According to a viral video that sparked outrage on the internet, New York police killed a raccoon in the most inhumane way by running the animal over repeatedly with their vehicles. The woman who shared the videos reported that it took 15 minutes for the animal to die. The police have said they didn’t want to shoot the raccoon because it was in a populated area, and the animal is claimed to have been rabid.

For a death this painful and prolonged, we have scarce information to justify it. It is a persistent problem that police are allowed to respond to threats with less than adequate caution and respect for human and animal life. Animals’ lives are easily devalued in situations where they are seen as merely a “threat”, and officers can act violently without consequence. The Department of Environmental Conservation is reportedly investigating the death. We hope for answers…

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-coeymans-new-york-officers-running-over-raccoon/

How could a well-liked science teacher trusted and respected by his students, feed a puppy to a snapping turtle? Such is the cognitive dissonance of our attitude to animal cruelty. On the one hand the teacher is well-liked enough that he can gain 3,000 signatures in his support (a petition for his firing has many more signatures). On the other hand he thought nothing of the suffering of the puppy he allegedly fed to the snapping turtle. The way the incident has been handled similarly speaks volumes about how people disregard animals’ lives. The teacher’s snapping turtle has been euthanized since the incident, apparently because authorities couldn’t find a home for it. Because of human drama, two animals have lost their lives.

Neither the teacher’s treatment of the puppy or the authorities handling of the incident makes much sense in the context of their own values. A trusted and well-loved teacher who seems to have cared for his students didn’t think how his teaching methods could be cruel. Community authorities sacrificed a second animal in pursuit of “what’s right.” In both cases, the animals’ themselves didn’t seem to matter.

You can read more about this story, here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article205430089.html

Recently, a science teacher in a junior high school in Preston, Idaho, threw a puppy into the mouth of a snapping turtle. The puppy’s screams could be heard all around the school but no one intervened. The teacher claims that the puppy was deformed and ill, implying that this justified the painful and harmful way he ended the puppy’s life. It is surprising that the teacher has not been immediately suspended.

Here is a URL for the animal cruelty statute of Idaho:
http://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/IDAHO16_FINAL.pdf

Here is the school handbook showing that the Superintendent is ultimately liable:
http://www.prestonidahoschools.org/uploads/8/3/6/9/8369288/psd_employee_handbook_2016-2017.pdf

After one year locked in a cell while his family battled to free him, a dog named Bandit was scheduled to be killed on March 2nd. The City of Aurora animal shelter kept the dog in a concrete cell, where it’s claimed he became depressed and put on weight. Meanwhile, his family fought against the city’s decision to kill him after an incident where a FedEx driver was hurt.

What’s heartbreaking is that his family were given less than 24 hours’ notice to say goodbye before he was due to be euthanized. This, after an emotionally draining year of fighting for their fourteenth amendment rights and proposing a number of non-violent solutions to rehabilitate and re-train Bandit. Yet still, the city chose to defend its position and kill the dog.

The issue keeping the city locked in a conflict that seems needlessly cruel to both owners and dog, is the dog’s breed. The dog was adopted by the owners as a boxer mix, but a test by the city (which an animal law expert has said is flawed) determined that the dog was 100 percent Staffordshire Terrier. Staffordshire Terriers are a type of “pit bull” dog, which are banned in Aurora. In a lawsuit brought by the family of the dog, they claimed their rights were violated as they were forced to plead in criminal proceedings that they were harboring a “dangerous dog.” They are originally from Russia and English is not their first language. As a result, they claimed they didn’t understand they would be forfeiting their dog’s life with the plea. The dog was surprised by a FedEx driver who backed off and received an alarmed snap from the dog. The driver was treated for injuries that apparently weren’t serious. It’s easy to see how a dog would react like this, but the city has chosen to remain hardline on the conclusion that his breed “caused” the attack.

Across the US and elsewhere pit bull bans are being challenged and research is increasingly demonstrating that breed doesn’t play a big role in animals’ threat to people. What the city of Aurora is clinging on to is prejudice and punishment, rather than law and order. Can such arbitrary violence, emotional heartache and wasted resources really be for the greater good? The city had plenty of options to work with the family on this and they didn’t. It remains to be seen if bad publicity and legal action will convince them that violence can only cause more violence.

Please see the following article for more details: http://www.westword.com/news/accused-pit-bull-bandit-to-be-put-to-death-in-aurora-colorado-10048715

Animal advocates recently drew attention to the death of a dog called Noah at the Devore Animal
Shelter. Noah was allegedly killed for having a broken leg, as part of the shelter’s new policy to kill
sick and injured animals without a grace period.

