Elisa D’Ortenzio

As the year 2009 comes to an end, over 4 million dogs and cats will have been euthanized in the United States alone due to over population in animal shelters. Dogs and cats that do not end up living in shelters often live as strays on the street. Television commercials such as those from the ASPCA which focus on promoting animal adoption and ending violent animal cruelty, often fail to educate the public as to the fate of the millions of animals that live in the shelters if they are not adopted.  There are many people that believe that it is kinder to euthanize dogs and cats than it is to allow them to live their lifetime in cages in animal shelters. Others criticize this opinion saying that euthanizing animals merely treats a symptom of a much greater problem. After working in an animal shelter in the past, it is clear to me that even the largest and most well-funded animal shelters cannot accommodate the amount of stray dogs and cats that live in this country.

Since so many people consider companion animals to be members of the family, I find it surprising that more people, especially those with their own dogs and cats, do not appear to take more notice of the overwhelming number of dogs and cats that shelters euthanized every year. I find the practice of euthanizing shelter animals to be an issue of cruelty because most of these animals are healthy ones that need a loving home and would make excellent companion animals if given the chance.

I do not think that routinely euthanizing shelter animals as a measure of population control is something that we should continue to allow. One of the most effective ways to start to combat this problem begins with pet owners themselves. It is very important for pet owners to spay/neuter their own pets. It is also important for us to encourage others to spay/neuter their own pets and support spay/neuter programs to control cat and dog populations in our communities. This would gradually reduce the amount of animals in shelters to numbers that the shelters can accommodate, ending or severely limiting the need for euthanizing millions of  healthy animals each year.

Irina Knopp

Recently, the shocking video of a dog being thrown from a bridge has circulated the internet.  Svajunas Beniuk from Kaunas, Lithuania was the culprit.  Svajunas, who was joined by at least two other people who filmed the event, took a neighbor’s dog and threw it from a bridge.  The dog had allegedly killed some of his mother’s chickens in their home village. In an ironic showing of compassion, Svajunas waited until the traffic cleared before he threw the dog.

The dog, named Pipiras (Lithanian for Pepper), spent several days unable to move.  A man discovered him, took him to the police station, and the police sent Pepper for medical treatment. Earlier reports stated that Pepper avoided serious bone fractures but had multiple injuries to his internal organs from the 60+ foot fall. The local citizens, in a beautiful outpouring of compassion, offered assistance and wanted to take care of Pepper after he would recover. Sadly, the latest reports on the local Russian radio station in New York indicate that Pepper has passed. 

Svajunas was sentenced to 8 months in jail for the crime.  Many people, including myself, believe he should have received a harsher sentence. However, the Lithuanian statute provides a one year maximum jail sentence. This was one of the rare times a sentence so high has been issued for an animal abuse case. The incident has infuriated residents and caused D.Mikutienė, member of Lithuanian Parliament, to register amendments which will increase the penalty for cruelty to animals to imprisonment for up to four years.

Jonathan Vandina

The deer population in the Northeast has exploded. Some maintain that one of the reasons is due to the previous housing boom. During the boom, thousands of acres of land were cleared with the intentions of building homes that were never built.  This cleared land permitted sunlight to hit the ground, which facilitated grass growth leading to the population explosion.

There are more deer in the Northeast today than there were when the settlers first arrived. Although development and land clearing may be partially to blame, we cannot forget the fact that humans also extirpated the main predator, mountain lions (Puma concolor). Due to the over-explosion of deer, the lack of natural predators and the inability of the land to sustain them, many of these animals will die slow deaths of starvation. Sick deer may also spread disease which can adversely affect the rest of the population.  Although hunting may eliminate a small portion of this manmade suffering, some people claim there is a better way; that is to reintroduce their natural predators.

It should be noted, as it has been on this blog in the past,that proof of the positive effects of hunting limiting population growth is scarce at best. All we do know is when a hunter makes a kill he has removed that animal from being able to procreate any further. This post is in no way intended to support hunting. Rather it is to question the act of species introduction, a practice which has been historically devastating not only to the environment  but also to the introduced animals, sometimes leading to increased animosity and re-extirpation of a species .  This is why I disagree with the re-introduction suggestion.

First, many animals such as mountain lions tend to be locale specific;  that is they have specifically  evolved to live in their local environment. An example is the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi ). That is not to say the animals are unable to adapt if introduced, but with that adaptation may come devastating results to the environment, people or the re-introduced species.

