Take A Stand Against Anti-Wolf Proposals in Congress: Easy Action

Of course the anti-animal faction is back in power in the House again. And, they love to kill Wolves.

So, though I can’t promise this will help, take a second and visit these TWO ACTIONS:

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/campaign.faces?siteId=3&campaign=AmericanWolves&origin=ARS_FACE_FAN_ADGROUP_TAKEACTION_DEF_AMWOLF_0120_CTG

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/campaign.faces?siteId=3&campaign=LoboWolf&origin=ARS_FACE_FAN_ADGROUP_PUB_LOBOWOLF_TUES_1200_CTG

Election 2010: Results Bad for Animal Rights

Is it really that much of a surprise? Sadly, no.

As stated in the article below, “…voters in Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee approved constitutional rights to hunt and fish.” Yet, there were a couple bright spots as you’ll also read below.

I’d like to thank the author at http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/ for keeping track of these issues. I’ve pasted in the text below for those in need of quick information, but please do visit the site to read this and more.

Article:

Animal initiatives become law

http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/2010/11/animal-initiatives-become-law.html

I'm sure animal law is on few folks' minds this morning, given the changed legal landscape in our federal government and in many states. It seems safe to say the gains made by Republicans will have little effect on animal welfare, much less animal rights. Only animals in the wild are seriously protected by law, in the form of environmental statutes, and few politicians seem focused on environmental issues.

The election did mean some changes in animal law though, much of it anti-animal. As noted below, voters in six states were asked to vote on animal-related ballot initiatives. The results are in and voters in Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee approved constitutional rights to hunt and fish. North Dakotans rejected Measure 2, which banned the canned hunting of some animals. Measure proponents say "We were out-spent."

On the plus side, Prop 109, a proposed right-to-hunt amendment in Arizona was rejected by voters. Prop 109 was distinct from other right-to-hunt initiatives, since it also shifted the power over hunting and fishing from an administrative agency to the legislature. This political aspect, and the possibility that the law would limit future initiatives, allowed the opposition to paint it as a power grab. And successfully! A second bright spot is the passage, per USA Today, of Prop B, which regulates puppy mills.

Election 2010: Excellent Article Lays Out the Animal-Related Initiatives (Potential Laws) on the Ballots in the Upcoming Election: Any in Your State??

I won’t say much here other than visit this posting at http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/2010/10/on-the-ballot-on-tuesday.html to see if any initiatives are on the ballot in your state. You'll also see that the author tells you how to vote. I’ve posted the text of the article in below as well for quicker reading, but make sure you visit the posting as well.

You’ll also notice that the blog “Animals & Politics” at http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/ is listed below. Please also visit this site for more on animal rights-related legislative initiatives.

Article:

Animal law on the ballot

http://hcb.typepad.com/hounded_cowed_badgered/2010/10/on-the-ballot-on-tuesday.html

Animal-related initiatives are on the ballots in several states in this upcoming election. All but one involve hunting and fishing; one concerns the breeding of dogs. Unfortunately, no initiative this year addresses the most commonly abused animals in the U.S., farm animals.

Voters in four states will be asked to vote on a constitutional right to hunt. It's difficult to know what motivates these efforts, except the need for pro-gun groups to energize their hunter members. The NRA says the amendments are needed to head off attempts to limit hunting and fishing by "well-funded anti-hunting activists." This is not a serious statement, given that gun groups have exponentially more power and resources than those few animal rights groups that target hunting.

When these initiatives do pass, as others have, it's not doomsday for hunting opponents. The provisions typically recognize the state's power to regulate---they cover the right to hunt or fish "lawfully" or say these activities are subject to regulation. Courts have treated similar provisions in other states as basically inspirational. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for instance, has held an amendment establishing the right to hunt "does not affect our analysis of the DNR's authority."

The reasons for animal rights advocates to oppose a constitutional right to hunt are fairly miminal, though they outweigh the nonexistent benefit to animals. If any of these initiatives were voted down, it would mean that pro-hunting groups had wasted their time and money (though who knows, maybe a successful "NO" campaign would make proponents feel ever more paranoid about the alleged threat of animal rights groups). And, if there ever was an attempt to ban hunting---maybe around 2060?---these initiatives would be an impediment. On these symbolic initiatives, a symbolic NO is the way to go.

I've listed each of the ballot items below, with a recommended vote. For more election coverage, check out Animals & Politics, where Michael Markarian has been doing an excellent job, especially on the Arizona and Missouri ballot items.

Arkansas. Issue 1, if passed, would recognize a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and "harvest wildlife." It would also set these activities as the preferred method of wildlife control. The language would benefit from a comma, as a hasty reader might be shocked that "[p]ublic hunting, fishing, and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling nonthreatened species and citizens...." (The rest of the sentence makes clear humans are not in fact in danger.)

Arizona. Prop 109 would also enshrine a constitutional right to hunt and fish, and make hunting and fishing the preferred method of wildlife population control. In addition, the measure would shift the power to regulate those activities to the legislature, which may in turn, delegate it back to a commission, which presumably would keep doing what its doing. Feeling dizzy? This move contrasts with Arkansas's Issue 1, which expressly retains power for its game and fish commission, which is itself constitutionally based (see amend. 35). In a fine analysis, Kristin Borns and CJ Eisenbarth Hager point out potential problems with some vague language in the measure. Vote NO.

