Companion Animals
U.S. Forest Service, Louisiana Declare "Emergency" to Pander to Hunters
Published July 03, 2009 @ 07:29AM PT
In a move that I haven't yet found a way to make intelligent sense of, the state of Louisiana--upon the U.S. Forest Service's request--declared a "state of emergency" (and no, there's no real emergency) to allow the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission to vote yesterday "to eliminate the need for a special permit to hunt with dogs on Kisatchie National Forest and the requirement that hunters use electronic tracking collars and other forms of identification on their dogs." Even putting aside consideration for the animals intentionally wounded and killed (as everyone involved in this has), this move completely disregards the safety of the dogs exploited and endangered by hunters as well as the other people endangered by hunters.
In Louisiana, hunters barrel recklessly through Kisatchie National Forest to hunt deer, shooting recklessly as well and not paying much attention to the dogs they're using as hunting tools either, dogs who run off and get lost. And apparently, some landowners have complained (not, it seems, because they're terribly worried about deer or dogs, but because the dogs end up on their property). But the state government (and apparently even the federal government now) has moved to protect hunters' so-called right to do whatever they want, rather than protect animals, public safety, or other non-hunting humans.
Watch how this played out--how the federal and state governments went from moving to limit hunting and promote safety to trying to entrench and protect hunters' practices in law; it's nauseating-fascinating:
Update: Greyhound Racing at a Crossroads in Rhode Island
Published June 26, 2009 @ 02:49PM PT
UPDATE: Disregard the petition alerts for now. I didn't realize the General Assembly was rushing to finish up a session--it voted late this afternoon or early this evening, and it indeed voted, 61-9, to force the track operators not only to continue racing greyhounds, but to race them even more. I'll update more later. A Providence Journal blog post indicates that after the Senate's final vote (following House-made amendments), the governor plans to veto. Let's hope so.
I wrote a couple days ago that a Rhode Island greyhound track operator had referred to the outdated, cruel practice as a "dying industry." As you may recall, the article from which I quoted explained that the operators of the financially struggling (and bankruptcy-filing) gambling facility were planning to end greyhound racing there. The Twin River facility is home to the only dog track in Rhode Island. Its closure would be the effective end of greyhound racing in this small state.
But now the Rhode Island state government is taking extaordinary steps to force the business to continue racing greyhounds. It's time for people who care about these dogs to speak up and keep that from happening.
RI Race Track: Greyhound Racing a "Dying Industry"
Published June 24, 2009 @ 09:33AM PT
Oh, I can't tell you how good this was to read (and write in a headline). From AP, via Forbes:
UTGR Inc., the operator of Twin River, filed Tuesday for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as it struggles to repay more than $500 million in debt. The facility will remain open as it restructures its debt, though it hopes to discontinue greyhound racing. . . .
Besides its debts, Twin River has been losing about $10.5 million a year from greyhound racing, said spokeswoman Patti Doyle. It plans to suspend racing after Aug. 8.
"We cannot continue to undertake it," Doyle said. "It's a dying industry" . . .
"I never thought about betting on the dogs," said Ron Audette, a 69-year-old who makes the drive from Fall River, Mass., twice a month to play video slots. "I don't think the dogs make it a big deal."
The faster this industry dies, the better.
Greyhounds: Remembering Their History While Working to Change Their Future
Published May 27, 2009 @ 01:57PM PT
I have a greyhound friend. Her name is Ella, and she is 9 years old. She was adopted at 2 years old, neurotic and in desperate need of love and one-on-one attention, after being rescued from the racing industry. A couple years ago, I used the numbers tattooed inside her ears in an attempt to track down her history and some of her littermates. In the little time I was able to spend searching, I ended up finding not much beyond a couple names and proof that some siblings had raced here and there; the name of one of her parents--I can't even remember which one now; and the name of one sibling's "owner"--about whom I could find nothing.
If I'd had the time and resources to do more digging, perhaps I would have found more; perhaps I would have found some surviving siblings even. But perhaps not. Perhaps the trail would have gone cold. Or perhaps I would have found that all were dead, given how very many greyhounds are killed every year for not being fast enough.
One-Strike Law for Animal Abusers in Your State?
Published May 26, 2009 @ 07:53AM PT
I received a note from the dedicated folks at the Animal Legal Defense Fund recently, letting me know about two things: (1) the campaign for One Strike and You're Out state laws for animal abusers and (2) the coverage of one of ALDF's major rescues and court cases in a popular mainstream venue, which (a) is excellent in terms of getting the information out there but (b) also warrants discussion related to the particular venue. I'll write about these in two separate posts.
First, the law. Despite the familiar name, this isn't a call for sending people to prison for the rest of their lives after the first offense. The ALDF explains:
The AVMA: Best Interests of Animals Not Important
Published May 20, 2009 @ 05:54AM PT
Want a prime example of why I take such issue with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)? (What--you didn't know I did? Then you must have missed this post.)
First, the good news: "The opinion, issued March 10, reverses a trial court's decision that pets are personal property lacking in the unique values typically associated with heirlooms, family treasures, and works of art that induce a strong sentimental attachment." Yeah, that's the good news. Animals (or rather, companion animals--not all animals) are now as "valuable" and as worthy of "sentimental attachment" as heirlooms and paintings in New Jersey. Great progress. But don't worry--they're definitely still "property." Here we go, straight from the AVMA's official journal, in response to this New Jersey court decision regarding the custody ownership of a dog after a couple split:
Why You Shouldn't Be Wearing Even Faux Fur Trims
Published May 13, 2009 @ 08:45AM PT
The videos of live-skinning are out there. I've watched them. They include some of the most horrible images I have ever seen, and just thinking back to them makes me nauseous. For those of you who haven't seen them and who can't bring yourself to, Michelle of Animal Blawg has done the difficult for you, and she has described what she saw in "Live Skinning Raccoon Dogs and Other Tales from the Fur Farm." What she describes matches what I remember seeing. If you can't bear even to read the description, still wander over to the post to read what Michelle has to say after the play-by-play.
A couple years ago, HSUS confirmed via investigation that much "faux" fur used in jacket trims and the like isn't actually fake. When you pick up that trimmed sweater, jacket, or pair of gloves from your favorite department store, you could easily be holding in your hands the fur of a raccoon dog--who was skinned alive in China so that people could look "fashionable." (Not even funky colors mean your fur is fake--it means only that whatever your wearing, real or not, was dyed.) Additionally, millions of domestic dogs and cats are killed (many of them skinned alive) for fur each year too.
But it makes no difference whether the fur comes from a fox, mink, raccoon, rabbit, dog, or cat; whether the killing took place in China or the United States; whether the animal was tortured and killed via trapping, live-skinning, maddening confinement and strangulation, or anal electrocution (as is done on many American fur farms--yes, seriously). Regardless of where the fur originally came from, it's cruel, unnecessary, and wrong. And wearing truly fake fur is part of the problem too (explanation after the jump).
