Change.org's Animals Blog

Back Alley Vet Care

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-08T19:00:00-08:00

A Rhode Island man was charged with animal cruelty for performing surgery to remove a cyst from his 14-year-old dog. Although Alan MacQuittie pleaded no contest to the charges of cruelty to animals and unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine, he defended what he did, saying that he'd performed similar operations in the military and was only trying to help his dog. He simply couldn't afford to take Nakita to a vet.

While Nakita is expected to make a full recovery, she had to go in for a second surgery after she was rescued because the wound had become infected. MacQuittie had tried to numb the dog's pain with the over-the-counter human medications Orajel, for teething and other minor oral pain, and Lanacane, a topical anti-bacterial/anti-itch product, which MacQuittie apparently decided to inject as a local anesthetic.

Even with the growing pet insurance industry, the cost of vet care poses a problem for many well-intentioned pet owners. But do-it-yourself vet care doesn't pay off.

Assuming MacQuittie was not a military veterinarian, his "experience" would have been minor surgery on people. As we know from the ineffectiveness of animal testing, human and animal physiology are not the same. Despite the occasional vet-saves-heroine story line in movies, veterinarians shouldn't be operating on or dispensing medical advice to humans, and human doctors shouldn't be attempting to treat animals.

Then there's the "back alley" part of home operations. It's no surprise that poor Nakita ended up needing a second operation. Any operation, on any species, needs a sterile environment to avoid infection. You also need appropriate anesthetic during the procedure and post-op pain management. Teething medication just doesn't cut it for controlling pain when there's a scalpel involved. Not all human medications are safe for animals, so guessing which ones to use without the guidance of a veterinarian is dangerous.

Surgery on older animals can also be risky for a number of reasons, and Nakita is lucky that she's made it out of two with such a good prognosis. And, although MacQuittie saved the cyst in an old jelly jar, what was the purpose of the operation? Benign cysts are often uglier than they are painful; vets often recommend removal for testing more than comfort. If the mass is more than a cyst, then removal can help stall the spread of cancerous cells, but this is well out of the territory of home diagnosis.

MacQuittie is not alone in wanting to help his dog, but being unable to pay for treatment. Maybe the proposed tax deductions for pet care would help some people in his position make the choice to go to a vet. There are also a number of organizations that offer financial aid to pet owners who meet certain criteria. Some local humane society clinics have sliding scales for their fees or reduced rates for senior citizens or low-income residents.

No one is saying it's easy to face a crisis with limited resources, but back alley vet care isn't the answer.

Photo credit: Andy G

Fur Council Gets Gold Medal for Spin

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-08T17:45:00-08:00

With the Winter Olympics kicking off this week, the Fur Council of Canada wants you to believe that Fur is Green.

We can find plenty of examples of shameless industry spin in the "Fur is Eco-logical" and "People & Cultures" sections of the web site, too, but since this is the Animals blog, we'll focus on a few of the "animal welfare" gems:

"Animal welfare is a top priority for the people working in the fur industry." (Where's the evidence?)

In reference to the sustainability of industry worldwide: "Absolutely no endangered species are used." (Tell that to species like the tigers in Asia, who have been slaughtered to near extinction, or to Neiman Marcus who advertised ocelot boots last year.)

Under "humane euthanasia," in reference to the carbon monoxide gas chambers that are used: "When harvest time comes around, a mobile unit is brought to the cages to eliminate stress that might be caused by transporting them long distances." (Staying in cramped cages to be slowly, painfully gassed really doesn't count as an elimination of stress.)

It's not surprising that the Fur Council of Canada is on the defensive. Animal advocates have been calling for a boycott of the Winter Olympic Games to draw attention to the cruel Canadian seal hunts, where hundreds of thousands of baby seals each year are clubbed and shot to death for their fur. The bottom is falling out under seal pelt prices, especially since the European Union banned the import of seal products last year, but the Canadian government continues to sanction the commercial hunts. Just last week, Humane Society International/Canada asked, "Is Baby Seal Bashing Canada's New Olympic Sport?"

The latest "news" on the Fur Council's site is titled "The Universal Declaration of the Ethical Harvest of Seals." But the real universal declaration — from organizations, individuals, and institutions around the world — is that the "harvest" of seals isn't ethical. But because the Olympics never seem to improve animal welfare in their host countries, Canada is likely to continue clubbing seals with the world watching.

Photo credit: wili_hybrid

Ohio's Issue 2, Round 2

Martin Matheny — 2010-02-08T10:10:00-08:00

The passage of Issue 2 in Ohio last November was a setback for animal welfare advocates, not to mention agricultural animals themselves.

Issue 2 created a Livestock Care Standards Board composed of political appointees, with sweeping powers to control how livestock is treated on Ohio farms. Political appointments often lead to political patronage, raising the concern that seats on the Livestock Board would likely go to whichever factory farming shills ponied up the most campaign dollars.