Missouri. Prop B sets regulations for large-scale "puppy mills," including giving dogs space to move around and to exercise. In contrast to the position of some in the debate over Prop 2 in California, it seems unlikely that the proposed regulations could increase the number of animals bred. Rather, it would reduce the scale of breeding operations and (if enforced) improve the conditions of animals being bred. Vote YES.

North Dakota. The North Dakota Constitution already has two provisions recognizing the value of hunting. Measure 2 would criminalize canned hunts of big game and "exotic animals." The measure's proponents claim it reflects "Fair Chase" principles. For folks opposed to factory farming, some of their ideas might be appealing: no breeding programs, no feeders, no government culls. People opposed to animal exploitation for food and recreation, however supposedly benign, could be less easily persuaded. For me, the question is whether fewer animals will be killed or wounded.

Supporters claim canned hunting makes all hunting look bad. Would a NO vote then reduce hunting? I doubt it. This is rare case where criminalizing an act might actually stop abuse. The proprietors of canned hunting ranches are businesspeople and, if there is enforcement, would be forced to shut down. If less canned hunting meant less hunting, I'd say to vote YES. But this is the sort of dispute, between different types of hunters, that I find difficult to find a good ethical position on.

South Carolina. Amendment 1 would recognize a right "to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued." The invocation of tradition could be a loophole: it would be hard to argue hunting "traditionally" occurred with high-powered scopes, or fishing with sonar and GPS (not that any law coming down the pike would ban these tools). Vote NO.

Tennessee. An amendment to the constitution would create a "personal right to hunt and fish." Vote NO.

European Union Ban on the Trade of All Seal Products Begins: Victory in Action

It’s been a long time coming, but it’s here. Hopefully this will help lead to the end of such brutal practices as the annual baby seal slaughter in Canada.

Article:

EU Seal Trade Ban Begins

http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2010/08/19/eu-seal-trade-ban-begins/

By John W. Miller

This week marks the beginning of a European Union ban on the trade of all seal products, except for those hunted by traditional methods. (Those aren’t necessarily more humane; they also involve shooting seals, just far fewer of them.)

Animal welfare groups fought for decades to secure the ban, and they say it is their biggest ever victory. “I can’t think of a bigger one,” says Adrian Hiel of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. IFAW credits the impending ban with helping to reduce the haul of Canada’s commercial hunt by hundreds of thousands of seals over the past two years.

So what’s next for animal welfare groups?

Says Mr. Hiel: Fighting trade in two other rare animal products: whale meat and ivory. It is illegal to import both into the EU, though smugglers do try.

There is currently an international moratorium on hunting whales, which some countries, led by Japan, are trying to overturn. Animal rights groups want the EU to stay committed to the moratorium. Earlier this year, a batch of whale meat that was discovered imported into Latvia from Iceland. It was immediately tracked down and destroyed.

Ivory often gets smuggled from Africa to China. IFAW and other groups are lobbying the EU to fund efforts to fight poachers and smugglers in Africa. “African countries don’t have the resources to properly protect their parks and animals,” says Mr. Hiel.

Meanwhile, the fight over the seal trade is perhaps not over. Canada has challenged the EU ban at the World Trade Organization, on the grounds that it constitutes illegal discrimination.

Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act in Congress: Bring All Commercial Dog Breeders Under Federal Oversight

Need I say more. Very simple interface to help you contact those in Washingtion. You know me…I’m not saying it’s going to work….but it’s worth a try!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/904/214/828?z00m=19863910

Suit Won by Animal Rights Group Against Utah State Entities for Right to Protest Shows Importance of Fighting for Your Rights

Nuff said. Don’t just give in if it’s a legal issue. Congratulations to the group

Article:

Animal rights group suits settled

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14422255

By Jason Bergreen

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 02/17/2010 08:42:14 PM MST

The Utah Department of Transportation and Morgan County have agreed to pay an animal rights group almost $40,000, settling the lawsuits the group filed last year to hold a protest against fur farms.

According to the settlement filed in federal court, UDOT has agreed to pay $19,750 to the Salt Lake Animal Advocacy Movement (SLAAM) and Morgan County will pay $20,000. The settlement will cover the group's attorney fees and court costs.

SLAAM filed a court order in October 2009 seeking permission to hold a demonstration without having to take out a $1 million insurance policy or arrange security for the event.

The suit claimed two UDOT employees violated SLAAM's rights to free speech and to peacefully assemble because they refused to issue a permit for the protest. The employees told the group they wouldn't issue the permit unless the group took out the expensive liability policy and assured them the Utah Highway Patrol would provide security.

The event, called Fur Free Saturday, was eventually held Nov. 28 on State Road 66 in Morgan after the county backed down and allowed the group to assemble without paying for security.

Morgan County had originally told SLAAM members the county would require them to pay $425 for extra policing and permit fees or they must take out the insurance policy.

Attorney Brian Barnard, who represented SLAAM, said Wednesday that Morgan County has since amended ordinances restricting residential
Advertisement
picketing and allowing the sheriff's office to force demonstrators to pay for their own police protection.

"SLAAM accomplished what they wanted and has forced these government entities to review and change their positions and to acknowledge the importance of the First Amendment, especially for small fledgling groups," Barnard said.