The closest American breeding population of cougars to the Northeast is in Western North and South Dakota (not including the 100 Florida Panthers which are left and have been purposefully interbred with West Texas panthers in an attempt to curb inbreeding of the small surviving population within Big Cypress National Park). This is an entirely different natural ecosystem than that of the Northeast. The animals in that part of the country may have immunities to diseases which animals in the Northeast do not have. They may also not have immunities to diseases that are in this part of the country. Either way, if that is the case it could be environmentally devastating to the Northeast or individually devastating and pointless to the introduced cats. But what if it is neither?

The cats found in the west have specifically adapted to that region of the country. They are locale specific. The prairies of South Dakota offer much different terrain than the Catskills or the Berkshires or Westchester County. Should animal advocates really think it is just to remove an animal with a natural history in that part of the country to another which it might not proliferate in? Could this be counterproductive to their cause?

Another predicament is the fact that mountain lions are opportunistic feeders. Deer in the Northeast may no longer have their natural fear of the mountain lion due to the fact that the predator has been absent for generations. In regions where the mountain lion is still prevalent,  many prey animals graze at night in order to make it that much more difficult for the lion to attack. However, it is not uncommon in the Northeast to have deer grazing on peoples lawns during the day. In fact, certain books on the subject such as “The Beast in the Garden” argue that many populations of deer have become diurnal due to the fact that they have been absent of predation for so long. That’s not to say populations no longer feed at night, just more and more are seen feeding during the day. Therefore, the deer grazes on the lawn during the day, where is an opportunistic mountain lion going to be hunting? That’s right, on peoples lawns, on the sides of highways (which has proven every year to be devastating to panther populations in Florida) and in parks. These are all areas used by people. Is it foreseeable that this may not be entirely welcomed by the general public? Is it likely that many people will not want their children playing in their backyards any longer? In reality, how long will it take before these re-introduced lions are also extirpated and killed as a failed experiment? I predict after the first child is attacked by the introduced predator, there will be a vicious hunt to re-extirpate the re-introduced animals.

There are reports of mountain lions in the Catskills and Adirondacks. There are conspiracy theories that the New York DEC has actually released a few. There has also been cougar scat and hair samples found in the northeast spanning from upstate New York to Maine.  The general consensus seems to be that these are released captive pets and not a small surviving population nor a controlled re-introduced one (see related post here).

The re-introduction of predators with the purpose of repressing populations of other animals may be entirely adverse to the introducer’s intentions. It may lead to the presentation of disease to indigenous animals without immunities or the transmission of disease from indigenous animals to the introduced ones. It may also show the way to the re-extirpation of a species. Instead, maybe we should pave over the shoulders of highways that offer countless miles of seasonal buffet to deer. Maybe we should reforest the cleared abandoned land. Maybe we should just keep allowing humans to hunt while we await the natural migration of the predator from our Canadian neighbors where the animal has made a natural comeback; one without re-introduction.

In conclusion the utopian idea of a re-introduced natural predator seems good in theory but one must keep in mind that the reason these animals do not live here any longer is because of the highways, the homes and the congestion. This is why they will be transplanted from areas (like North Dakota or Canada) where these elements are not as prevalent. Although this may mean the animal may never naturally return (as long as humans so densely occupy the region anyway), it is important to realize that the reason for this is because they would not likely proliferate. The locality can no longer naturally accommodate the species. In fact, it may lead to a death sentence of the re-introduced animals as well as have as little, if not less, effect on the deer population as hunting has proven to have.

Still interested?

“A Beast in the Garden: by David Barron” http://www.beastinthegarden.com/

and

http://www.easterncougarnet.org/

Marjorie Levine

Last month, a red-bellied piranha was caught by a 15-year-old boy.  The next day, fish and wildlife officials caught two more in the same lake.  No, this didn’t take place in the Amazon; it happened in West Palm Beach, Florida, The Piranha is not a Florida native, but, like the New York Snowbirds, these animals like the heat!  From south of Florida’s borders, these non-native animals have invaded Florida due primarily to negligent pet owners. When pets becomes too large, people simply release them into the wild without thinking of any consequences. The pets survive and flourish in Florida because the conditions are so similar to that of their natural ecosystem.