A quick look at who bankrolled the pro-Issue 2 campaign certainly gives those fears some credibility. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the effort to pass Issue 2 had a budget of over $4 million, much of it from groups like the Ohio Pork Producers Council, Ohio Poultry Association, and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Fortunately for the livestock, animal advocates are fighting back to make sure that the board doesn't start work with a blank check for animal abuse. Ohioans for Humane Farms, a coalition of veterinarians, interest groups, farmers, and Ohio citizens, is seeking a second ballot initiative that would set minimum standards for the Livestock Board to follow. (Here's the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment, in .pdf form)

The proposed care standards aren't extreme; in fact, they're the basic elements of humane treatment: banning overly restrictive battery cages and breeding pens, keeping "downer cows" (animals too sick or injured to stand) out of the food supply and ending their lives humanely, and banning strangulation as a form of euthanasia. This isn't exactly an extremist agenda we're talking about here.

The good news that the first hurdle has been cleared. Last Friday, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray approved the proposed ballot language. Next, the Ohio Ballot Board will consider the language of the initiative to make sure it passes constitutional muster.

Then comes the hard part. In order to get this on the ballot and in front of the voters, Ohioans for Humane Farms needs to gather over 600,000 signatures. If you live in Ohio, they're going to need your help. In fact, even if you don't live in Ohio, you can lend a hand. Visit this website to learn more about what you can do.

Thanks to a multi-million dollar campaign by big agribusiness, Ohio voters created a potential monster. Now, the good guys are trying to put that monster on a leash. It's the right thing to do.

Photo credit: mackenzienicole

Legal Rights for Animals: Will Switzerland Remain Neutral?

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-07T12:00:00-08:00

Next month, Swiss voters will decide whether domesticated animals should get lawyers. If a referendum passes, each district will appoint a public defender for animals. And not just companion animals; farm animals would have a right to legal representation, too.

Predictably, farmers and government officials are against the proposal, but animal activists collected enough signatures to get it on the ballot. The "No to the Useless Animal Lawyers' Initiative" (yes, that's actually the name of group) said, "Animal rights advocates are useless to animals. They can't prevent animal abuse because they only get involved after it has been perpetrated."

Is that how they feel about police officers? Child welfare and social services?

If they're opposed to the idea of consequences for animal abuse when outreach and education fail, that puts an entirely different spin on the debate. At that point, it's no longer about whether animals should have less, more, or the same legal standing as people; it's really about whether there should be any laws at all.

Yesterday, I wrote about the question of ownership vs. guardianship, and why it's not as simple as it may seem, or feel, to animal lovers. I don't have enough of the legal details to know whether the proposal in Switzerland provides any protections for good pet owners/guardians, if it takes a strong enough stance against the people who shouldn't be allowed near animals, and whether it distinguishes between the two. But if animals in Switzerland need their own lawyers to ensure that they get any justice at all, that they're not completely ignored by people like the No to the Useless Animal Lawyers' Initiative, then it would certainly get my vote.

Photo credit: robsettantasei

Legal Rights for Animals: The Debate

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-06T12:00:00-08:00

To some people, the question of "owner" vs. "guardian" is one of how much they love their pets. You don't say you "own" your children, so if you consider your pets as members of the family, it doesn't feel right to "own" them either, right?

Except it's more than a matter of choosing words that reflect how you feel about animals. These words are loaded with legal implications. When you "own" something, you have a lot more leeway to treat it however you like. Although that's not quite true with animals because there are animal welfare laws that provide certain protections for the living creatures we "own."

When you are a "guardian," your charge has independent rights, and you are responsible for providing the level of care that meets those rights. That doesn't sound too different than the way many people treat their pets anyway. In theory, it should give greater freedom to protect animals from animal abusers, making it easier to take animals away from situations where they're being neglected and mistreated, and to get justice for them in court.

But, of course, like any legal matter, granting "guardianship" status has a tangled web of potential unintended consequences (such as with Kentucky's patient-veterinarian privilege law that prevents vets from being able to report suspected animal cruelty.)

The International Animal-Law organization recently commented on two cases in New Zealand where emotional damages were awarded. They expressed concern about the potential negative impact on animal-related professions, such as veterinarians, whose liability is no longer limited if emotional damage claims can be made against them. These concerns essentially open up the field of veterinary medicine to all of the malpractice and "defensive medicine" issues faced by human medicine.

Defensive medicine could prove to be an even greater issue with pets since so few people have insurance. There have already been problems with people not taking their animals in to vets, or giving them up for adoption, because they can't afford the medical expenses in the current economy. If the guardians were required to pay for every procedure available to their pet, it could cause financial stress that would leave many animals homeless. There are also concerns that a person could be sued for providing inadequate care if they aren't able to afford treatment.

When an animal is clearly suffering or neglected, this makes sense. But what about cases like cancer that you could spend thousands of dollars treating and never cure? It's already a heart-wrenching decision for many people who know that specialty vet medicine may be able to prolong or improve their animal's life, but it's out of their financial reach. What if they didn't have a choice (again, assuming the animal is not suffering), or had to fear a lawsuit? Or what if you were prevented from exploring alternative medicine to heal your pet because it wasn't deemed an appropriate treatment by the authorities?

These are just a few of the issues raised by organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Animal Health Institute. I don't agree with them that the guardianship issue is part of an "agenda" as "the first step toward placing animals on the same legal plane as people." Maybe it is for some people, but for many others who I've talked to, they're frustrated by the difficulties of prosecuting animal cruelty and the weak penalties for animal abusers. They care for their pets like family and believe that deserves legal recognition.