Green Party of Ireland Successful in Putting Forth Measure to Ban Fur Farming

Another positive step toward ending the unnecessary and overly-cruel issue of fur and fur farming. As stated below, the ban would not take place now, but in three years. Unfortunate that we have to wait, but a strong sign and message to the rest of the world.

Article:

Animal welfare groups welcome ban on fur farming

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1012/1224256435882.html

SEÁN Mac CONNELL

ANIMAL WELFARE and rights groups have welcomed the Green Party Programme for Government as a victory for animals here, particularly the ending of fur farming in three years.

Caft Ireland (Coalition to abolish the fur trade) said it was “absolutely thrilled” its greatest goal had been achieved by the Green Party and it would now turn its attention to banning fur imports.

Bernie Wright of the Alliance for Animal Rights said it was the best day in 20 years in the campaign for animals.

She said the banning of fur farming, the ending of stag hunting after March next year, the ending of badger culling when a vaccine against bovine TB was found and promised new animal welfare legislation, was a major victory.

“Thank you Green Party and thank you John Gormley,” she said in a statement.

Compassion in World Farming said the ban on fur farming was a major step forward for animal welfare standards in the Republic of Ireland.

“We congratulate the Green Party on its commitment to improving the protection of animals.

The ban on fur farming will send out a strong message to the world that Ireland takes farm animal welfare very seriously,” said Mary-Anne Bartlett, director of the organisation here.

Will Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm Sign Legislation Requiring that Farm Animals Confined in Small Spaces have Enough Room to Fully Extend Limbs?

If the bill is signed, it will make Michigan “…the seventh state to ban certain cages and crates.”

As always, we aren’t saying that this bill is perfect, but, should it be signed, it’s just another positive step toward future stronger measures and toward educating people as to the realty of confining farm animals such as veal calf crates and gestation stalls affecting pregnant pigs.

As stated below, “[t]he bill applies to egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs and veal calves. Commonly used cages for hens and stalls for pregnant pigs will be banned in about 10 years - veal crates in three years.”

Article:

Law protects farm-animal rights

Granholm set to sign bill banning cramped cages, crates in Michigan

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20091003/NEWS04/910030318/1005/NEWS04/Law-protects-farm-animal-rights

David Eggert • Associated Press • October 3, 2009 • From Lansing State Journal


Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to soon sign legislation requiring that farm animals confined in small spaces have enough room to fully extend their limbs and making Michigan the seventh state to ban certain cages and crates.

The bill is a compromise between the farm industry and animal rights groups, which have tussled in the Capitol over the care of farm animals. The Humane Society of the United States says it no longer will push a 2010 ballot initiative on the issue.

Granholm supports the legislation, her office said Friday, a day after the measure won final approval in the Legislature.

Michigan has about 200 industrial livestock farms that each keep thousands of animals in confined areas.

The bill applies to egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs and veal calves. Commonly used cages for hens and stalls for pregnant pigs will be banned in about 10 years - veal crates in three years.

Animal advocates consider close confinement inhumane.

"Giving animals enough room to turn around and extend their limbs is something we can all support," said Gene Baur, co-founder of Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, N.Y., the first haven for rescued farm animals in the country.

Farming groups say the legislation is better than the ballot proposal threatened by animal welfare groups, which would have phased out the cages sooner and put more "onerous" penalties on farmers who violate the law.

"No one likes change and no one likes to spend money to make those changes," said Jim Byrum, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association. "The fact of the matter is that agriculture recognizes we must be more responsive to consumer demand and perceptions."

National restaurant chains such as Burger King have been asking suppliers for more cage-free eggs and crate-free pork.

The Humane Society says Michigan is the second state to ban battery cages for chickens, the fifth to ban veal crates and the seventh to ban stalls for pregnant pigs. The stalls still can be used in the week before a pig's due date. Each hen will have to have at least 1 square foot of usable floor space.

The Human Society of the United States Animal Protection Legislation Web Page: Animal Rights-Related Legislation Facing the 111th Congress

I’m not naive enough to believe that any of these will pass, and, I’m certainly not saying that they go far enough or that this is a comprehensive list of needs. However, it’s good to be aware that at least these issues are being heard. We’ll see what becomes of each for the remainder of this year and into the next session.

You can view the various legislative issues at http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/

The U.S. Supreme Court Seeks to Decide Whether a Federal Law that Makes it a Crime to Depict Animal Cruelty Violates the First Amendment

It’s obvious what we think about this, but just wanted you all to be aware of this issue. We’ll see how it goes.

Article:

Hypotheticals Dominate Animal Cruelty Argument at High Court

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434344826&rss=newswire

Tony Mauro

The National Law Journal

October 07, 2009


It was a day of wild hypotheticals Tuesday, as the U.S. Supreme Court reached far and wide for help in deciding whether a federal law that makes it a crime to depict animal cruelty violates the First Amendment.

By the end of the riveting hour of argument in United States v. Stevens, it seemed likely that a sizable majority of the Court was ready to strike down the law as too broad or too vague.

"Certainly the tone of the argument would suggest that the statute is in trouble," said Andrew Tauber of Mayer Brown, who attended the argument and filed a brief against the law for the National Coalition Against Censorship. The law sweeps so broadly, Tauber added, that "it takes very little imagination to come up with dozens of hypotheticals" of depictions that could be vulnerable to prosecution but should be protected by the First Amendment.

That's just what the Court did, for much of the hour.