Although Florida has laws about importing non-native species, pet stores are still able to obtain licenses to sell exotic animals cheaply, which in turn attracts people to buy these exotic pets without researching the specifics of their care.  Some released pets, such as the green iguana, are able to move on land, migrating to different parts of Florida where Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission finds them almost impossible to control.  However, these piranhas were confined to one lake in West Palm Beach.  They could not infest other areas of Florida, as land animals can.  Why, then, was the choice made by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) to poison the entire lake to remove this one species?

The FFWCC claimed that if it did not poison the entire lake, the piranha would ruin the habitat.  The FWCC intends to remove the dead fish and then restock the lake with freshwater fish.  The fish that resided in the lake will be wiped out to rectify a situation created by negligent humans.  Animal cruelty laws create regulations for euthanasia of cats, dogs and animals in pet stores, but none for animals abandoned in nearby lakes.

The FFWCC is going to kill the entire fish population because this is a “reasonable remedy” for the problem, which is allowed in the statute.  Should the actions taken by the FFWCC be legal? Should they be the first option for wildlife officials, rather than some more humane alternative? Are they not still causing pain and suffering, as prohibited by the animal cruelty statue, not only to the fish they are targeting, but also the “innocent” native species?

Although the FFWCC is using their best efforts to stop furthering harm to an entire ecosystem, the piranha cannot cause more harm than it will do in this small lake, and I cannot understand why they have elected to take such extreme actions instead of a more thought out, humane solution.  After capturing three piranha, fish and wildlife experts could have closely monitored the situation at the lake, and hopefully there would be no further drop in fish numbers as a result of more piranha.  This ecosystem appears to be a lake created by developers, and is isolated from other bodies of water, and therefore, the worst that could happen, so long as the fish remained isolated to this one lake, is that fish numbers would drop as FFWCC officials poached the piranhas still living.  But rather than waste time and taxpayer money on fish, they instead dumped chemicals and eradicated every fish in this pond.  A quick solution, but is it ethically sound?  I think not.

[The following post is written by one my Animal Law students who prefers to remain anonymous --dnc]

I read an article recently that really offended me. The article was written on November 21, 2009 by Gary Steiner and was published in the New York Times Op-Ed section (Steiner’s piece has already been discussed  on this blog here).

The first line in this article that bothered me actually did not originate from him. He quotes Issac Bashevis Singer in his story “The Letter Writer” as saying that the killing of animals for food is the “eternal Treblinka.” For those of you who are not aware, Treblinka was a Nazi extermination camp. In one year there were 850,000 people killed there. The problem I have with Singer’s comparison is that there was no benefit whatsoever to the Nazis by killing these people. Of course many Animal Rights activists do not think it is right to kill animals for human benefit, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone who denies that the humans who do kill animals gain a benefit from them. In fact, I think the whole issue is whether it is right for humans to kill animals for their benefit. You may not feel the benefit is justified, but we are not talking about wanton slaughter like there was in Treblinka.

Please just read this short article about Treblinka at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka_extermination_camp, and then I feel that you will agree that to even repeat this ridiculous comparison destroys any validity that could possibly have come out of this article. That is my problem with Steiner. What would possess him to read this ridiculous comparison and then quote it? Obviously he read it and said something to the effect of “hey, wait a second, that’s right. Slaughtering animals for a benefit to human’s is exactly the same as a mass extermination of humans for absolutely no reason.” And then he decided to quote it. All I can say to him is, well I think Abraham Lincoln said it best, sometimes it is “better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

The next part of the article that bothered me was a line where he wrote “Let me be candid: By and large, meat-eaters are a self-righteous bunch.” I am sorry but that line is a bunch of baloney (soy baloney of course). We meat eaters are many many things, but self-righteous is not one of them. Gary Steiner spends the entire article telling us how we, as meat eaters, are trying to ease our guilt by buying free range turkeys and eggs and then proceeds to tell us that the few attempts we are making at putting our money where your mouths are is not good enough, and THEN he has the nerve to call us self-righteous. Excuse me Mr. Steiner, but how can you tell us that what we are doing is not good enough for you and in the same breath call us self-righteous. Maybe it is because of offensive people like yourself that there are not more people who care about your issues.

This reminds me of a situation where there is a pauper who goes to a rich person to collect money. As the rich person is about to give him the money the pauper starts yelling and cursing him, so of course the rich person does not give the pauper the money and the pauper then complains to anyone who will listen that the rich person doesn’t care for the poor. What you have to keep in mind is that for right or wrong, the animal rights cause is the pauper and if you are asking for the rich person’s help (i.e. the meat eaters) then insulting them is NOT the right way to go about it. We may be willing to help, but only if you can keep from insulting us long enough so that we will listen!!!