Although there are plenty of people who would rescue or even temporarily house a dog that is sick
or injured, that option is being swept away. The problem is that shelters are drastically overcrowded
and states don’t allocate funds to create No Kill shelters. The term “shelter” has therefore become
misleading for animal lovers who may not be aware that pets who have an injury don’t even have
time to be considered for a new home. A more targeted approach would be to fund a grace period
for animals like Noah, so that animal lovers and activists can mobilize to get the pet a good home
before they are killed. Without any attention on this issue at all though, “shelters” kill policies go unnoticed. Injured, disabled or sick animals like Noah lose their lives.

Many people are just not aware of this problem. You can help by spreading the word, organizing to
fund animal shelters and contacting your local representative about funding to save animal lives.

The suffering of a golden retriever who was horribly bludgeoned to death by Chinese police has caught the attention of the global internet recently. Two people reportedly had minor injuries after the dog bit them. The police officer wasn’t armed with a tranquilizer gun and claimed he was justified in protecting public safety when he beat the dog to death with a wooden club slowly over 3 hours, according to reports. PETA says the killing was witnessed by onlookers including young children. Video footage and pictures showing the death of the dog drew a huge outcry on social media. Reports describe the pain of the dog as it died. On the sidewalk where the dog was tied up, there is now a shrine with candles and flowers. The death of the golden retriever was portrayed by the Chinese police as a necessary evil to remove a threat to people. Rather than a humane killing though, witnesses and viewers of the images and video experienced it as extreme violence and trauma. This animal killing clearly shows how violence affects everyone it touches – and now that people have access to images and videos even thousands of miles away, it reaches even wider. The violence to the dog far outweighs any public threat, and if anything there’s a sense in which it has now done lasting emotional damage to anyone unfortunate enough to witness it. If there can be any positive impact from the death of this poor defenseless animal, it’s to send the message that violence like this is never necessary.

Please read the news and share:

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/03/policeman-bludgeoned- golden-retriever- death-street- bit-two- people-7200934/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5228433/Golden- retriever-dies- beaten-policeman.html

Spirit Airlines has admitted that it gave confusing info to a woman flying from college to South Florida with her emotional support hamster. The airline told her it was OK to bring her hamster with
her on board the aircraft after she called several times in advance to check. However, when she
arrived in the airport, staff told her she couldn’t bring her hamster, Pebbles, on board, and allegedly
advised her to let the animal loose outside the airport or flush him down the toilet. With no option to
cancel the flight or give the hamster to a friend, the woman faced the terrible choice of letting her pet fend for itself outside, or ending the pet’s life. She chose the latter.

This is a story that will surely strike fear and sadness into the hearts of people traveling with
emotional support animals. In general, emotional support animals are allowed to travel by air. Of
course, people’s right to travel with these animals has to be balanced with considerations for the
safety of other passengers, and as emotional support animals aren’t trained there can be concerns
about other passengers. Because of this, unlike service animals, who are specially trained for
specific purposes, emotional support animals aren’t always allowed in public places. This leaves
animals like Pebbles vulnerable to harm where there are grey areas between federal law and an
airline’s policy. If an airline can’t make a determination about whether an animal can fly until the last minute, the animals could fall victim to the kind of tragic circumstances that befell Pebbles. Guidelines and policies need to be clearer to protect emotional support animals like Pebbles who are traveling with their owners.

Read more and share the news: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article198971069.html

Coyotes are opportunistic hunters. They prey on small mammals, domestic pets, livestock, and domestic fowl but will also ​readily eat carrion and plants. A coyote will adjust its diet depending on the food that is available.

Humans can coexist with coyotes if we are vigilant and aware that we often live close to their territory. We simply do not need to annihilate them with poison or guns if we can think it through and act responsibly.

Coyotes in populated areas are less fearful of people. They have been known to attack pets and approach people too closely. To protect yourself and your small pets, do the following:

Never Feed Coyotes. Remove pet food, water sources, bird feeders, and fruit. Secure trash in a container with a locking lid. Install a 6 foot privacy fence.

If a coyote approaches, yell, throw rocks or sticks at it, spray with a hose, or bang pots and pans. Do not run or turn your back. Be as big and loud as possible. Wave your arms and throw objects. Face the coyote and back away slowly. If attacked, fight back.

Keep pets on a short leash. Use extra caution dusk through dawn. Avoid known or potential den sites and thick vegetation. Do not allow dogs to play or interact with coyote.

