racing, precisely at the time that average Americans briefly turn their gaze to the spectacle and become fans or followers for a day. Their interest in horse racing is as fleeting as one or two mad dashes of horses in a Triple Crown race. But now, rather than remembering the pomp and circumstance and getting a positive dose of the sport, they remember the names of the poor creatures who break down on national television.

For those only mildly interested in horse racing, it certainly appears that something is wrong with the sport. First Barbaro. Now Eight Belles, a 3-year-old filly. And for those immersed in the sport—the breeders, trainers, owners, veterinarians, and the fans—there's been a history of denial, but now perhaps a grudging acknowledgment of the problems with horse racing.

Horse racing—except on a few days in the run-up to major races—has long been relegated to the back pages of the Sports section. It does not compare with football, baseball, basketball, or even hockey. It's been overtaken by soccer and sometimes by track and field. It's still a major industry, but it's become more of a niche interest rather than a general interest spectator sport. At the tracks themselves, there is a diminishing handle and an aging fan base—not as pronounced as in greyhound racing for sure, but unmistakable nonetheless.

© iStockphoto
Catastrophic injuries have tarnished horse racing.   

Not too long ago, it was apostasy for sports writers or reporters to criticize horse racing or to comment on the humane treatment issues. Now, as we saw after the breakdown of Barbaro and failed efforts to rehabilitate him, there's a spirited debate. Angered by the death of Eight Belles, New York Times columnist William Rhoden asked, "Why do we refuse to put the brutal game of racing in the realm of mistreatment of animals?" He asked, "At what point do we at least raise the question about the efficacy of thousand-pound horses racing at full throttle on spindly legs?"

Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins also wrote in Sunday's paper about the thoroughbreds "on champagne-glass ankles" and the inherent problems in the industry. "Twice since 2006, magnificent animals have suffered catastrophic injuries on live television in Triple Crown races, and there is no explaining that away," wrote Jenkins. "Horses are being over-bred and over-raced, until their bodies cannot support their own ambitions, or those of the humans who race them. Barbaro and Eight Belles merely are the most famous horses who have fatally injured themselves. On Friday, a colt named Chelokee, trained by Barbaro's trainer Michael Matz, dislocated an ankle during an undercard for the Kentucky Oaks and was given a 50 percent chance of survival."

Horse racing has gotten a pass from animal advocates for decades. We've been more worried about the mistreatment of dogs in puppy mills and the tragedy of healthy and adoptable companion animals being euthanized in shelters across the nation. We've been concerned about millions of animals killed by the fur trade—clubbed or trapped or caged to peel away their fur even though we have viable alternatives. We're repulsed by the killing of tens of thousands of animals by trophy hunters at canned hunting facilities, or the shooting of rare animals like polar bears or grizzly bears or wolves. And more and more, we are turning our attention to the routine privations endured by billions of farm animals raised on factory farms. And in terms of horses, the bigger crime has always been the horse slaughter industry, which gathers up and slaughters tens of thousands of healthy horses every year, transports them by inhumane means, and then terrorizes these highly alert animals on kill floors in the United States or Mexico or Canada.

The tragic death of Eight Belles, as discomfiting and disturbing as it was, is unlikely to reorder our priorities. We'll say a few words about horse racing, as do the commentators and industry press, but we'll return to our priorities in a couple of days. But that's a mistake for us all. This industry has not had a rigorous critic to set it in the straight and narrow, and major problems have grown and festered. It's time for the thoroughbred industry to deal with its problems, and if it does not, animal advocates may well decide they can no longer continue to give the industry a free pass.

Here are some of the historic problems. Drugging of injured horses to keep them running, which makes vulnerable horses more susceptible to breakdowns. Racing horses too young. Because the marquee events feature 3-year-olds, these horses must start racing at the tender age of two years, and that's well before their skeletal systems are sturdy enough to endure the pounding from the rigors of the race track. And third, racing horses on track surfaces that are not forgiving—with American tracks favoring dirt surfaces over grass or synthetics.

And then there are the problems coming to light more than ever—problems related to breeding. Breeding too many horses, and waiting for someone else to clean up the problem. And breeding them for body characteristics that make these animals vulnerable to breakdowns, especially those spindly legs on top of these stout torsos.

Sally Jenkins writes, "According to several estimates, there are 1.5 career-ending breakdowns for every 1,000 racing starts in the United States. That's an average of two per day."

It's up to the industry. Deal with your problems, or animal advocacy groups and others not all that interested in horse racing will be forced to weigh in.

Warm and Fuzzy Tails

I want you to do something Sunday morning. It’s pretty simple—just open your newspaper and look at the MUTTS comic strip by Patrick McDonnell. (If yours isn’t one of the more than 700 papers that carries MUTTS, or you’ve moved beyond paper, you can see an archive of the strips at muttscomics.com.)