A law wouldn't change the way I treat my animals on a day-to-day basis, but I'm not the person who this debate is aimed at (neither, I assume, are most you reading this). Having worked in animal shelters and rescues, and having spent a lot of time (and money) in vets' offices, I can see advantages to both sides of the debate. The key is to tease out those advantages to strengthen existing laws and create more targeted laws where we're lacking.

The legal system is never black and white, nor will it ever be as simple as owner vs. guardian.

Photo credit: karpov the wrecked train

Sea Otters in Danger of Foreclosure

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-05T18:15:00-08:00

It's not an easy time to be a marine mammal off the coast of California. First, a sea lion was robbed at gunpoint; shot in the face for allegedly stealing fish from a fisherman (the man was charged with felony animal cruelty, and the sea lion is currently recovering at the Mammal Marine Center.) Now, shellfish and urchin industries want to take away the home — and food — of endangered sea otters.

The complaint is that sea otters are eating into the supply for these multi-million dollar industries. One of the reasons these industries exist is because sea otters were nearly driven to extinction by the fur trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. Now that the marine mammal population has rebounded a little bit (to around 2,800 off the California coast, which is far more stable than the estimated 20 less than a century ago, but not even close to the original 18,000), the fisherman want their heyday back.

They are trying to convince people that sea otters are the "locusts of the sea," stealing their food, as if the fishing industry hasn't had any impact on the urchin and shellfish populations, and as if this diet is as much a delicacy for sea otters as it is for humans, as opposed to what they eat to survive.

There are have been a number of attempts at a truce. They tried to create a sea otter colony on a distant island, but who wants to be taken from their home and dumped in some other random neighborhood? This, and other relocation attempts, failed. As did the line in the ocean drawn by bureaucrats. Apparently the map they supplied to the otters wasn't clear.

Conservationists filed a lawsuit in federal court several years ago to protect sea otters who disregard the artificial boundaries and wander into the "no otter zone," which incidentally includes many of the kelp forests where the shellfish live. The zones still exist, as does the Industry vs. Otter battle for the coast.

From a public relations standpoint, there's no contest between the cute factor of the otters and the sea urchins "which have about as much personality as a rock with spines." From the animal welfare standpoint, there's no contest between endangered species eating their natural diet in their natural habitat and an industry that wants to strip the ocean of a species (or two, depending on who gets in the way) to serve it as a delicacy and make a few bucks.

Despite the strong case for otters, this battle is far from over. While there are a number of conservationists looking out for the critters, sea otters aren't any better at lobbying than they are at observing property lines.

Photo credit: mikebaird

Puppy Bowl VI

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-05T14:00:00-08:00

Animal Planet's answer to the Super Bowl is hours of gratuitous footage of puppy playtime. The Puppy Bowl, along with the Kitty Half-time Show, takes place in a football field playpen filled with toys and cameras — including one that gives a water-bowl's-eye-view. It's hosted by veteran broadcaster Jeff Bordner who lends his voice to the instant replays and penalty calls. You may even catch a glimpse of bunny cheerleaders or hamsters.

It's ridiculous ... and ridiculously adorable.

I can hear the alarms ringing throughout the animal community. Animals being used for entertainment, this can't be good!

We're a skeptical bunch, and with the news on most days, it's understandable. But you might be pleasantly surprised by the Puppy Bowl. Here are five reasons why you don't have to feel guilty about tuning in this Sunday.

1) All of the animals are from local shelters and rescue groups and are listed on Petfinder for adoption, so you don't have to worry about this being a puppy mill parade. The Puppy Bowl is fantastic exposure for animal adoption, especially for the 43 players, the 20 kitten entertainers, the bunny and hamsters on the sidelines, and the shelters that care for them. This game levels the playing field a bit, giving mixed breeds a chance to show their champion qualities.

2) The Puppy Bowl is approved by the American Humane Association. In case you aren't familiar with the AHA, this is the organization that oversees animals in film and television and grants the "No Animals Were Harmed" disclaimer. Although the puppies and other animals are being filmed, they're not being asked to perform for our entertainment. From the animals' point of view, they're getting a field trip away from the shelter to socialize and play with other animals (which is a necessity, especially for puppies). The game rotates the "lineup" to make sure the puppies get plenty of rest and there is a "referee" to watch out for any rough play.

3) If watching men give each other brain injuries isn't your thing, the Puppy Bowl is the perfect way to fill the time between the most expensive — and controversial — commercials of the year.

4) If you're actually watching the game and want to skip this year's crop of controversial ads that cost more money per second than most people will make in a year, the action on the other Bowl field will keep you entertained during gamebreaks. As a bonus, pet adoption makes a great antidote to thoughtless consumerism; hop online and check out the adoptable stars in your area.

5) Puppies playing are just plain cute. I tend to favor adopting older animals, but I don't have to clean up after the Puppy Bowl. You can be sure that every one of these rescued puppies will find good homes, and that they'll help boost overall adoption at their shelters. No matter where they came from, you get to see the resilience, the innocence, and the social nature that's the foundation of the human-animal bond.

Photo credit: P Pogo

Debarking Dogs: Putting your Pooch on Mute

Annie Hartnett — 2010-02-05T11:53:00-08:00

Earlier this week, The New York Times ran an article on debarking dogs, a surgery that muffles the sound of a dog's bark.