What if, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "I am an aficionado of bullfighting" who wants to spread the word about how it ennobles "both beast and man?" Would it be a crime to use a video to get that argument across?

The urbane Justice Stephen Breyer asked another one: would a video depicting "stuffing geese for pate de foie gras" violate the law?

The bow-tied Justice John Paul Stevens posited videos of "hunting with a bow and arrow out of season," when it would be illegal.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked if a law aimed at depiction of cruelty to humans -- not animals -- would pass constitutional muster.

Could Congress ban a video depicting modern-day Roman gladiators fighting to the death, asked Justice Samuel Alito Jr. Or what about a pay-per-view "Human Sacrifice Channel?" he asked.

Early in the argument, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal sought to tamp down the "endless stream of fanciful hypotheticals" by asking whether there is a "realistic danger" that the hypos might come true.

In the 10 years the law has been in effect, Katyal said, no bullfighting videos have been prosecuted, nor would they be, given the legislative intent of Congress. The law also exempts depictions that are educational, historic or journalistic, but Breyer said the words were so vague that people won't "know what to do to avoid the risk of being prosecuted."

Katyal's argument drew an angry comment from Justice Anthony Kennedy, in effect stating that the Court has never found a law restricting speech to be constitutionally acceptable just because prosecutors have so far used restraint. Justices also seemed not to like the idea of leaving the determination of whether certain videos fit or do not fit the exceptions in the hands of prosecutors or jurors.

Kennedy's comment seemed to be a death knell for Katyal's argument, but he kept at it. He asserted that the law is constitutional because it, like laws against child pornography, is aimed not at expression but at "trying to dry up an underlying market," in this case for fetish and dogfighting videos that harm animals in their production. He said the law was successful in diminishing production of such videos until the law was struck down by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

After Katyal sat down, it seemed that his adversary, Patricia Millett of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, would have an easy task ahead. Millett represented Robert Stevens, a Pennsylvania man who was the first person prosecuted under the law, targeted for a series of dogfighting videos -- videos that he said were documentaries that did not foster or approve of dogfighting.

Millett did, in fact, face fewer tough questions than Katyal, as she acknowledged that a "properly drawn statute," aimed only at fetish videos that appeal to prurient interest in seeing animals harmed, might pass constitutional muster. But she said the Court should not rewrite the law for Congress. "Congress has a job to write with a scalpel and not a buzzsaw in the First Amendment area," she said.

Alito was the only justice who repeatedly challenged her to recognize that in the "real world," many of the hypotheticals raised by her and other justices would not in fact be prosecuted.

He also pressed Millett on whether, under her reading of the First Amendment, a cable channel devoted to depictions of human sacrifice could be outlawed. Millett hedged and seemed briefly in trouble, but Katyal in his rebuttal said such a channel would be hard to ban under the First Amendment, an answer that seemed to help his adversary.

In Tasmania, Amendments Made to the Animal Welfare Act in Regard to Rodeos Begin in 2009

Looks like Tasmania is years ahead of the world in addressing animal cruelty issues in rodeos.

The amendments made include, “a ban on the riding of sheep and livestock and the introduction of penalties of up to $5,000 for animal mistreatment…[and] having a vet surgeon on hand so they can attend to animals that are either unfit to participate in the rodeo, or if they're injured during the events that they can be attended to promptly.”

Let’s see if other countries finally get that rational changes can be made in relation to animal cruelty and the rodeo.

Article:

Animal rights activists welcome new rodeo laws

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/08/2461502.htm

Posted Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:09am AEDT

The RSPCA in Tasmania hopes new laws regulating rodeos will see a reduction in injuries and mistreatment of animals.

Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act relating to rodeos will come into effect for this year's season.

The changes include a ban on the riding of sheep and livestock and the introduction of penalties of up to $5,000 for animal mistreatment.

The head of the RSPCA in Tasmania, Greg Treddinnick also welcomes the new requirement for an on-site vet.

"One of the most important things is having a vet surgeon on hand so they can attend to animals that are either unfit to participate in the rodeo, or if they're injured during the events that they can be attended to promptly," he said.

Legislative Animal Rights Victory: Massachusetts Voters Overwhelmingly Vote to Ban Greyhound Racing in the State

This amazing ban does a couple important things. For one, the obvious is that it will immediately put an end to the suffering of racing dogs at tracks in the state of Massachusetts. The other less obvious consequence, is that it will begin to raise awareness to the suffering and cruelty behind greyhound racing in general. In effect, it answers the question: why is greyhound racing cruel? This full ban will make people stop and think about greyhound racing in a greater way, as it probably is an issue they haven’t thought much about before.

To learn more about why greyhound racing is inherently cruel, visit this excellent page by Grey2K USA at http://www.grey2kusa.org/racing/cruel.html Here are just a few facts you will see at the page:

“A Life of Endless Confinement: While at the racetrack, dogs are confined in small cages barely large enough for them to stand up or turn around for long hours each day. On average, over one thousand dogs live in warehouse style kennels at each racetrack.

Dogs Suffer Serious Injuries: Thousands of dogs are seriously injured each year at commercial racetracks, including dogs that suffer broken legs, cardiac arrest, spinal cord paralysis and broken necks. Unfortunately, not all of these injuries are reported to the public because some states do not even keep records on the number of dogs injured each year.