Sunday's strip is a tribute to animal shelters.

Twice a year, for the last decade, Patrick has created a week of shelter-themed comic strips. And all 10 years of strips, along with more than 70 candid and endearing photos of adopted pets, now fill the pages of Patrick’s latest book, "Shelter Stories: Love. Guaranteed." It's a fantastic book, and one you should buy or give as a gift to any animal lover or to a friend who may not know much about adoptions and animal shelters.

I had the privilege of writing the book’s foreword for Patrick, who is a dear friend and one of the nicest people you will ever meet on this planet. He has served on the board of directors of The HSUS since 2000, and has been a tireless advocate for animals throughout his adult life. Over the years, MUTTS has mixed humor with real insight into every issue we work on—including the Canadian seal hunt, the cruelty of fur, factory farming, the wildlife trade, puppy mills, and the tethering of dogs.

His characters Earl the dog and Mooch the cat are most often the stars in MUTTS. In the shelter-themed strips, however, the characters are, to use Patrick’s words, “the innocent animals who patiently wait for a home, the dedicated workers who devote such care to them, and the kindhearted people who adopt them.”

If I were to make a list of the most valuable yet underappreciated jobs, “animal shelter professional” would have to be somewhere near the top. Every day, these men and women perform challenging—and sometimes heroic—acts to help animals, too often without the recognition they deserve. To have an artist as talented and popular as Patrick celebrate their work in front of millions of readers is a needed and well-deserved morale boost.

In a couple of weeks, more than a thousand animal care and rescue professionals will be able to thank Patrick in person when he addresses the crowd and signs copies of his book at Animal Care Expo, the world’s largest education conference for people working in the animal care field. (It's still not too late to sign up to attend.) He’ll be joined by another great cartoonist, author, and animal advocate—Berkeley Breathed.

You probably know Berkeley best from his hugely popular creations, Bloom County and Opus. A couple of years ago, he turned his imagination and wit to "Flawed Dogs," a book about a mythical animal shelter and its equally unique inhabitants. His message: that even imperfect dogs can be perfect companions.

Comic strips that include a message, along with humor and irony, are part of the American cultural tradition. With Patrick and Berkeley, we are fortunate to have two immensely talented cartoonists using their talents to help animals. And we couldn’t be prouder to count them as friends.

Forecast for Farm Animals

There comes a time in all successful social movements when the seeds of reform that have long been sown finally begin to grow roots and take hold of the soil. When it comes to our fight against the most extreme confinement of animals on today’s factory farms, I see that process developing, and in the end we will see a flower bloom.

© iStockphoto

After a comprehensive two-year study, the prestigious Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production concluded that factory farms pose unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and animal welfare. The Pew Commission explicitly recommended the phase-out of confinement practices such as battery cages (for laying hens), veal crates, and gestation crates (for breeding sows), and it made the announcement earlier this week at a press conference in Washington, D.C. These three confinement practices constitute the three core elements of a pending California ballot initiative that The HSUS is strongly backing and that is set for a vote in November.

While this conclusion may seem run-of-the-mill for animal advocates, it’s important to recognize just who sits on this esteemed commission. Indeed, it’s comprised of some of the most respected and knowledgeable voices within the agricultural and scientific community. Some members include former Kansas Governor John Carlin; former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman; former Dean of the University of Tennessee’s College of Veterinary Medicine Dr. Michael Blackwell; Bon Appetit Management Company CEO Fedele Bauccio; Niman Ranch founder and rancher Bill Niman; author and professor Marion Nestle; and Colorado State University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy Dr. Bernard Rollin—just to name a few.

For years, The HSUS and virtually all other legitimate animal protection groups have been calling for an end to the confinement of animals in these archaic and abusive cages and crates; animals built to move should be allowed to do so. The validation of this position by the Pew Commission comes at a good time for the California ballot initiative, and for our efforts to work with corporations to phase in these reforms.

With each successful corporate campaign against battery cage confinement and with each new state law banning veal and gestation crates, our movement is making definite advances for farm animals. In a society where Americans express a love and appreciation for animals, confining living and feeling beings in cages so small that the animals cannot turn around is just not acceptable or ethically consistent.

My respect and admiration go out to the Pew commissioners and their staff for the rigorous work and deliberations. It was the Brambell Committee in the United Kingdom in the 1960s that set that nation on the path to phasing out these inhumane confinement practices, and perhaps the Pew Commission will ultimately achieve the same effect in the United States. Policy makers at the local, state, and federal levels should heed their recommendations and take action now for the welfare of animals and people.

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.

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.

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.

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 grocer