The U.K. has a legal ban against debarking as a form of mutilation. The American Veterinary Association recommends that the surgery be done only as a last resort to stop an incessant barker, and many veterinarians refuse to debark. But attempts to ban debarking have failed in several states. Why does the dog-loving American culture still debark dogs?

Debarking is a surgical procedure the involves clipping a dog's vocal cords and removing some of them. The surgery is painful and can have serious complications. Scar tissue can build up in a dog's throat, making it difficult for the dog to breathe. This can lead to multiple surgeries for the poor pooch.

Dogs bark to communicate. My dog, Holly, is a rescue dog and she barks in obvious fear at men with white hair. She doesn't bark at other dogs, with the exception of her arch nemesis, Jessie. Holly barks with such wild ferocity at Jessie that she leaves spittle on my windows. Holly also lets out high-pitched yips to tell me she needs water, a walk, or that she was supposed to be fed a full three minutes ago.

If Holly barked all the time, I would know something was wrong. A non-stop barker may be an anxious, bored, or unhappy dog. Debarking treats the symptom, and not the problem.

Finally, the good news: ~~The U.S. Congress~~ Massachusetts is seriously considering a law against debarking. 15-year-old Jordan Star has been the motivating force behind the bill called "Logan's Law." Logan's Law was named for a debarked dog who was abandoned after the surgery. Logan's attempts to bark were heartbreaking for the family who adopted him. Logan's Law is now in the third reading, which could mean a victory for dogs and for the young Star.

Under All That Bling, It's Still a Puppy Mill Dog

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-04T14:00:00-08:00

I recently learned that a Pawsh Puppies opened in the mall near my childhood home. Since I couldn't bring myself to go anywhere near the store when I was visiting, I thought I'd check out the website. It was pretty much as I expected -- a store that sells expensive accessories for expensive accessory-sized dogs. It's a "luxury dog boutique carrying the latest and trendiest in designer canine couture."

They say their stock of teacup or toy breed puppies (to go along with all of that couture, of course) doesn't come from puppy mills, a claim that's backed up by USDA licenses, as if those (or AKC certifications) are good for anything other than lining cages. Pawsh Puppies is just "simplifying the process of purchasing a puppy from a breeder," including the option to finance your purchase!

I don't know if the breeders that supply these particular stores are the large-scale operations that come to mind when you think of puppy mills, but pet stores are notoriously deceptive about where their animals come from. By definition, a puppy mill is "a place where puppies are bred for profit," so if you're a breeder that's selling your puppies to become merchandise in a mall boutique, or any other storefront, you're a puppy mill.

Nearly 50 Chicagoland pet stores have signed on to the Humane Society of the United States' "Puppy Friendly" Pledge. These are the places that won't try to sell you a puppy and then congratulate you on your "adoption." (I'm not sure why this still needs to be said, but apparently it does: Buying a puppy from a pet store or breeder is not adopting.) That's because they've made a pledge to their customers to promote adoption instead of selling puppies in their stores.

Don't let the rhinestone collar fool you. If you're buying a puppy from a pet store, you're supporting puppy mills.

Photo credit: IntangibleArts

The Curious Case of Macho B

Martin Matheny — 2010-02-04T13:30:00-08:00

When you think about big cats, you probably think about majestic creatures, beautiful dignified animals who awe and inspire us. But the last days of the last known wild jaguar in the United States were anything but majestic and dignified. Macho B died as a result of the malfeasance of the people who were supposed to protect him. His story is a lesson in how not to protect endangered species.

Here are the facts, according to a report issued on January 22 by the Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior. In February of 2009, a male jaguar named Macho B was snared in a trap set by subcontractors of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. While releasing Macho B, officials of the AZGFD noted that the jaguar had suffered a broken canine tooth, possibly incurred in trying to free himself. Macho B was also fitted with a GPS tracking collar before being released.

A week and a half later, researchers following the jaguar's progress via GPS noticed that Macho B wasn't moving. On March 2, 2009, Macho B was found, darted and brought to the Phoenix Zoo for evaluation. There, veterinarians found the jaguar suffering from renal failure, and later that day, Macho B was put to death.

So who's to blame? The feds at Fish and Wildlife call foul on themselves for failing to order a full necropsy because an FWS field inspector did not understand the difference between a full necropsy and a full cosmetic necropsy. The full cosmetic necropsy, which was performed, is an incomplete investigative procedure, designed to preserve the skull and pelt of the animal.

The true blame for Macho B's death, however, falls squarely on the shoulders of state officials in Arizona. While the snare that trapped Macho B was designed to capture black bears and mountain lions for a different project, the people at AZGFD failed to apply for an incidental take permit, which is a big mistake, not to mention illegal under the Endangered Species Act. Not only did Arizona break the law, they also lied about it. According to the Department of the Interior, "[An FWS biologist] said that on at least one occasion, while discussing the potential capture of Macho B during a JagCT meeting, he heard [AZGFD official Terry] Johnson say he believed the AZGFD had a permit to intentionally capture a jaguar."

But the plot thickens, because there is evidence to suggest that Macho B's capture wasn't an accident. That part of Macho B's death is still being investigated by the FWS and the Department of Justice.