Dogs are Killed When They are No Longer Profitable: Thousands of dogs are killed when they are injured or are no longer fast enough to be profitable. According to the pro-racing National Greyhound Association, an estimated 5,000 dogs were killed in 2003.”

Article:

Mass. voters approve dog racing ban

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_3_setu.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4

November 4, 2008 10:18 PM Email

(David Kamerman/Globe Staff)

Christine Dorchak, president of Grey2K USA, a greyhound advocacy group, cheered with Kathy Estridge, Leslie Scheideler, and Tracy Casner, during a party for supporters of the dog racing ban at a Boston nightclub.

By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff

Massachusetts voters today embraced a ballot question to end greyhound racing in the state, rejecting track owners’ arguments that the ban would cost jobs at a time of economic hardship in favor of protecting dogs from harm.

The contentious ballot question passed amid emotional ad campaigns by both sides. Proponents used images of sad-eyed greyhounds that they say are caged inhumanely and raced to injury while opponents put the spotlight on the track employees who would be put out of work if the ballot question passed.

"It's not fair to the dogs," said Dulce Fajardo, 41, a Roxbury Democrat who voted for the ballot question. "I love animals. And for me this is something cruel. They can't defend themselves so we have to do it for them."

The Associated Press called the outcome shortly after 10 p.m.

The Committee to Protect Dogs argued that racing dogs are treated inhumanely -- kept in cages for most of the day and often injured when they are forced to run for sport. The campaign relied upon data kept by the State Racing Commission since mid-2002 showing injuries to more than 800 greyhounds.

The committee -- formed by Grey2K USA, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Angell Medical Center -- spent an estimated $500,000 through Oct. 15, the most recent reporting deadline, campaign finance reports show, and received about $144,000 in in-kind contributions. Activists estimated they had 500 volunteers at the polls today, some of them with their own greyhounds by their sides.

"We had an overwhelmingly positive response, my dog and I," said Christine Dorchak, the co-chair of the committee who worked the polls with her dog, Zoe. "We're optimistic that this will, in fact, be the year of the greyhound."

The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition -- funded by the Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park -- launched an emotional counter-campaign arguing that the employees of the state's two dog tracks had done nothing wrong. Instead, the track workers said, they have been following the regulations as handed down by the State Racing Commission after the last ballot question failed. (They note that the injuries they must report to the commission include minor ones.) The coalition argued that the ballot question would put the needs of dogs before the needs of people -- among them, some 1,000 employees of the state's two dog tracks who would lose their jobs.

This time, the ballot question proposed to phase out racing by 2010, leaving workers time to find alternative jobs. But the track and kennel owners fighting the initiative were unmoved by that gesture, saying that a ban on racing would still eliminate jobs and tax revenue at a time when both are sorely needed.

"The real question here is an economic one," said Glenn Totten, a consultant working with the coalition to fight the ballot question. "I don't think things are any better in Worcester or Springfield or Pittsfield in 2008 in comparison to where they were in 2000."

The opposition relied entirely on in-kind contributions from the Raynham-Taunton track of little over $206,000 through the Oct. 15 reporting deadline, and spent about $400,000 since then on broadcast advertising. The campaign was getting help at the polls from union forces, including the electrical workers, carpenters, police, and Teamsters unions.

Illinois Law Include Animals in Orders of Protection In Relation To Domestic Violence

This law was passed in May, 2007. Incredible steps as typically, those who abuse non-human animals are likely to abuse human animals

Article:

Law takes pets under its wing

http://www.kcchronicle.com/articles/2008/01/02/
news/local/doc477c722d4fd38014309818.txt

By AMELIA FLOOD

GENEVA – People are not the only victims of domestic abuse.

A new law that went into effect Tuesday aims to protect pets and animals from domestic violence.

Under the new law, Illinois judges can include animals in orders of protection, just as they would a human being. The bill was passed unanimously in May 2007.

Those working with domestic-violence victims say animal abuse often is a sign of more severe abuse.

“It’s just a short step between animal and person,” said Gretchen Vapnar, executive director of Crisis Community Center, a shelter for domestic-violence victims.

The animal abuse seen at the Crisis Community Center ranges from neglect to direct threats against the animal.

Anna Meier, coordinator for the center’s Batterer Intervention program, said that both victims and abusers reported incidents involving pets.

Often, Meier said, abusers ordinarily would not focus on animals at all.

“It’s generally not a thing where they’d just want to go out and hurt an animal,” Meier said. “It’s part of that power and control.”

Because it has handles situations cases with pets, Crisis Community has an agreement with Anderson Animal Shelter in South Elgin to house the pets of those at the crisis center.

One drawback to the agreement, Meier said, is that the animals can’t be kept indefinitely.

“They’re overcrowded, too, and they can’t always hold the pets,” Meier said.

State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora, was one of the sponsors of the bill.

She supports animal rights and said it had become more of a hot-button issue since the recent Michael Vick case.

“You have to protect everybody,” Chapa LaVia said.

Vick, the former member of the Atlanta Falcons football team, was sentenced in December 2007 to 23 months in prison in a case involving animal cruelty and dog fighting.

“Some people may think that’s ridiculous but some people consider their pets members of the family. It’s my job to protect everybody.”

As far as the Kane County Sheriff’s Office is concerned, it doesn’t matter who is included in the order of protection.