David Cassuto

The 9th Circuit recently decided Levine v. Vilsack, a case challenging the  ongoing failure of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to include birds under the auspices of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA).  The case was brought by a group of plaintiffs in 2005, claiming that “inhumane methods” of poultry slaughter increased their risks of food-borne illnesses and health and safety dangers and caused “aesthetic injury” to the plaintiff poultry workers.   They sought an order declaring that (1) “USDA’s decision to exclude chickens, turkeys, and other poultry species from the protections provided by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 . . . to be . . . not in accordance with the HMSA of 1958 and the APA;” (2) “declaring unlawful and setting aside USDA’s September 28, 2005 Federal Register Notice containing the agency’s policy statement . . . that the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 . . . does not require ‘humane handling and slaughter’ for poultry;” and (3) “enjoining USDA from excluding chickens, turkeys, and other poultry species from the protections provided by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 . . . .”

The district court granted summary judgment to the USDA.  On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed.  That might seem like good news (Michael Markarian thinks so)  but to my mind … not so much.  The court reversed because of that age-old bugaboo of environmental and animal law: lack of standing.  The court found that of the 3 prong test for standing to sue in federal court (injury-in-fact, causation, & redressability), plaintiffs failed to meet the third prong. 

I’ve blogged before (and written more substantively) about the incoherence of federal standing jurisprudence.  I continue to feel that the doctrine’s unworkability does enormous damage to the law while allowing ongoing harms to continue due to lack of citizen enforcement.

However, here, the primary incoherence lies not with standing doctrine but within the law itself.  Under the circumstances, I am not convinced the court could have decided other than it did.  The redressability requirement means that plaintiffs must show that their injury is likely to be redressed (i.e. remedied) by a favorable decision by the court.  But because of the byzantine, incomprehensibility of the HMSA, that outcome seems not very likely at all.

In 1978, Congress deleted all enforcement provisions from the HMSA but incorporated humane slaughter provisions into the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”) (21 U.S.C.§§ 601-95).  Unlike the HMSA , however, the FMIA imposed inspection requirements only for “cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equines.”  That list was later repealed and replaced with “amenable species.”  “Amenable species” was defined to include “those species subject to the provisions of this chapter on the day before  November 10, 2005” [a list that did not include birds] as well as “any additional species of livestock that the Secretary considers appropriate.”

What’s the upshot of all this?  Well, even if the plaintiffs succeeded in convincing the court to insist that the USDA do the right thing and include poultry in the HMSA, it still would not mean that there would exist any way to enforce that regulation since the HMSA contains no enforcement mechanism.  The Secretary of Agriculture would have to voluntarily decide that birds were “appropriate” species to include under the enforcement provisions of the FMIA.  Since the court’s reach cannot extend to insisting that the Secretary do so, the plaintiffs’ injury could easily go unredressed.  As a consequence, the court concluded that the lawsuit fails.

Here we have a perfect storm of bad animal law.  The unworkability of federal standing doctrine  in cahoots with a biblically bad law (the HMSA).  The result: billions of birds killed each year with virtually no federal oversight.  Indeed, millions of those slaughtered birds festooned American plates this past afternoon.

Angela Garrone

A three week investigation has been ongoing at the Memphis Animal Shelter in Memphis, Tennessee after authorities discovered deplorable conditions at the shelter.  Sheriff’s deputies raided the facility on October 27 2009 after receiving numerous reports of abuse at the shelter. (photo gallery from the shelter raid here)  Complaints about the conditions of the shelter have been thrown around at least since 2007.  In 2007, the state found that the shelter was out of compliance with the minimum standards established by the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.  The state found various violations of record keeping concerning drug usage for euthanizations.

Memphis City Mayor A. C. Wharton fired  Memphis Animal Services supervisor Ernest Alexander nine days after law enforcement authorities raided and closed the shelter. (see City’s search warrant here)  Alexander previously oversaw a shelter in Albuquerque, NM until 2008 when he was hired after a nationwide search by former Mayor Willie Herenton.  Herenton was searching for a new administrator in response to long term complaints about the shelter from animal rights activists.  Three other shelter employees remain suspended with pay until the city finishes their investigation.