This incident is disturbing enough if Macho B's capture was accidental. If it was an incidental take, the AZGFD should be held accountable for willfully failing to get permission to have snares in an area known to be home to an endangered species. Terry Johnson, who lied to FWS officials about having a permit under the Endangered Species Act ought to be at least fired, if not prosecuted.

But if the capture of Macho B was intentional, as the Department of Justice investigation seems to imply, then the stakes are raised even higher. It's not negligence, it's disgusting and amoral -- a betrayal of the animals that the Arizona Game and Fish Department is paid to protect.

The questions remain about how the AZGFD will respond to this. Will the people responsible be told to pack up and find another job, preferably as far away from animals as possible? Will the AZGFD commit to doing no more business with the contractors and subcontractors involved? The dodging, weaving, and outright stonewalling coming from AZGFD doesn't inspire a lot of hope that these questions will be answered to our satisfaction.

Here's hoping the AZGFD cleans up their act. Here's hoping Macho B didn't die in vain.

Photo credit: Tambako the jaguar

Green Ham?

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-04T11:30:00-08:00

The latest drug being trotted out to the agriculture industry is Paylean, a feed additive that causes an 8 percent reduction in pig manure and maintains pork production with fewer pigs. They say it's "green."

What they don't say quite as eagerly is that they've received reports from farmers on stressed out, hyperactive, vomiting, shaking, and downer pigs, plus a 10 percent mortality rate in animals who had been given Paylean-laced feed. The industry doesn't care about the increased death and disability rate in animals because they're getting more output per animal, which is the faulty logic they use to claim Paylean is a green drug.

Manufacturers note that the drug is FDA-approved for feed, but it is also labeled "Not for use in humans" and is banned in 160 nations. Protective clothing and eyewear, impervious gloves, and dust masks are recommended when handling the drug, particularly for people with cardiovascular disease. (All this for a little less manure!)

But once a farmer suits up to distribute the Paylean to his pigs, that's not the last he'll see of it.

Paylean is given close to slaughter, and up to 20 percent of the drug remains in the animal's tissue. At least some of the other 80 percent ends up in groundwater and runoff from the farms. Thanks, to the power of lobbying, similar drugs are also given cattle and turkeys, with similar pain and suffering for the animals and similar disregard for human safety.

Here's the other piece that factory farmers, and some sustainable food advocates, keep forgetting: Something is "environmentally-friendly" because it doesn't harm to the world around it -- not just the water and air, but also the people and animals. Some people tend to forget, or ignore, the "cradle-to-grave" aspect of environmentalism. In other words, the impact of the entire life cycle (a term that refers to products, which in this case are living things) needs to be considered.

If your practices continue to cause animal suffering -- whether it's pre-birth in the gestation crates or a crippled downer before death -- it doesn't matter if there are fewer pigs with less manure on the land during their lives. So in addition to being cruel, Paylean is decidedly not green.

I'd stay far away from that so-called green ham, Sam-I-am. The drug is used in 45 percent of U.S. pigs, so, like every other abhorrent factory farm practice, it's not easy to avoid if you're still eating meat, unless you're buying from a local farmer whose practices you can vouch for.

Photo credit: pvera

Gothic Kittens Go From eBay to Court

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-03T15:00:00-08:00

In late 2008, three stray kittens probably thought they had a good thing going when they were taken in by a professional groomer. Then their not-so-good Samaritan decided to give them body piercings and sell them on ebay as "gothic kittens" for hundreds of dollars.

The local SPCA received a tip from someone who saw the listing. Humane officers raided Holly Crawford's northeastern Pennsylvania home, seized the kittens -- who had ear, neck and tail piercings -- and charged Crawford with animal cruelty. Crawford's trial began on Tuesday.

"Why is it a crime to pierce a cat's ears?" asked attorney John Pike.

I can think of a long list of responses, but you would think the tail piercing on one of the cats that cut off blood flow and caused the tail to fall off would be enough of an answer. Nonetheless, Crawford headed to court, insisting that she didn't intend any cruelty. The groomer said she used sterilized needles and made sure the kittens were healing properly.

Maybe she deluded herself into thinking that the piercings were "cute" and that she wasn't harming the kittens in any way. But how did her fantasy of happy loved cats extend to selling them on ebay? Shelters around the country suspend the adoption of black cats close to Halloween, fearing pranks and Satanic rituals. What sort of person did Crawford think was going to bid hundreds of dollars online for a pierced kitten?

Photo credit: dougwoods

The Latest Little Trend in Backyard Farm Animals

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-03T09:45:00-08:00

Pygmy goats are the popular new addition to urban barnyards. People are charmed by their small size and locavores love going no further than the backyard for milk. But as with urban chickens, keeping pygmy goats can only be truly sustainable when the welfare of the animals is a priority. Small-scale animal cruelty is still animal cruelty.

Backyard farms need to be scrutinized under humane laws, just like other companion animals, based on the needs of the species. A breeder in Indiana touting the appeal of pygmy goats said, "out in the yard, they easily pass as a dog."

But, as she knows, they aren't dogs. As herd animals, they are social, but their housing and dietary needs are different than a dog's. It can be hard to find a city vet that will treat a goat, not to mention that laws governing the little goats vary, ranging from a flat-out ban to rules on where your goat can graze and whether you're allowed to sell the milk and cheese.