“However it’s written up, we have to enforce it,” said Lt. Pat Gengler, spokesman for the department.

Oregon Senate Overwhelmingly Approves Measure to Ban the Confining of Pigs in Metal Gestation Crates

An excellent move. We’ll see what happens when it enters the House.

For more on why gestation crates are wrong, see

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/newsletter/gestationcrates.htm



Article:

Oregon Pigs Finally Get The Respect They Deserve

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/oregon_pigs_
finally_get_the_respect_they_deserve/C509/L509/

By Joseph Friedrichs, 4-27-07

Caption: Photo courtesy of FreeFarmAnimals.org.

The Oregon State Senate approved a measure Thursday prohibiting the cruel confinement of breeding pigs in metal gestation crates so small the animals can’t turn around for months at a time.

Essentially a gestation crate is a place where pregnant sows spend their lives standing in their own filth and shooting out piglet after piglet. The animals are allowed no straw bedding and often go insane from the caged-in lifestyle. Typically the adult pigs become inflicted with oozing sores and other body welts as a result of constantly leaning against the metal cages.

“Mushy pig flesh” isn’t the right phrase, but it’s the first one that comes to mind.

Senate Bill 694 passed in an overwhelming vote Thursday of 20-9, according to Salem-News.com. The Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization with more than 10 million supporters, praised the Oregon Senate for approving the important measure, at a time when food industry giants like Burger King, Wolfgang Puck, and Smithfield Foods are all taking steps to end this cruel confinement of farm animals, Salem-News reported.

“Gestation crates are among the most cruel and inhumane confinement systems used in today’s factory farms,” said Kelly Peterson, Oregon state coordinator for The HSUS, according to Salem- News. “Today, Oregon lawmakers have sent a clear message: the state should be no refuge for abusive agribusiness practices that deny these highly intelligent and social creatures the basic ability to turn around and stretch their limbs.”

Senate Bill 694 prohibits confining pigs during pregnancy in a manner that prevents them from lying down, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. In other words, it allows them a chance to live a mildly decent life, for a pig anyhow.

The Humane Society says gestation crates are two-foot-wide metal cages that confine millions of breeding pigs for nearly their entire lives, Salem-News reported. Advocates say the animals suffer both leg and joint problems along with psychosis from this extreme treatment.

When it’s a good week for the pigs of Oregon, it’s a good week for us too. Enjoy the weekend.

H.R. 137 – Bill to Limit Transport and Sale of Animals For the Purpose of Dog Fighting and Cockfighting Heads to Bush: Will He Sign It?

My guess is that because the bill is just a watered down step to end cockfighting and dog fighting that he will sign it. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for ANY bill that leads to the ending of cockfighting and dog fighting. But, this is a very early and limited step. Limiting transport and selling is great, but going for a full ban on fighting would seal the deal to end this unnecessary cruelty.

As stated below, “The bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., calls for penalties of up to three years in prison for anyone who knowingly buys, sells or transports animals for the purpose of fighting. It also would make it a felony to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal fight.”

Louisiana is now the only state that allows cockfighting. New Mexico ended its legal sanction of the blood sport recently by making cockfighting illegal by law. You can read about that here - http://geari.blogspot.com/2007/03/
victory-measure-is-passed-that-outlaws.html

Will Louisiana be next?

For more on why cockfighting is wrong, see -
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/
animal_fighting_the_final_round/
cockfighting_fact_sheet




Article:

Congress sends President Bush anti-animal fighting bill

http://www.ksby.com/Global/story.asp?S=6358891

Apr 11, 1:46 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress has passed legislation cracking down on animal fighting, sending President Bush a measure that would make it a felony to transport an animal across state lines for fighting.

Approval of the bill marked the culmination of a nearly six-year effort to limit dogfighting and cockfighting, centuries-old traditions that most lawmakers and animal rights advocates now label brutal.

The Senate passed the measure by voice vote Tuesday night, following House passage by a lopsided margin on March 26, clearing it for Bush's signature.

"We've waited six years to see this legislation signed into law," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., the bill's chief Senate sponsor. "Our nation should have a zero tolerance policy for this cruelty, and I hope the president will sign this bill immediately."

The bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., calls for penalties of up to three years in prison for anyone who knowingly buys, sells or transports animals for the purpose of fighting. It also would make it a felony to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal fight.

"Animal fighting is cruel," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman. "Those engaged in animal fighting ventures must know that this crime is serious and will be punished as a felony."

Critics say animal fighting - popular in rural areas and Latin American communities - can also spawn other criminal activity, such as illegal gambling, narcotics trafficking, public corruption, and gang activity.

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, called the measure "a powerful law that will go a long way toward eradicating these sickening forms of animal cruelty."

The measure also outlaws commerce in cockfighting weapons - knifelike instruments that are attached to roosters' legs during fights. Transporting animals across state lines for fighting would be boosted from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Dogfighting is illegal in every state, and New Mexico last month became the 49th state to ban cockfighting, making Louisiana the only state where it's legal.

---

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 137, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

Bill Proposed In Arkansas to Make the Cruel Treatment of Dogs and Cats a Felony Defeated In a House Committee

Not a good ending. Nuff said.

