Long time HSUS hero, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), is the sponsor of HR 3359 that would prohibit animals from participating in traveling circus acts. The bill is cosponsored by Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.).
K Street Files: Protesting the Circus
By Kate Ackley Roll Call Staff KateAckley@rollcall.com @kackleyZ
The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is in town, and so are animal-rights activists who are planning demonstrations outside of the Verizon Center starting today.
The wild animals on the circus circuit suffer from “confinement, physical and social deprivation, arduous journeys, brutal control methods and physical violence,” said a press release from the group Animal Defenders International.
But Ryan Henning, the circus’ assistant animal superintendent, said the animals receive the highest level of care “24-7.”
“We always invite everybody to come and see the show, up close and personal with the animals,” Henning said. “They can see how well all the animals are cared for.” full story
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Santorum the clear HSUS choice
The Marshall County Tribune headline reads, "Republican candidates differ on animal welfare" and contains a summary of the support and endorsements Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum has enjoyed from HSUS. The SAOVA archives list the series of "puppy mill" bills introduced by Santorum on behalf of HSUS from 2001 thru 2005. Santorum was defeated in his senate re-election campaign the year following his push for passage of the 2005 Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS). Archived legislation can be viewed at this link.
Michael Markarian, Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), blogged about the Presidential Candidates in December. Some of the candidates have since dropped out of the race. Regarding Santorum, Markarian says, "Of all the candidates who have served in Congress, Santorum was arguably the most active on animal protection issues."
On to the Tribune Commentary.
Republican candidates differ on animal welfare
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Marshall County Tribune
By Karen Hall
Staff Writer
As Tennesseans prepare to vote in the Republican presidential primary on "Super Tuesday," many are studying the candidates' positions on issues like employment, taxes, healthcare, and foreign relations.
It's also worth considering where they stand on animal rights, as Dennis Foster, executive director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, recently pointed out in an e-mail to members.
"Let me start by stating that the MFHA is not supporting any particular candidate," Foster wrote. "We do, however, believe we should keep you informed on those candidates that have Humane Society of the United States support and that support the animal rights agendas. This information comes right from HSUS's mouth and the candidates' voting records."
Foster goes on to say that HSUS supports President Obama, but they will back "any candidate that supports their hidden agendas."
Rick Santorum is supported by HSUS with money and endorsements. HSUS states he is the most active candidate in animal protection issues. Santorum has been a leader in introducing Pet Animal Welfare Statutes (PAWS), supposedly to eliminate so-called "Puppy Mills." In fact, according to Foster, such laws will have the effect of making it more expensive and difficult to own a dog, and almost impossible to maintain a kennel of hunting hounds.
Santorum was also one of those who voted to stop horse processing for food exports. The USA has thousands of horses let loose, neglected and suffering because nobody wants them and 140,000 horses each year are now going to Canada and Mexico for horse processing. This was brought to Tennessean's attention last month with the wreck of a trailer carrying 38 horses on I-40. Three horses were killed and traffic was at a standstill for hours. The surviving horses were picked up by another transporter and taken to Texas and sold to a Mexican meat-packing company, according to investigation by Nashville's WSMV-TV. Veterinarians refused permission for four injured horses to cross the border, and their fate remains unknown, according to the TV station.
"Santorum is HSUS's clear GOP choice," Foster concludes.
Full story at link
Michael Markarian, Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), blogged about the Presidential Candidates in December. Some of the candidates have since dropped out of the race. Regarding Santorum, Markarian says, "Of all the candidates who have served in Congress, Santorum was arguably the most active on animal protection issues."
On to the Tribune Commentary.
Republican candidates differ on animal welfare
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Marshall County Tribune
By Karen Hall
Staff Writer
As Tennesseans prepare to vote in the Republican presidential primary on "Super Tuesday," many are studying the candidates' positions on issues like employment, taxes, healthcare, and foreign relations.
It's also worth considering where they stand on animal rights, as Dennis Foster, executive director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association, recently pointed out in an e-mail to members.
"Let me start by stating that the MFHA is not supporting any particular candidate," Foster wrote. "We do, however, believe we should keep you informed on those candidates that have Humane Society of the United States support and that support the animal rights agendas. This information comes right from HSUS's mouth and the candidates' voting records."
Foster goes on to say that HSUS supports President Obama, but they will back "any candidate that supports their hidden agendas."