However, pygmy goats do have a hoof up on chickens as pets. Most people get goats for their personality (and perhaps the lawn mowing benefits) more so than the milk, so they tend to bond more easily than they do to chickens. When an urban chicken's egg-laying days are over, she's often abandoned to sanctuaries or country roads. But the backyard farmer who ends up with the wrong gendered goat for food production may not be as quick to get rid of their sociable billy as they would be to ditch a crowing rooster.

Even though goats tend to come from smaller operations than the puppy-mill-like hatcheries that supply most urban chickens, you still need to watch out for bad breeders. The better option, as always, is to rescue a goat who needs a home. There are over a hundred goats around the country listed for adoption on Petfinder, and if you contact your local farm animal sanctuary, you'll probably find more.

The bottom line is that goats are more than just walking milk cartons. As with any animal, no one should get one because it's trendy.

Photo credit: Benimoto

Patient-Veterinarian Privilege?

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-02T16:00:00-08:00

The Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association wanted to protect client confidentiality, so they backed a state law that would make it illegal to release client or patient information without a signed waiver or a court order.

In theory, patient-client-veterinarian privilege seems like as a good an idea as it is in the human medical community. The law went into effect last summer ... and so did the unintended consequence. Suddenly, veterinarians could no longer report suspected abuse cases. If they did, they could be sued, and even lose their licenses.

This wasn't what the KVMA wanted. Like educators and pediatricians, veterinarians are in a unique position to help vulnerable populations. When they're silenced by law and liability, vets are forced to betray their professional oath to relieve animal suffering and animals lose a potential advocate.

It was one more law in favor of animal abusers in a state already ranked as the worst in animal protection laws by the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

The good news is that ALDF stayed on top of this legislative blunder and a new bill has been introduced to the Kentucky House of Representatives that will amend the law "to provide immunity from civil or criminal actions to veterinarians who, in good faith, report suspected incidents of animal abuse or torture to the proper authorities."

Veterinarians wouldn't be required to report suspected abuse, but if this passes, at least they won't have to turn a blind eye to their patients' suffering in the name of "privilege."

Photo credit: Chuckumentary

Punxsutawney Phil, Version 2.0

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-02T12:00:00-08:00

If PETA had its way, Groundhog Day pilgrims would be greeted by an animatronic Punxsutawney Phil seeing his shadow (or not), allowing the real Phil to retire to a sanctuary.

Most of the time, the Groundhog Day star lives in a climate-controlled pen in the town library of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, with three other groundhogs. Once a year, he's taken across town to a heated burrow beneath a fake tree stump, Gobbler's Knob. Early in the morning of February 2nd, he's pulled out and held up to face his thousands of adoring fans.

Phil's fans think PETA's idea is ridiculous, that the groundhog's lifestyle is anything but cruel. Bill Deeley, president of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, says a robot groundhog would be blasphemy, that "Phil is probably treated better than the average child in Pennsylvania ... He has everything but a TV in there. What more do you want?"

But the star treatment doesn't seem to be enough for Phil, based on his series of well-publicized escape attempts last year.

After all, a groundhog's happiness isn't measured by whether he gets to chill in front of an air conditioner or watch Animal Planet. Phil's an animal, not a stage prop or a child.

There's no doubt that millions of animals suffer worse fates than the famous groundhog. The Gobbler's Knob charade isn't even close to the abuse faced by animals in factory farms, circuses, and dog fighting rings, to name a few. But the tradition is a perfect example of pure animal exploitation. The Groundhog Club doesn't even bother to pretend that Phil is about conservation or education -- they like to claim that he's over 120 years old, subsisting on a "Groundhog Punch" elixir of life.

The only purpose of the Groundhog Day tradition is tradition (and tourist dollars), which just isn't enough to convince me not to side with PETA on this one.

Photo credit: Barbara L. Hanson

Alicia Silverstone and Relationships with Cows

Annie Hartnett — 2010-02-02T10:10:00-08:00

No, this isn’t another piece on vegan dating, but wouldn’t that be a story!

I’m on an Alicia Silverstone kick right now. I love her new vegan book “The Kind Diet.” It is a book that is fun to read, not least because of the pretty pictures of Silverstone and her husband. Silverstone's writing is cheerful and charming. I started watching old clips of interviews with her, because I wanted to see if Silverstone is as delightful on camera (she is). In one of these clips, she asks Jon Stewart: "Have you ever had a relationship with a cow?"

I did have a memorable relationship with a cow. When I was sixteen, I spent the summer working for Drumlin Farm. The farm animals are mainly used for educational purposes, but it is also a working farm.

Everyday I ate lunch with Jef, a two-year-old Jersey bull with a white star on his forehead. He used to chew on my clothing while I read and ate lunch. Then, one day, Jef was gone, sold for hamburgers. It broke my heart; I had lost a friend.

Living in a city, I rarely see cows, pigs, or chickens. Do we need to have personal relationships with animals in order to care about them?

