Advocacy For Animals

by Gregory McNamee

The world’s largest owl, Blakiston’s fish owl, is also one of its rarest. Found in the old-growth or primary forests of the Russian Far East, it preys on salmon, and in that work, the forest is its ally. As a recent study by American and Russian scientists in the journal Oryx reports, these great old-growth forests provide habitat for the owls, including cavities in the huge trees that are large enough to support nesting and breeding birds—no small consideration, pardon the pun, given that they have six-foot wingspans.

The trees help in another way: When, in age or illness, they fall into streams, they create small-scale dams that in turn form microhabitats in the water, increasing stream biodiversity that in turn benefits its inhabitants, including the salmon. Happy salmon, happy owls. The great forests also harbor other owl species, as well as the endangered Amur tiger and Asiatic black bear. All these make good reasons to keep the forest healthy, which again is no small task given the always voracious timber and mining industries. Fortunately, the forest has its advocates, too, in the form of the Wildlife Conservation Society, National Birds of Prey Trust, and the Amur-Ussuri Centre for Avian Diversity, the last the home institution for some of the Russian scientists involved in the study. continue reading…

by Andrea Toback

Many people would like to help homeless cats but don’t have the resources to adopt a cat for life. In addition to volunteering at a local animal shelter, a rewarding way to help is to foster a cat. The foster home helps a cat become socialized and more able to be adopted, and it frees up space at the shelter for other cats in needs. Part of many shelters’ foster programs are people who foster newborn kittens and their mothers (as well as orphan kittens, also known as bottle-fed babies). The experience of supporting the mother cat with a safe environment in which to give birth to and nurse her kittens, as well as socializing the kittens so that they are ready to go to loving families when they are weaned and spayed or neutered, is a demanding but rewarding one.

Today we have a conversation with a very special foster parent.

John Bartlett (also known as “Foster Dad John”) is a computer professional who lives near Arlington, Washington. He’s been fostering kittens in conjunction with the Purrfect Pals cat shelter and sanctuary since 2008. To date he has fostered a total of 38 sets of cats and or kittens, all of whom are now in loving homes. About a year ago he decided to install a “kitten cam” so people on the Web could see the progress of the kittens and their moms from shortly after birth until adoption. His Kitten Cam followers have multiplied, and they now number more than 36,000. Each litter of kittens (and sometimes the mothers as well) is named according to a theme, such as famous scientists, Russian cosmonauts, or cartoon characters.

His dedication and interaction with his followers has inspired many others to foster, including at least eight people who have set up kitten cams of their own.

We asked John if he would tell us about how he started fostering cats and their kittens and about some of the challenges he’s faced.

Advocacy for Animals: As your viewers know, you have adult cats of your own. Can you tell us a bit about them?

John Bartlett: I adopted the first two from shelters; the rest came from friends whose cat had kittens and they couldn’t find homes for, or kittens found out on the street. One came from a neighbor who left a note on my door asking if I lost a gray kitten—I hadn’t, but he’s still here.

AFA: Given that you have a good-sized cat family, what motivated you to start taking care of kittens and their moms?

JB: I fostered for a friend back in 2004 whose cat had kittens, and since she lived in an apartment, she couldn’t keep them there. That got fostering in my blood and it was always a tickle in the back of my mind until I decided to foster for shelters. continue reading…

by Michael Markarian

Our thanks to Michael Markarian, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), for permission to republish this post, which originally appeared on his blog Animals & Politics on September 10, 2013.

The Obama administration today [September 10] took a major step to improve the treatment of thousands of dogs languishing in large-scale commercial puppy mills. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a final rule to close a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act regulations which currently requires breeders selling wholesale to pet stores to be federally licensed and inspected, but leaves those selling directly to the public over the Internet completely unregulated.

Unscrupulous puppy mill operators have been migrating to the Internet to escape even the most basic and minimal standards of animal care. They often set up misleading web sites showing pictures of puppies frolicking in open fields, while the reality is much grimmer—dogs confined in cramped cages, without exercise, companionship, socialization, or veterinary care. The rule, which will take effect 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register, will level the playing field for commercial breeders, regardless of whether they sell to pet stores or directly to consumers.