Article:

Animal cruelty bill defeated in committee
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/03/27/News/341455.html

Tuesday, Mar 27, 2007

By John LyonArkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A bill to make cruel treatment of dogs and cats a felony was defeated in a House committee Monday.
Senate Bill 777 by Sen. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, failed in a 5-8 vote in the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development. Under the bill, aggravated cruelty to dogs and cats would be a Class D felony punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The bill originally included cruelty to horses, but it was amended Monday to remove any reference to horses. Rep. Pam Adcock, D-Little Rock, who presented the bill to the committee, said the amendment resulted from a compromise with the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association.
The measure passed last week in the Senate in a 21-5 vote, after receiving the endorsement of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the House, however, the bill was referred to the Agriculture Committee, which some supporters believed sealed its fate.
Adcock said she was "extremely disappointed" by the vote but was not surprised by the opposition the bill faced in the committee.
"I thought that ... whenever they actually heard the truth, that it would change their minds, and it didn't," she said.
Adcock said she did not plan to present the bill again.
During the presentation of the bill, committee members viewed several photos showing the results of animal abuse, including aerial photos of the property of a Baxter County couple found guilty of 20 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty after authorities found more than 500 neglected dogs in their possession. Several of the animals had been displaced from their homes in other states by Hurricane Katrina.
Baxter County Sheriff John Montgomery said the couple absconded after being sentenced and are still at large.
"If they're found outside the state, I can't go get them" because the offense is only a misdemeanor, Montgomery said.
Adcock said the bill includes a provision to require a psychiatric or psychological evaluation and, if appropriate, counseling for any person convicted of the offense. People who are cruel to animals often are abusive to people as well, she said.
Rodney Baker of the Arkansas Farm Bureau testified that the Farm Bureau opposes SB 777 but supports House Bill 2788 by Rep. Rick Saunders, D-Hot Springs. Saunders' bill would make aggravated cruelty to a dog, cat or horse a Class A misdemeanor on first offense and a Class D felony on any subsequent offense occurring within five years of a previous aggravated cruelty offense.
Baker said the Senate bill is too broadly worded. As an example, he said that under the bill a person who loses his temper while training a dog and hits the animal could be charged with aggravated cruelty if a juvenile is present at the time.
Several committee members gave other hypothetical examples of actions they feared might be prohibited under the bill, such as the branding of hunting dogs or the shooting of feral cats.
Fayetteville lawyer Eva Madison said the bill applies to people who knowingly hurt or kill cats or dogs "in an especially depraved manner" and would not apply to any of the actions the committee members described.
Voting for the bill were Reps. Sandra Prater, D-Jacksonville; Gregg Reep, D-Warren; Lindsley Smith, D-Fayetteville; Robbie Wills, D-Conway; and John Lowery, D-El Dorado.
Voting against the bill were Reps. James Norton, R-Harrison; Stan Berry, R-Dover; Lenville Evans, D-Lonoke; Scott Sullivan, D-De Queen; Roy Ragland, R-Marshall; Eddie Cooper, D-Melbourne; Monty Davenport, D-Yelleville; and Bill Sample, R-Hot Springs.
Saunders' animal cruelty bill passed in the House last week in a 57-26 vote. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Arkansas Looks To Make the Cruel Treatment of Dogs, Cats and Horses A Felony

Very positive to see this occurring in Arkansas. We’ll keep you all up to date on this bill.

Article:

Animal Cruelty Legislation Clears Senate Committee

http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2007/03/15/
week_in_review/news/thursday/news03.txt

Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:31 AM CDT
By Doug Thompson

Arkansas News Bureau

dthompson@arkansasnews.com

LITTLE ROCK — Cruel treatment of dogs, cats and horses would become a felony under a bill recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

The committee also recommended a much-debated bill on expanding drug courts that retained a provision for an oversight committee that judges oppose.

Senate Bill 777 by Sen. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, “very, very narrowly focuses on only the most extreme forms of cruelty to animals and only on dogs, cats and horses,” Madison told the committee.
Previous animal cruelty bills

have floundered because of concerns they could be misused by activists to disrupt livestock, poultry and other animal agriculture.

“We don’t want anything limiting agriculture in the bill,” Madison said. “It is restricted to torture, to purposely prolonging pain, to killing for pleasure and for neglect. It also prohibits cruelty in front of a child. Often abusers will tell a child, ‘If you tell, this is what will happen’” and commit cruelties on an animal, she said.

Exemptions are also included to allow veterinary practices.

Violation of the provisions of the bill would be a Class D felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

The Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation, the largest voluntary association of rural residents in the state, would support the bill if the felony charge only applied to the second and subsequent offenses, spokesman Rodney Baker said.

The qualified support is a major change from the organization’s previous opposition to any law restricting owners’ use of their animals, he told the committee.

He said the penalty provision could be misused to harass animal owners or punish a one-time fit of anger with up to six years in prison, he said.

Madison said that she considered the change but rejected it.

“We’re not convinced that somebody needs a second chance to skin a cat,” she told the committee.

Tubby Smith, director of the Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association, said the organization opposes the bill because it includes horses, setting a precedent for treating horses differently from other livestock.

Juveniles would be charged as juveniles and not be subject to sentences that would last beyond the offender’s 18th birthday, Madison told the committee.

Baxter County Sheriff John Montgomery testified for the bill, saying that authorities in his county made arrests at a kennel with 500 dogs that were kept “in the most unbelievably deplorable conditions imaginable, and all we could charge the owners with was a Class A misdemeanor.”