Rick Santorum is supported by HSUS with money and endorsements. HSUS states he is the most active candidate in animal protection issues. Santorum has been a leader in introducing Pet Animal Welfare Statutes (PAWS), supposedly to eliminate so-called "Puppy Mills." In fact, according to Foster, such laws will have the effect of making it more expensive and difficult to own a dog, and almost impossible to maintain a kennel of hunting hounds.
Santorum was also one of those who voted to stop horse processing for food exports. The USA has thousands of horses let loose, neglected and suffering because nobody wants them and 140,000 horses each year are now going to Canada and Mexico for horse processing. This was brought to Tennessean's attention last month with the wreck of a trailer carrying 38 horses on I-40. Three horses were killed and traffic was at a standstill for hours. The surviving horses were picked up by another transporter and taken to Texas and sold to a Mexican meat-packing company, according to investigation by Nashville's WSMV-TV. Veterinarians refused permission for four injured horses to cross the border, and their fate remains unknown, according to the TV station.
"Santorum is HSUS's clear GOP choice," Foster concludes.
Full story at link
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Supreme Court Blocks California's Downer Livestock Law
by Helena Bottemiller | Jan 24, 2012
Food Safety News
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California law on Monday that required the euthanization of downer livestock, to promote animal welfare and keep them out of the food supply.
In 2009, California enacted a ban on selling or slaughtering downer, or lame animals unable to walk, in response to undercover footage showing animal handlers abusing cows -- forcefully dragging and forklifting non-ambulatory animals -- in a San Bernadino County slaughterhouse. The video, released by the Humane Society, sparked consumer outrage and led to the nation's largest-ever meat recall.
Non-ambulatory cows are at a higher risk for BSE, or mad cow disease. The packer caught prodding downed animals into slaughter had also been supplying the National School Lunch Program.
California's law required meat processors to remove downed animals -- including pigs, goats, and sheep -- from the herd and euthanize them immediately. Federal law currently only prevents downer cows from being slaughtered.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act prohibits state regulation that goes above and beyond, or is different from the law, which has ruled over the meat industry since the beginning of the 20th century. The National Meat Association challenged the California's law, on behalf of pork producers, and a federal judge in Fresno, CA struck down the slaughter ban. The decision was later reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco. The judge called the lower opinion "hogwash."
In its decision released this week, the Supreme Court noted that the federal meat inspection law "expressly pre-empts" the California law's application to federally inspected pork facilities.
"The Supreme Court's ruling affirms the supremacy of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and USDA's role in regulating meat process plants," said NPPC President Doug Wolf, a hog farmer from Lancaster, WI. "It also recognized that non-ambulatory hogs with proper recovery time and veterinary oversight do not need to be condemned immediately in all cases."
Animal rights advocates argue that the California law would promote humane treatment and keep sick, weak animals out of the food supply. According to NMA, around 3 percent of pigs are non-ambulatory, or unable to walk, when they show up to the slaughterhouse.
"Non-ambulatory hogs that are allowed to recover pose no food-safety risk to the public," Wolf said. "Such pigs are inspected by USDA inspectors and veterinarians regarding their fitness for processing and entering the human food supply, and strong regulatory safeguards for humane treatment in the processing of animals already exist."
Related articles
North Country Times, EDITORIAL: The correct decision
Supreme Court Squashes California Downer Law
Food Safety News
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a California law on Monday that required the euthanization of downer livestock, to promote animal welfare and keep them out of the food supply.
In 2009, California enacted a ban on selling or slaughtering downer, or lame animals unable to walk, in response to undercover footage showing animal handlers abusing cows -- forcefully dragging and forklifting non-ambulatory animals -- in a San Bernadino County slaughterhouse. The video, released by the Humane Society, sparked consumer outrage and led to the nation's largest-ever meat recall.
Non-ambulatory cows are at a higher risk for BSE, or mad cow disease. The packer caught prodding downed animals into slaughter had also been supplying the National School Lunch Program.
California's law required meat processors to remove downed animals -- including pigs, goats, and sheep -- from the herd and euthanize them immediately. Federal law currently only prevents downer cows from being slaughtered.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act prohibits state regulation that goes above and beyond, or is different from the law, which has ruled over the meat industry since the beginning of the 20th century. The National Meat Association challenged the California's law, on behalf of pork producers, and a federal judge in Fresno, CA struck down the slaughter ban. The decision was later reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco. The judge called the lower opinion "hogwash."