The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, and other groups have been pushing for this policy reform for years, and generated more than 350,000 comments from members of the public supporting the rule change. We are especially grateful to the bipartisan congressional leaders—Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and David Vitter, R-La., and Reps. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., Sam Farr, D-Calif., Bill Young, R-Fla., and Lois Capps, D-Calif.—who introduced and championed the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act, S. 395 and H.R. 847, to close this Internet puppy mill loophole. With USDA taking action on the rule, it essentially achieves the same reform sought by the PUPS Act. continue reading…

Each week, the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) sends out an e-mail alert called Take Action Thursday, which tells subscribers about current actions they can take to help animals. NAVS is a national, not-for-profit educational organization incorporated in the State of Illinois. NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect, and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection. You can register to receive these action alerts and more at the NAVS Web site.

This week’s Take Action Thursday applauds positive action taken by the USDA to stem the abuses from the sale of puppies online; welcomes a decision by the U.S. military to end the use of live animals at their medical school; and deplores the continued abuse of coyotes and foxes to train dogs for hunting.

Federal Regulation

There is finally good news for dogs sold by puppy mills on the Internet. Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced it will close a loophole in current law that allows the unsupervised sale of puppies (and other animals sold as pets) on the Internet and through newspaper ads, many of which come from puppy mills. APHIS adopted a proposed rule that will revise the definition of “retail pet store” used to apply Animal Welfare Act standards to animal breeders. In revising the current rule, which exempted “retail pet stores” from AWA standards of care that were aimed at large commercial animal breeders, the USDA acknowledges that times have changed and that the breeders selling animals as pets sight-unseen over the Internet and in print ads should not be exempt from regulatory oversight. The September 10, 2013, decision fulfills a commitment made by APHIS in response to a 2010 report on dog breeders. That report revealed that 80% of breeders were not being monitored or inspected to ensure their animals’ overall health and humane treatment. The breeders claimed that they were “retail pet stores” and thus exempt from AWA inspections. According to Ed Avalos, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, “Requiring these breeders to adhere to the Animal Welfare Act standards is important because we know that if the federal standards are being met, the animals are getting humane care and treatment.”

It should be noted that legislative efforts to close the “retail pet store” loophole, such as the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (HR 847 and S 395), which have been under consideration for many years, have received little support despite the dire conditions of animals caused by this oversight. continue reading…

by Seth Victor

— Our thanks to Animal Blawg, where this post originally appeared on September 5, 2013.

Last month New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed laws creating two new felonies for animal abuse. The first, “Patrick’s Law,” increases neglect of a dog from a disorderly persons offense, a misdemeanor, to a fourth degree felony, or in some cases, a third degree felony.

The fines associated with these crimes were also increased. Additionally, overworking an animal is now a misdemeanor offense. The law was inspired by Patrick, a malnourished pit bull who was thrown down a garbage chute in a trash bag by his owner. Patrick survived and was rescued, but owner Kisha Curtis is not expected to face harsh penalties for her actions. Under the new law, even failing to provide a dog like Patrick with adequate food and water could land a similar offender in custody. The bill was passed by the NJ Assembly last spring.

Christie also signed “Dano’s Law,” aka “Dano’s and Vader’s Law.” Under this addition, it is now a fourth degree felony to threaten the life of a law enforcement animal. This measure primarily includes K-9 units, but also horses for mounted police. NJ Sen. Christopher Bateman commented, “Cowardly criminals who threaten the life of a law enforcement animal will now receive the punishment they deserve.”

Turning to Patrick’s Law first, the revised language of the animal cruelty statute still isn’t perfect, but it’s much more powerful. For instance, the statute still only penalizes “unnecessary cruelty,” which of course assumes that there is some level of acceptable cruelty, most likely in working animal situations. It also gives the courts some discretion in its application by penalizing only those who “unnecessarily fail” to provide food and water. The changes to the statute also provide for monetary restitution if the animal is killed, which seems thoughtful, but only reinforces the notion of animals as a sort of specialized property. Those complaints aside, the updated law is a commendable advancement. As the Blawg previously commented, Schultz’s Law created a potential danger by pushing animal protection laws through for the wrong reasons. Patrick’s Law is perhaps superior in that it does not draw distinctions between animals (save again for the exceptions that allow for different treatment of farmed and lab animals) based on arbitrary roles. It enforces against cruelty equally, drawing on the same langauge as the human assault law. continue reading…