Mayor Wharton was forced into action after the initial raid on the shelter uncovered starvation conditions, resulting in a candle light vigil outside the shelter and a call for those responsible to be fired.  At least  three dogs are said to have starved to death while in the shelter’s control.  Another incident involved a dog being put to sleep before the owner’s were even notified of the dog’s presence at the shelter.  Mayor Wharton has stopped all euthanizations at the shelter until the investigation is concluded.

Operations at the shelter have consistently been called into question.  For years there have been allegations of theft from the shelter, including food, euthanasia drugs, and even animals themselves.  The shelter cancelled its contract with Hills Nutrition, the makers of Science Diet dog food, in 2008 and have been slow to acquire a new source of food for the animals of the shelter.  Additionally, unauthorized employees have been euthanizing animals and parts of the investigation will focus on whether or not higher-ranking authorities knew of these violations.  This instance highlights the problems that may exist in any city’s animal shelter.  Citizens should take action and demand action by City officials when conditions at shelters fall below animal welfare standards.

David Cassuto

Emory University is attempting to preserve “heritage” turkeys by feeding them to its students.  The Standard Bronze and Bourbon Red turkeys are in danger of dying out due to lack of demand.  So, apparently, is the Tennessee Fainting Goat and other species that don’t fit the factory farm mold.  The lede of this Chronicle of Higher Ed. article (pay site but there are day passes…) declares: “Sometimes the best way to save something is to eat it.”  It then describes how Emory ordered 1,600 pounds of birds for its Thanksgiving meals.

I’m fascinated by this rhetoric as well as how this type of logic goes routinely uncontested.  Last time I read the Endangered Species Act, it said nothing about how only edible species merit preserving.  In fact, I can’t remember reading that anywhere.  Why then, do we have this ongoing hagiography of the locavore movement’s desire to preserve animals so that they can be eaten?  Can we think of no other reason for an animal’s survival?  Must we really kill them to keep them?  Is it all about economics?  What does that say about us?

David Cassuto

They NYT recently featured an op-ed by Gary Steiner that lays out the challenges of ethical veganism in contemporary society.  I have my issues with the piece, which suffers from a rigidity that can be off-putting to people of all stripes.  More interesting, though, are the letters it generated.  Amid a few thoughtful exceptions (both pro and con), the same tired arguments against veganism get recycled over and over as if they were revelatory and/or had any intellectual rigor.

One writer believes that the fact that Professor Steiner lives with a cat is somehow a fatal contradiction within the vegan lifestyle.  Another argues that if one believes it ethically wrong to consume meat, to be consistent one must also believe in stopping other animals from consuming meat as well.  And the list goes on.  It is perhaps unsurprising that these views are widely held — part of the problem we face as a society is that so little thought is given to these issues.  I am just saddened by the way they routinely get a platform in the major media.

There are many ways to exist in the world and I do not believe that any constituency has cornered the market on moral behavior.  However, I do think that all of us must consume thoughtfully and understand the implications of our choices.  I can’t decide whether the Times colloquy advances this cause or not.

Kate Blacker

Meet my new edition, Rhonda.  She was rescued by Farm Sanctuary and lives in upstate New York.  I think she has my eyes.  You, too, can sponsor a turkey just in time for the holidays.

I admit it is a bit cliché to talk about turkey cruelty on Thanksgiving.  But it is also quite an exercise in gratitude to reflect on the life and death of a Thanksgiving turkey.  I am thankful for not having my toes chopped off.  I am thankful no one will trim off a piece of my face or neck (unless I elect to have such work done and I don’t mind paying the taxes).  I am grateful that my eyes and lungs do not burn in agony as I live out the rest of my days breathing in ammonia and standing in my own waste (and the waste of everyone around me).  I am not so overdosed with antibiotics and hormones that my little legs break underneath the immense weight of my unnaturally oversized body.

Yes, our Thanksgiving turkeys are mutilated at birth and tortured to death.  Their lives are replete with pain, misery and even sexual abuse.  I have a lot to be thankful for when I compare my life to that of the turkey.  And don’t be deceived; the life of a natural/organic turkey is no better.  You can check out some “free range” turkey farm pictures here.

Maybe we don’t need to kill turkeys in order to get the most out of Thanksgiving this year.  Maybe we can capture the spirit of Thanksgiving by having compassion for one another and by treating everyone with a little kindness.