In its decision released this week, the Supreme Court noted that the federal meat inspection law "expressly pre-empts" the California law's application to federally inspected pork facilities.
"The Supreme Court's ruling affirms the supremacy of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and USDA's role in regulating meat process plants," said NPPC President Doug Wolf, a hog farmer from Lancaster, WI. "It also recognized that non-ambulatory hogs with proper recovery time and veterinary oversight do not need to be condemned immediately in all cases."
Animal rights advocates argue that the California law would promote humane treatment and keep sick, weak animals out of the food supply. According to NMA, around 3 percent of pigs are non-ambulatory, or unable to walk, when they show up to the slaughterhouse.
"Non-ambulatory hogs that are allowed to recover pose no food-safety risk to the public," Wolf said. "Such pigs are inspected by USDA inspectors and veterinarians regarding their fitness for processing and entering the human food supply, and strong regulatory safeguards for humane treatment in the processing of animals already exist."
Related articles
North Country Times, EDITORIAL: The correct decision
Supreme Court Squashes California Downer Law
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
TX Dog Owners May Sue to Recover the Sentimental Value
I think it's going to have a significant impact on the private sector, particularly veterinarians, kennel owners, even individuals who take care of their neighbors' pets. I mean, for example, on veterinarians, things which would be routine care for a pet, now they have to practice much more defensive medicine," Texas attorney Boudloche said. "The value of a dog has changed in the eye of the law. So, if mistakes happen, the exposure for everybody is much greater."
By David Lee. Courthouse News Service
FORT WORTH (CN) - A Texas appeals court ruled that the owners of a mistakenly euthanized dog can sue to recover the sentimental value of their lost pet, reversing and remanding the ruling of a trial court. The closely reasoned opinion cites more than a century of Texas courts rulings on dogs.
The Court of Appeals for the 2nd District of Texas reinstated Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen's negligence lawsuit against Carla Strickland, a City of Fort Worth animal shelter employee.
According to court filings, their 8-year-old Labrador mix, Avery, escaped from the Medlens' back yard and was picked up by the city's animal control. Jeremy Medlen went to the shelter to bail out Avery, but did not have enough cash in hand to pay the fees. He was told he could return the next day and that a hold-for-owner tag would be placed on Avery's cage, to prevent him from being euthanized. But Avery was killed the next day before the Medlens could pick him up.
The Medlens sued for "sentimental or intrinsic" damages. Strickland objected, saying such damages are not recoverable for the death of a dog. The First Tarrant County Court at Law dismissed for failure to state a claim for damages recognized by law. The court said the Medlens could recover only the market value of the dog. Full story
By David Lee. Courthouse News Service
FORT WORTH (CN) - A Texas appeals court ruled that the owners of a mistakenly euthanized dog can sue to recover the sentimental value of their lost pet, reversing and remanding the ruling of a trial court. The closely reasoned opinion cites more than a century of Texas courts rulings on dogs.
The Court of Appeals for the 2nd District of Texas reinstated Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen's negligence lawsuit against Carla Strickland, a City of Fort Worth animal shelter employee.
According to court filings, their 8-year-old Labrador mix, Avery, escaped from the Medlens' back yard and was picked up by the city's animal control. Jeremy Medlen went to the shelter to bail out Avery, but did not have enough cash in hand to pay the fees. He was told he could return the next day and that a hold-for-owner tag would be placed on Avery's cage, to prevent him from being euthanized. But Avery was killed the next day before the Medlens could pick him up.
The Medlens sued for "sentimental or intrinsic" damages. Strickland objected, saying such damages are not recoverable for the death of a dog. The First Tarrant County Court at Law dismissed for failure to state a claim for damages recognized by law. The court said the Medlens could recover only the market value of the dog. Full story
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Supreme Court skeptical of California's slaughterhouse law
By MICHAEL DOYLE. McClatchy Newspapers
Supreme Court justices carved into California's ban on the commercial slaughter of lame livestock Wednesday, leaving the state law's future in doubt.
In a case that pits state vs. federal power, justices repeatedly suggested that California went too far with protecting animals already regulated by federal law and overseen by the U.S. Agriculture Department.
"California should butt out," Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point.
Although more bluntly phrased than most, Scalia's seeming skepticism toward California's livestock-protection law appeared to be widely shared during the hourlong oral argument. No justice seemed sympathetic to the state's case, and some at times sounded downright impatient.