Pick up small pets if confronted by a coyote.Alw​ays supervise your pet when outside, especially at dawn or dusk. Neve​r leave cats or dogs outside after dark. Don’t leave pet food outside.

If you must leave your pet outside, secure it in a fully enclosed kennel.​ Walk with a walking stick. Keep a deterrent spray handy. Carry noise makers or rocks to throw.

If ever there was an obvious target for animal rights activists, the Yulin Dog Festival is it. The festival is a display of barbaric cruelty, with dogs and cats kept in cages (some stolen pets), and tortured to “improve” the taste of the meat. This is a cause that has drawn an immense level of public outcry, especially in the West. These voices (including the late Carrie Fisher and Ricky Gervais) are strident in criticizing the festival for its pure cruelty and senselessness. Of course, this criticism is right: boiling and skinning live animals is intensely cruel and violent. Still, Western critics in particular give local supporters of the festival a rallying cry by being “concerned” members of a public that happily kills and eats other kinds of animals. The shock value of the festival to Westerners can be disingenuous – when the shock of the festival lies in the type of animals that are killed – cats and dogs, rather than that they are barbarically killed. The fact that some of these animals are stray pets is an awful tragedy. But activism against animal cruelty needs to rest on more than disapproval of killing cats and dogs. It needs to stop inhumane killing, find an alternative to cultural practices that glorify bloodshed, and ultimately, end the widespread practice of eating meat. Eating a “bloody steak” or burger exists on the same spectrum that the Yulin Dog Festival does – a totally artificial belief that violence somehow makes our food more life-giving. Locals feel offended that Westerners fail to understand how the poverty of the region apparently contributes to the dogmeat industry.

Without making excuses for the festival, it might be possible to use it as a rallying point to do more in your animal rights activism. If you protest the festival because of the killing of family pets, but eat meat, consider that all life is precious and think about reducing or cutting out your meat consumption. If you protest the festival and have no interest in supporting human or workers’ rights in your home country or abroad, consider whether you are contributing to a problem where violent and impoverished lives form people capable of doing violence to animals. If violence can teach us anything it is that all life is connected. The chain in which people do violence to each other and animals can also become a chain of understanding, care and support if actions are taken that are mindful, peaceful and connected.

To protest the Yulin Dog Festival, read, share and sign the petition – and commit to a non-violent lifestyle!

Further Reading:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/968244/yulin-dog-meat-festival-Peter-Li-days-numbered
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/yulin-dog-meat-festival-china-animal-rights-chinese-culture-western-interference-a7800416.html

Can art indifferently observe animal cruelty? The question came up this fall in a couple of ways. For a start, the Guggenheim withdrew three pieces from its show “Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World”, due to protests from animal rights activists. The most controversial piece, “Theater of the World” was a domed menagerie of insects and lizards preying on each other. These predators and prey were deliberately rounded up from New York pet shops and set upon each other until the weaker animals were dead.

When the Guggenheim withdrew the exhibits, some groups raised concerns about free speech. But though art may use living people and even animals to express its ideas, the idea of “free speech” breaks down when living creatures are harmed and cannot give their consent. The philosophy behind all animal cruelty is the idea that animals are objects for human use, rather than living, sentient creatures. Anyone should be free to represent animals through art or create animal-themed art, but harming animals for the sake of art should be no more acceptable than treating the subjects or models of paintings and photos poorly. The media tiptoed around the issue and the Guggenheim made no mention of ethical principles when they withdrew the exhibits. The Guggenheim stated that they were withdrawing the exhibits for the safety of staff in the face of threats from extremists. The wellbeing of the animals was not mentioned.

At London Fashion Week, protests drew attention to the use of fur in fashion. It may not be as acceptable to wear fur coats these days, but smaller items like hats, bags and jewelry are often trimmed with fur. The practice of sheep-shearing has also been debated as a venue for cruelty. Although it has been depicted as just a “haircut”, videos have shown animals are treated with terrible cruelty in some cases.

Then there is art that is ostensibly made for the purposes of showing animal cruelty to the world. “The Women Who Kill Lions” followed female hunters of big game. Instead of protecting big cats and wildlife however, it focused on the shock value of female hunters shooting big game. Even if the documentary makers set out with good intentions, it’s worth asking questions about whether art can represent animal cruelty and not intervene to protect animals. Can there be any venue where animal cruelty is just academic or aesthetic? Maybe for the consumers of art, but not for the animals who suffer.