The 17th century philosopher Benedict Spinoza claimed that opposition to animal slaughter was “founded rather on vain superstition and womanish pity than on sound reason.” My decision not to eat animals was definitely founded on womanish pity, or rather, childlike pity, and continues to be propelled by it. I can locate rationalist ethics that justify my decision, like Peter Singer's Utilitarian theory, but these rationalist ethical theories neither motivated my original decision, nor do they actively contribute to my attempts to resist cheesecake. The traditional methods of rational ethical theory fail to take into account the feelings of sympathy or empathy that humans have towards each other and towards non-human animals.

Maybe Alicia Silverstone is onto something. Perhaps it is important to have a relationship with a cow, as we tend to love things that are close to us. This is why I'm in support of places like Drumlin Farm, (although not necessarily in support of killing Jef), because they provide an opportunity for people to meet individual animals and form relationships with them. As George Bernard Shaw famously said, “Animals are my friends, and I don’t eat my friends.”

Have you ever had a personal relationship with a non-human animal that made you rethink the way we treat animals as a group?

Photo Credit: Annie Hartnett

Not-So-Organic Dairy Farms Lobby for Unhappy Cows

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-02T08:00:00-08:00

A few months ago, I wrote about why organic doesn't mean compassionate.

Basically, it's the same old story -- Big Business (a.k.a. factory farms) has co-opted the industry, taking advantage of the loosely defined and weakly enforced regulations to flood the market, drive down prices, and run small business (a.k.a. family farms who actually care) out of town.

But, with revised rules governing whether organic dairy cows can be penned all day currently in the Obama administration's hands, the organic industry doesn't need to face more of the same.

This organics-gone-awry story has two leading villains. Aurora Dairy slipped into organic loopholes and stretched them into full-blown factory farms. They violated 14 tenets of the organic law, including confining their animals and denying them grazing. The Bush administration gave them a one-year probation tap on the hand and that was it.

Straus Family Creamery used to be a highly regarded brand, but now they've joined forces with Aurora and, together, they're advocating against stricter enforcement of organic dairy regulations, things that would make a big difference for the cows like significant pasture and grazing time.

There are good guys in this story, too. The Cornucopia Institute stands up for "family scale farming": the farmers who don't agree with confined animal feeding operations, the ones who want organic to mean something. Fortunately, those guys are the majority of the 1,800 organic dairy farmers in the U.S.

The rule in question is meant to clarify the intent of the original organic rules, to emphasize the need for meaningful pasture time. Aurora and Straus are lobbying hard to get Obama's Office of Management and Budget to change the revised restrictions on the organic label to be less, well, restricting.

Consumers who pay extra for the organic label don't do it because the packaging is pretty. People want the label to mean something -- for the environment, for the animals, for their own health -- and the explosive growth of the organic industry has proven that they're willing to pay for it. Tell the Obama Administration to accept the stronger rules for organic dairy. Even if you don't consume dairy products, this is a chance to deal a blow to factory farms and to create a model for meaningful organic labels, a contentious issue for animal and non-animal products alike.

Photo credit: KOMUnews

Officials Speak Out for Ponies and Pitties

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-01T18:00:00-08:00

The horse-drawn carriages in New York City have been the center of controversy for years. There's a strong lobby trying to keep them around, despite the dangers to people and horses and the questionable treatment and health of the animals.

With a hearing set for next week and a potential ban on the horizon, New York Governor David Paterson has expressed his concern for the animals. Despite Mayor Bloomberg's defense of the industry, Governor Paterson is ready to let it go, saying the horses need better treatment or the carriages should be banned.

In more horse news, the Humane Society of the United States held a press conference on Tuesday with celebrities, legislators, and representatives from agriculture, the horse industry, Native American groups, and zoos to plea for the protection of America's horses. The group called attention to the Bureau of Land Management's wild horse roundups and asked for support of the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act, which would make it illegal to slaughter horses or transport them for slaughter.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), lead sponsor of the act, said, "America's horses are being beaten and dragged across the border into Mexico and Canada so that they can be inhumanely slaughtered for food. I will continue to fight in Congress to end this brutal practice."

A few days ago, I reported that the American Kennel Club joined thousands of Change.org members in speaking out against giving Michael Vick the Ed Block Courage Award. The latest to join the cause is Caroline A. Griffin, who sent a letter to the Foundation's CEO stating that Vick is "neither couragous nor a role model."

"Aside from demeaning the memory of Mr. Block, there is a risk that bestowing this award to Michael Vick may unwittingly glamorize the brutal crime of dogfighting rather than deter it," she wrote. Who is this Ms. Griffin? She is the chairperson of the Mayor's Anti-Animal Abuse Task Force in Baltimore, the city where the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation is headquartered.

Last, but not least, at the end of 2009, I wrote about the recent blows to the anti-pit bull movement, including the opposition to Ontario's breed ban and the resignation of Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon. Now there's more good news for pit bulls out of Ohio. A Toledo municipal judge ruled that parts of the city's dangerous dog ordinance was unconstitutional.

Judge Michael Goulding found that the city's breed specific legislation violated due process and the state's home rule policy (you can find a nice summary of the rulings here.) He concluded that, "A more uniform, practical and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners, would seem preferable to the status quo."

The city can appeal this decision, but in the meantime, the Lucas County Dog Warden's office has stopped enforcing restrictions on pit bulls. It's a big step in the right direction toward banning breed specific legislation.