SB 777 was recommended in a voice vote.

In the drug court bill, Senate Bill 18 by Sen. Bill Pritchard, R-Elkins, was recommended in a 5-2 vote of the eight-member committee. The bill retained a provision that would create an oversight committee including lawmakers, which raised concerns among judges over constitutional separation of powers.

Judges also object to language that could allow juvenile drug courts to get money under the bill. The bill would expand the drug court system and set standard drug court procedures.

Victory! Measure is Passed That Outlaws Cockfighting in New Mexico: Louisiana Now Only State Which Allows Cockfighting

One more down and one more to go. This was an incredible move and will hopefully lead to the end of cockfighting in the US. This has literally taken 18 years but gives hope to ending it in Louisiana as well. Luckily, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco has stated that she will support making cockfighting illegal.

For more on why cockfighting is wrong, see -
http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/animal_fighting_
the_final_round/cockfighting_fact_sheet


Article:

Cockfighting Ban Approved in New Mexico

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=
/n/a/2007/03/12/national/a143219D98.DTL

By TIM KORTE, Associated Press Writer

Monday, March 12, 2007

(03-12) 17:11 PDT Albuquerque, N.M. (AP) --

Gov. Bill Richardson signed a measure Monday that outlaws cockfighting in New Mexico, leaving Louisiana as the only state where the centuries-old bloodsport remains legal.

State Sen. Mary Jane Garcia, who has introduced legislation to ban cockfighting over the past 18 years, thanked Richardson, who until this legislative session had declined to take a stance on the issue. The prohibition takes effect June 15.

"Today, New Mexico joins 48 other states in affirming that the deliberate killing of animals for entertainment and profit is no longer acceptable," said Garcia, D-Dona Ana.

Richardson signed the bill at a ceremony at the state Capitol in Santa Fe.

Cockfighting fans have accused Richardson of taking a sudden interest in cockfighting now that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. They also defend cockfighting as a family activity and said opponents were meddling.

"I'm so upset that it's damn near ruining my life," said Ronald Barron, president of the New Mexico Game Fowl Association. "I've got 38 years doing this. I don't know if I should hatch off some baby chicks right now. This isn't a business. It's my pleasure. It's my right, or rather it was my right."

Barron said the association planned a legal challenge.

During a cockfight, two roosters fitted with blades or gaffs on their legs are placed into a pit and fight until one is dead or badly wounded. Although gambling on the fights is illegal, spectators openly wager on the outcome.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, called the law's passage "a major moment in the effort to rid our nation of this barbaric and reprehensible practice."

"New Mexico removed an ugly blemish today, and it is a proud moment for the state," Pacelle said.

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who took no position on a cockfighting ban last year, said Monday she now supports making the practice illegal.

"I support banning cockfighting," Blanco said in a one-sentence e-mail from her press office.

In 2006 a state senator's bill to criminalize rooster fights failed in Louisiana Legislature.

Utah Politicians Kill Bill That Would Have Made the Intentional Torture of an Animal a Felony in the State

Surprise, surprise. Politicians again only doing things for the sake of business. It’s beyond strange why something as simple as making horrible cruelty a felony would even have to be debated.

Article:

Utah’s Animal Torture Bill Runs out of Time

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/
utahs_animal_torture_bill_runs_out_of_time/C104/L104/


By Tracy Medley, 3-05-07

Utah lawmakers let the clock run out before passing legislation that would make the intentional torture of an animal a felony in the state. Animal advocates, including the director of the Humane Society of Utah, Gene Baierschmidt worked hard to get SB190 on the books before the end of the 2007 legislative session, but were thwarted by certain legislators who felt the language of the bill was just too vague. For three years, Utah lawmakers have failed to create a felony provision for heinous cases of animal torture.

According to the Deseret Morning News, Rep. John Mathis, a Republican from Vernal was the strongest critic of the bill’s language. Mathis worried that the bill might impact neglectful pet owners for not feeding their pets or seeking veterinary attention, despite the explicit use of the words “intentional” and “torture” in the measure. “It’s a concern for me that someone could be charged with cruelty to an animal if they neglect to get veterinary care,” he explained in the D-News.

Mathis, who is also a veterinarian, is apparently unaware that neglect is already addressed in Utah’s current animal abuse laws.

Rep. Kerry Gibson of Ogden also quibbled with the bill’s language. “I have serious concerns with the word depravity. I don’t know if that’s defined anywhere,” Gibson said in the D-News. How about a dictionary – or looking through some law books, where the legal definition of depravity is clearly explained. But, I digress.

According to the D-News what Gibson really seemed worried about was appeasing insatiable animal rights extremists. “Make no mistake about going down this road. We won’t turn back from this.” Pardon me, but how exactly is the creation of a felonious option for extreme cases of deliberate animal-torture, somehow a point of no return? Have the 42 other states with similar laws experienced any problems? Did he bother to look? Is Gibson really just afraid that someday monkeys in pants will try to take his job – yes, Rep. Gibson, stop the madness now, before it starts.

It is outrageous that our legislators blackballed this bill for the third year in a row, especially given the glaring and horrific case of Henry, the Chihuahua who’s owner placed him in a 200 degree oven burning and leaving him irreversibly scarred and disabled. This was the perfect opportunity for Utah lawmakers to take such acts of unfathomable violence toward living creatures seriously and they blew it.

Boo!