"I don't see how you can argue that you're not trenching on the scope of the (federal) statute," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told California's deputy attorney general, Susan K. Smith.
Sounding dubious, Sotomayor later suggested that Smith was "not seriously arguing" a particular point, while Scalia said of one of Smith's arguments, "That can't be right."
The California law in question prohibits the slaughter of non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle. These are animals that can't walk, because of disease, injury or other causes. The state law further requires that the downed animals be euthanized.
Federal law bans the slaughter of downed cattle, and the challenge heard Wednesday was to the state provision that covers swine.
Full story at link.
Related articles
National Hog Farmer. Supreme Court to Hear Downer Hog Case
Hogs on the menu at Supreme Court
Supreme Court justices carved into California's ban on the commercial slaughter of lame livestock Wednesday, leaving the state law's future in doubt.
In a case that pits state vs. federal power, justices repeatedly suggested that California went too far with protecting animals already regulated by federal law and overseen by the U.S. Agriculture Department.
"California should butt out," Justice Antonin Scalia said at one point.
Although more bluntly phrased than most, Scalia's seeming skepticism toward California's livestock-protection law appeared to be widely shared during the hourlong oral argument. No justice seemed sympathetic to the state's case, and some at times sounded downright impatient.
"I don't see how you can argue that you're not trenching on the scope of the (federal) statute," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told California's deputy attorney general, Susan K. Smith.
Sounding dubious, Sotomayor later suggested that Smith was "not seriously arguing" a particular point, while Scalia said of one of Smith's arguments, "That can't be right."
The California law in question prohibits the slaughter of non-ambulatory pigs, sheep, goats or cattle. These are animals that can't walk, because of disease, injury or other causes. The state law further requires that the downed animals be euthanized.
Federal law bans the slaughter of downed cattle, and the challenge heard Wednesday was to the state provision that covers swine.
Full story at link.
Related articles
National Hog Farmer. Supreme Court to Hear Downer Hog Case
Hogs on the menu at Supreme Court
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Minn. foie gras producer challenges notion that process is cruel
by Elizabeth Baier, Minnesota Public Radio
October 10, 2011
Caledonia, Minn. — On a winding road in southeastern Minnesota, there's a 60-acre farm unlike any other in the Midwest.
Au Bon Canard, or "good duck" in French, is where Christian Gasset raises ducks to produce a culinary delicacy: foie gras, or fattened duck liver. The Au Bon Canard duck livers — along with breasts, wings and other parts — end up on plates of the most celebrated restaurants in the Upper Midwest.
Inside a barn on Gasset's farm on a recent morning, four long wooden pens each held about 16 adult male ducks, with room for the ducks to walk around. Gasset and his wife, Liz Gibson-Gasset, moved slowly to keep the birds calm.
"With foie gras, the really big thing is you can't have a good product if you're not treating your ducks well," she said. "If they're unhappy, if they're stressed out, if anything's wrong with their living conditions, you don't get a good product."
But as much as the Gassets try to keep their birds content, how they and other foie gras producers feed ducks makes the product controversial. Animal rights activists say the process used to fatten the ducks' livers amounts to animal torture.
The Gassets, who started their business in 2004, raise and slaughter about 2,100 males ducks a year, a fraction of what their competitors in New York and California produce. The birds on their farm are Mullard ducks, a cross between Pekins and Muscovies. They arrived from California as day-old chicks.
After living the first few weeks in a temperature-controlled room, they spend another eight weeks or so outdoors, eating a mixture of corn, bugs and grass before going into the barn for controlled feedings.
Twice a day for the last two weeks of a duck's life, Gasset tilts the bird's head back, inserts an eight-inch funnel into its throat and pours three-quarters of a pound of freshly cooked kettle corn down the duck's esophagus.
The corn goes into a small organ called the crop, which Gasset massages for a few seconds as he pulls the funnel out. It takes him seven seconds to feed each bird.
Gasset said controlling the amount of corn the duck ingests during the last two weeks of its life plumps its liver up to 10 times its normal size — making it foie gras. As the liver's color changes from black to yellow, its texture becomes creamy, like butter.
Gasset said the process is meant to mimic the way a bird puts on weight before fall migration, even though the ducks never migrate. To him, many of those who criticize the process simply don't want anyone to eat meat and see foie gras as an easy target.
"It's such a small production and you kind of target the rich people, because it's a really extremely expensive product at the end," he said.
