Politics and Law
-
Activists Jailed for Refusing to Testify Before Grand Jury
-
Could "Service Dog" Programs Be Good for Both Dogs and Veterans?
-
Judge Rejects Plea Deal for Animal Activist, Uses "Terror" Rhetoric
Obama Administration Still Neglecting Endangered Species
Published November 08, 2009 @ 10:47AM PT
President Obama's record on animal issues in his first year in office has been less than inspiring, including his decisions to give responsibility for protecting animals in his administration to decidedly un-animal-friendly people (Sam Hamilton to head the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior, for example) and, on a more personal level, his unfortunate failure to set an example that could have benefited shelter dogs.
And the Center for Biological Diversity has just weighed in on an administration report regarding candidates for endangered species protections. Obama's administration, the Center reports, has identified "a total of 249 species in need of protection." So what's the problem?
The review also describes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s progress in listing these species, showing that the administration has, to date, only listed one species – a Hawaiian plant reduced to a handful of individuals.
“This review shows that the Obama administration has not substantially improved the dismal record of the Bush administration in providing protection to the nation’s critically endangered wildlife,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Protection of only one species in 10 months reflects a failure to enact substantial reforms in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
Please read more here.
---
Photo of juvenile yellow-billed loon retrieved from Wikimedia Commons
The Good, Bad, and Baffling: Cat Declawing in California and Elsewhere
Published November 04, 2009 @ 06:26AM PT
I've got good news -- at least if you're a domestic cat in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and some other California cities, that is. But there's no shortage of bad (and baffling) news too, on the very same front. First, the good: last night, San Francisco's proposed ban on declawing cats won 9 out of 11 votes from the city's supervisors; on Monday, the Public Safety Committee of the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to ask City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to draft an ordinance banning the practice; and in late October, the Santa Monica City Council passed a ban.
But the United States and Canada overall are still embarrasingly behind other countries in this area, and despite progress in California, a veterinary "welfare" organization in the state just managed to pass a law that will make it illegal for municipalities to pass any further such bans as of January 2010. The people behind the bans? Actual advocates for cats. The people behind the law to stop the bans? The California Veterinary Medical Association, a chip off the good ol' un-animal-friendly American Veterinary Medical Association block.
The Killing of the Misunderstood 3,500: Denver's Pit Bull Ban
Published October 29, 2009 @ 07:24AM PT
Denver's Westword published some really difficult-to-read material (and heartbreaking-to-see images) in the last month related to the city's pit bull ban. The reports were undoubtedly rough for any animal advocates who saw them, but I imagine that those involved in pit bull rescue and those who ourselves know and love a pit bull whom others have thought "unfixable" may have been hit even harder.
As many readers know, I live with a loving but traumatized rescued pit bull (an American Pit Bull Terrier to be exact), and her recovery from the abuse inflicted on her by humans has been slow. Two weeks ago, she hit a milestone in that recovery (more related to that coming in a post this weekend), but if we lived in Denver or any other city with breed-specific legislation, she never would have gotten that chance; Mabel would have been dead -- killed -- a long time ago. And knowing that perhaps intensifies my own personal anger, frustration, and heartbreak in response to these laws.
First, before we get to the heart of the issues, I'd like to give you the links to Westword's recent detailed coverage. Initially, this story appeared in the paper: "For two decades, pit bulls have been public enemy #1 in Denver. But maybe it's time for a recount." And these posts appeared concurrently and in the hours and days, respectively, to come: "Inside Denver's 'Pit Bull Row'" and "3,497 dead dogs and other numbers from Denver's pit bull ban," the former taking us inside the "row" and showing us the sweet, scared faces of the dogs awaiting death there. Then a couple weeks later came this jarring post, revealing to us the piles of dead dogs (before following this link, please note that the images are difficult to see): "Leaked: photos of pit bulls killed due to Denver ban."