Photo credit: coral11

Torturing Snakes for Fun and Profit

Martin Matheny — 2010-02-01T15:02:00-08:00

Update: Serendipity is a funny thing. Just a few hours after I posted this, I noticed that the University of Georgia Law Student Animal Defense Fund Chapter is highlighting a campaign by the Center for Biological Diversity to make rattlesnake roundups illegal in Georgia. If you live in Georgia, please take a second to sign on to their effort, and even if you don't live in Georgia, they have a pretty solid sample letter that you can use to start the fight against rattlesnake roundups where you live.

By the time the audience gets settled down and the barrels are rolled out, most of the snakes couldn't attack if they wanted to. They're starved and weakened, dehydrated, half-suffocated. Sometimes, they're completely suffocated, because there isn't a lot of air when you're at the bottom of the tank, locked in and trapped under the bodies of dozens like you.

Welcome to a rattlesnake roundup, where you can get up close and personal with hundreds of rattlesnakes that have been gassed out of their burrows.

What happens there can be sickening. The snakes' rattles are ripped off while the snake is still alive and passed out to kids as souvenirs. Other snakes are decapitated in front of the crowd. Some have liquor poured down their throats, or are burned with cigarettes. They're kicked and stomped. Pregnant females are especially popular.

As near as history can tell, rattlesnake roundups started in Oklahoma in the 1930s and 1940s. The practice spread to the Southeast, especially South Georgia and North Florida, where there were plenty of Eastern Diamondbacks rattlers. Nowadays, the show continues in Alabama and Georgia but thanks to continuing habitat encroachment by humans, rattlers are a little bit harder to find. It's not an insurmountable problem for roundup promoters. Just head out into the woods, find a gopher tortoise burrow (Eastern Diamondbacks live with gopher tortoises) and douse it liberally with gasoline. The half-stunned snakes come out of the burrow, you scoop them up, throw them in a box, and transport them to the show — and let the games begin. (The burrows remain uninhabitable for years.)

No bloodsport is without its defenders, usually people who stand to make money off letting people watch animals die. The biggest line you'll hear is that rattlers are dangerous and that this is somehow a public service. Rattlers are dangerous -- to their prey. But if you're reading this, you're not rattlesnake prey. Given an option, an Eastern Diamondback would much rather simply run away than attack anything too big to swallow whole.

Roundup promoters also like to point out that sometimes, their proceeds go to local charities. That may be true, but it doesn't excuse the barbarism of a rattlesnake roundup. Ever heard of a bake sale or a car wash?

Some communities are catching on. A paper on roundups [pdf] by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists praises San Antonio, Florida, for doing away with the wholesale slaughter of snakes in favor of using rattlesnakes and other species in an environmental awareness effort.

Despite the positive trend, the practice continues in some places, and it needs to be stopped. It could easily be handled legislatively, on the state or federal level. In fact, one part of the process is already technically illegal — using gasoline on Gopher Tortoise burrows. The rest of the cruelty can be made illegal with a simple bill.

When it comes down to it, the rattlesnake roundup is every bit as cruel and inhumane as cockfighting, dogfighting, or shooting down wolves from the safety of a helicopter. While we continue to make strides in putting those bloodsports down for good, we should take a minute and think about rattlesnake roundups while we're at it.

Photo credit: mherzber

Make a Chained Dog Your Valentine

Stephanie Feldstein — 2010-02-01T10:00:00-08:00

Dogs Deserve Better hopes to make Valentine's Day a little sweeter for 15,000 chained or penned dogs this year.

The organization is teaming up with elementary school students, groups, and clubs across the country for the 8th season of Have a Heart for Chained Dogs Week. During the week of February 7-14, thousands of Valentines, brochures, and dog food or treat coupons will be delivered to dogs across the country.

Dogs are social pack animals, so being denied interaction with humans and other animals by living life on a chain can be psychologically damaging. Chained dogs are often forgotten by their families and physically neglected. Chaining also tends to cause injury and suffering from dehydration to hypothermia, from neck sores and embedded collars to entanglement and suffocation. Last, but not least, the combination of a lack of socialization with territorial behavior is a recipe for stress, anxiety, and aggression. Chained dogs have been responsible for hundreds of dog bites in the last few years alone.

The Have a Heart for Chained Dogs Campaign delivered 12,000 Valentines in 2009. Here's how you can share the love with even more dogs this year:

1. Make Valentines. Whether you're participating as an individual or part of a classroom or group, you can help provide meaningful cards. The Valentines need to be no bigger than 4" x 8.5" so they can be easily mailed. You can find examples and more information on the Dogs Deserve Better website.

2. Send Coupons. Ideally, every dog that gets a Valentine will also get a coupon for dog food or treats. Send any and all coupons you have (as long as they don't expire before Valentine's Day!)

3. Get addresses of Chained Dogs. DDB needs to know where to send the Valentines, so if there are any chained or penned dogs in your neighborhood, jot down the address and send it along. You can report dogs in need on their website, by emailing info@dogsdeservebetter.org, or by calling (877) 636-1408.

Valentines and Coupons must be sent by February 5th to:

Dogs Deserve Better

P.O. Box 23

Tipton, PA 16684

Photo credit: Tobyotter