Full story and video at link
October 10, 2011
Caledonia, Minn. — On a winding road in southeastern Minnesota, there's a 60-acre farm unlike any other in the Midwest.
Au Bon Canard, or "good duck" in French, is where Christian Gasset raises ducks to produce a culinary delicacy: foie gras, or fattened duck liver. The Au Bon Canard duck livers — along with breasts, wings and other parts — end up on plates of the most celebrated restaurants in the Upper Midwest.
Inside a barn on Gasset's farm on a recent morning, four long wooden pens each held about 16 adult male ducks, with room for the ducks to walk around. Gasset and his wife, Liz Gibson-Gasset, moved slowly to keep the birds calm.
"With foie gras, the really big thing is you can't have a good product if you're not treating your ducks well," she said. "If they're unhappy, if they're stressed out, if anything's wrong with their living conditions, you don't get a good product."
But as much as the Gassets try to keep their birds content, how they and other foie gras producers feed ducks makes the product controversial. Animal rights activists say the process used to fatten the ducks' livers amounts to animal torture.
The Gassets, who started their business in 2004, raise and slaughter about 2,100 males ducks a year, a fraction of what their competitors in New York and California produce. The birds on their farm are Mullard ducks, a cross between Pekins and Muscovies. They arrived from California as day-old chicks.
After living the first few weeks in a temperature-controlled room, they spend another eight weeks or so outdoors, eating a mixture of corn, bugs and grass before going into the barn for controlled feedings.
Twice a day for the last two weeks of a duck's life, Gasset tilts the bird's head back, inserts an eight-inch funnel into its throat and pours three-quarters of a pound of freshly cooked kettle corn down the duck's esophagus.
The corn goes into a small organ called the crop, which Gasset massages for a few seconds as he pulls the funnel out. It takes him seven seconds to feed each bird.
Gasset said controlling the amount of corn the duck ingests during the last two weeks of its life plumps its liver up to 10 times its normal size — making it foie gras. As the liver's color changes from black to yellow, its texture becomes creamy, like butter.
Gasset said the process is meant to mimic the way a bird puts on weight before fall migration, even though the ducks never migrate. To him, many of those who criticize the process simply don't want anyone to eat meat and see foie gras as an easy target.
"It's such a small production and you kind of target the rich people, because it's a really extremely expensive product at the end," he said.
Full story and video at link
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Marshall MO town hall meeting to discuss threats to agriculture
Town hall meeting planned for Oct. 26 in Marshall to discuss threats to agriculture
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Marshall Democrat-News
Two agriculture organizations and four Missouri legislators are hosting a town hall meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 26, at Martin Community Center in Marshall to discuss threats to agriculture.
Representatives from Missouri Farmers Care and Sante Fe Agri-Leaders are expected to help lead the discussion. According to a news release from MFC, state Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, and state representatives Joe Aull, D-Marshall; Caleb Jones, R-California; and Mike Lair, R-Chillicothe, are also expected to attend.
The announcement specifically mentions the Humane Society of the United States as a threat. HSUS sponsored the controversial "puppy mill" ballot issue that narrowly passed in 2010 and was subsequently revised by the legislature.
HSUS reportedly backs a current initiative petition that would place on the ballot a measure limiting the Missouri legislature's ability to amend laws approved by referendum.
Supporters of the measure hope to have it considered during a 2012 election.
For more information, contact Dan Kleinsorge at Dan@mofarmerscare.com or 573-821-2040
Online: Missouri Farmers Care News
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Marshall Democrat-News
Two agriculture organizations and four Missouri legislators are hosting a town hall meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 26, at Martin Community Center in Marshall to discuss threats to agriculture.
Representatives from Missouri Farmers Care and Sante Fe Agri-Leaders are expected to help lead the discussion. According to a news release from MFC, state Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, and state representatives Joe Aull, D-Marshall; Caleb Jones, R-California; and Mike Lair, R-Chillicothe, are also expected to attend.
The announcement specifically mentions the Humane Society of the United States as a threat. HSUS sponsored the controversial "puppy mill" ballot issue that narrowly passed in 2010 and was subsequently revised by the legislature.
HSUS reportedly backs a current initiative petition that would place on the ballot a measure limiting the Missouri legislature's ability to amend laws approved by referendum.
Supporters of the measure hope to have it considered during a 2012 election.
For more information, contact Dan Kleinsorge at Dan@mofarmerscare.com or 573-821-2040
Online: Missouri Farmers Care News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