Denver's pit bull ban has been in place for 20 years now, and for just as long, animal advocates have been fighting it. Pit bulls aren't the inherently vicious animals some people -- and laws -- make them out to be, and bans on pit bulls and the mass killing of these dogs defy logic. Consider this, from Westword's in-depth story:
Firearms killed over 30,000 people in the United States in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On average, dogs kill 23 people per year. Of those, six are killed by pit bulls. As a health hazard, pit bulls rate below bees, lightning and mooses in the number of deaths for which they're responsible.
Green Scare Updates: SHAC 7, Knowing Your Rights, and Double Standards
Published October 21, 2009 @ 08:17AM PT
The usual weekly (or biweekly, sometimes, I know) Animals in the Blogs roundup is on its way soon, but in advance of that, I want to direct you to the latest goings-on at Green Is the New Red in a separate post because Will Potter has published multiple important reports this past week. For example, as many know by now, the SHAC 7 conviction was upheld, and this is bad news for all activists, as Will notes:
This case is much bigger than the SHAC 7, and it is bigger than the animal rights movement. The AETA 4 are facing terrorism charges for chalking slogans and protesting with masks. Climate groups are organizing massive civil disobedience campaigns. These movements continue to grow, and so does the crackdown against them.
This is critical time in American history. Corporations, working alongside ambitious prosecutors, are radically expanding cultural and legal conceptions of “terrorism” in order to push a political agenda. Mainstream animal and environmental groups, the press, civil liberties groups, they have all largely remained silent on this historic case. As a result, this appellate court has issued its sweeping ruling with impunity.
Appellate Court: Encouraging Civil Disobedience Is Not Protected Speech: Will examines the SHAC 7 ruling and its implications in detail here. This post is a must-read.
Pet Shop Protesters Shot -- Will It Be Labeled Terrorism?: "If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a 'terrorist' under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act."
Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”
Know Your Rights Booklet for Activists (image, above, of the booklet cover courtesy of the Center for Constitutional Rights)
Illinois: Where Hog Farming Dollars Trump Environment and Human Health
Published October 20, 2009 @ 06:56AM PT
Illinois is a hog farming state. If you live in more rural areas of Illinois, you probably know at least one hog farmer. Having grown up there, I directly know at least three, with at least one of these operations being a CAFO -- run by members of my own family. Only Iowa, North Carolina, and Minnesota are home to more hog farms (and hogs) than Illinois.
So given the numbers and the pull of Illinois' pig farmers and its trade group, the Illinois Pork Producers, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by the story I just learned of this morning. Two and a half years ago, in a rural area near Springfield, a farmer was preparing to start an operation in which he would raise 3,750 pigs for slaughter at a time. Neighbors objected. And they were dismissed. And now the court has ruled that they owe the hog farmer damages.
Man Charged for Strangling Rat
Published October 16, 2009 @ 06:49AM PT
Well, there's a headline I didn't expect to be writing anytime soon. Nevertheless, it's what a Florida newspaper reported yesterday: "Man Accused in Rat Strangling Charged with Animal Cruelty." In the midst of an oh-so-mature fight with his wife over the last cigarette, the 22-year-old went after the animal: he "grabbed a white rat from their aquarium, smashed its head against the tank and then strangled it to death." (Of course, the article calls the rat "it" and gives us no idea what the gender of the animal actually was.)
Decompressing Sheep? Boiling Monkeys? Illegal, But Condoned
Published October 14, 2009 @ 06:43AM PT
Six weeks ago, I wrote about the cruel and illegal decompressing of sheep at the University of Wisconsin, which the Madison-based group Alliance for Animals has been trying to put a stop to. At the time of that early September writing, it appeared that district attorney Brian Blanchard agreed about the illegality of the horrid practice and might actually take on the researchers.
No such luck. Blanchard has concluded [PDF] that the experiments themselves are not illegal but that every time a sheep has died during the decompression experiments, the law has indeed been broken. But he doesn't much care. Sure, it's illegal and immoral and wrong, but ultimately, Blanchard has decided that though he could do something, even if not much, "it would not be a wise use of the resources of this office to pursue" action against the university. What he does think should happen next is jaw-dropping.
