Just recently, a decomposed dog was found abandoned in a foreclosed home. We don’t know how long the animal suffered without food and water, but to have to deteriorate over the course of days would have been an incredibly painful end to the dog’s life. What’s maybe even worse though is the emotional distress the dog would have felt, abandoned by his owner and restrained so he couldn’t seek out food and water.

Legal chaining isn’t just a problem because people can cruelly abandon animals, it’s also a problem in cold and hot weather, or in any other situation where the dog’s life may be in danger so it can’t free itself. Dogs may be vulnerable to attack from other animals like coyotes or bears for example. Then there is the little-understood reality of what chaining is like for dogs psychologically. Chaining is stressful for dogs, and leads to aggressive behavior. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than non-chained dogs. Jennifer Tierney of Fur-Ever Friends of North Carolina was quoted in this article stating that chaining is a “public health issue” for humans, too.

New laws are slowly being adopted, like Pennsylvania’s Libre Law, which limit chaining. Banning chaining altogether though would have the most beneficial effects for both humans and dogs. Chaining carries too much potential for abuse and emotional suffering – and sometimes plain old error. People who chain dogs habitually may simply forget to unchain them during extreme weather. Get informed about chaining by checking out some of the useful info the human society has on their website, and contact your local representative, to end this practice. For more information on the death of the brown Labrador who was abandoned, please follow the link to the petition: http://www.dogster.com/the-scoop/pennsylvania-stands-up-to-animal-cruelty

Sheep are worth a lot of money to the Australian economy. Specifically live sheep, shipped to the Middle East. Because of the volume of sheep shipped across the ocean, the industry even has a motto, “No fear, no pain.” Video camera footage shows that this is exactly the opposite of what the sheep experience on board these giant cargo ships. This and the testimony of trainee navigator Faisal Ullah has exposed the industry for the heartless and disposable way sheep are treated on their export voyages. During a 60 minutes program, we see dead sheep and lambs dumped overboard. Over the course of just one voyage 800 sheep were reported to have died on board due to heatstroke and were tossed overboard. The sheep are shown in obvious distress, panting, jammed close together and in a weakened state. Given that sheep spend weeks on board these voyages huddled close together, it seems unlikely that conditions on this ship could possibly be humane. The Chief Executive of the Australian Live Exporters Council, Simon Westaway argues in the 60 minutes program that this is merely an unfortunate, “isolated” case of abuse and standards not met. More likely, the volume of sheep and their value in bulk leads to the usual situation of animals being treated like “products”, rather than living individuals. The meat industry can try to clean up its act, but abuse often still seems to be the consequence of an industry that treats animals like disposable objects.

The 60 minutes report includes some disturbing scenes, but is well worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1V96Y533Ds

When we’re dealing with the oxymoron “Kill Shelter”, we may be shocked and disgusted at the way unwanted animals are disposed of. If an animal isn’t adopted after a few days from a Kill Shelter, the animal is killed. These overcrowded shelters are usually more like death-row for animals than the haven that the word “shelter” would suggest.

However we must be mindful that these shelters in themselves aren’t the reason why animals are being killed. As animal and pet-lovers we are part of the problem. It is our appetite for pure-bred pets that means underfunded shelters kill animals to reduce overcrowding. Puppy Mills are breeding factories that supply pet stores with puppies that were born and raised in conditions often unknown to the consumer or pet-store owner. Breeding dogs for profit is a cruel and pressured industry, where female dogs are forced to breed year after year. As well as the cruelty, the fall-out from this industry is that unwanted animals end up on the scrap-heap – where “kill shelters” take in animals and dispose of them when they can’t find a home for them.

So what can you do if you’re a dog lover?

The first thing to do is to adopt and to encourage others only to adopt rescue animals. Don’t buy from a pet-store or breeder as you will only be encouraging these industries.

You can also get involved in advocacy to raise awareness and fight against puppy mills. New York recently banned puppy mills, so legislators are waking up to the problem.

Here’s some more information from the ASPCA about puppy mills and why they are harmful to dogs: https://www.aspca.org/barred-from-love/how-avoid-cruelty/responsible-breeders

When mainstream publications like Fortune.com start publishing articles arguing for a meat tax, you know that something is in the air. Sweden, Denmark and Germany are calling for a meat tax. The American Institute for Cancer Research and the American College of Cardiology are in favor. The environmental costs of methane and soil erosion from the cattle industry are well known. Meanwhile, people are waking up to the horrible conditions that animals suffer in factory farms. The article also points out how much damage the meat industry does in its production phase even before animal products go into people’s bodies. Air and water pollution from meat production predominantly affects people unfortunate enough to live within range (usually lower income people, who are often people of color).

When we treat the environment, animals or other human beings as dehumanized products, there are always consequences for individual and collective wellbeing. Cruelty has been sold as self-interest when in fact it is quite the opposite – it undermines whole environmental systems and deprives us of our potential to peacefully co-exist with animals.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/meat-tax-climate-change-health-us/

“The reality is, it’s not illegal to kill your own animal in Canada. Someone can take a gun and shoot their dog in the head and as long as the dog dies instantly, unfortunately there’s no law against that.”

This telling quote is from Lori Chortyk, general manager of community relations for the BC SPCA, responding to outrage over the death of a pot-bellied pig who was killed and eaten by her owners less than one month after she was adopted from the BC SPCA where she was nursed back to health. Tragically, during the adoption and matching process, the couple who adopted the pig Molly even put in writing “No, I will never use this animal for food.” Yet, even after the process and an investigation, nothing could be done to hold the owners accountable for Molly’s death. The investigation determined that the pig didn’t die in a way that would be considered inhumane and would lead to animal cruelty charges.

One argument that is being made by people angry at Molly’s death is that this would never happen to cats or dogs. Pigs are intelligent animals that are unjustly treated. This still doesn’t quite reveal the extent of the problem though. The bottom line is articulated by Chortyk: “pets are considered property.” If your animal is considered an object you can do with the animal what you want with it, provided a line isn’t crossed that the law considers too far. The process of the BC SPCA is sadly lacking in its ability to do anything meaningful to protect animals because it’s not legally binding. Animal cruelty laws may protect animals from unnecessary cruelty, but they don’t protect them from the every-day cruelty of being treated as objects for human consumption.

Read more about this story here: https://globalnews.ca/news/4042125/pig-adopted-bc-spca-killed-eaten-owners/

At first glance, it looks typical of the Trump administration to flip-flop on lifting the Obama-era ban on big game and trophy imports. When you look closer at why this is happening though, you see a network of influences that are unfriendly to human and animal life and the environment. One of the most prominent of these is the NRA.

The Trump Administration is receiving criticism for their opaqueness about the ban. The Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t publically release a memo about rolling back the ban on trophy and game imports and are being vague about the criteria that will be used to review individual cases. In their rationale for lifting the ban the agency directly cited a DC Circuit Court ruling in a case brought by the NRA and the Safari Club International that attacked the Obama era ban on technicalities. In lifting the ban they’ve removed certain criteria for reviewing permits as far back as 1995, which will mean other animals — not just elephants, but lions and bonteboks from South Africa — will be vulnerable. A census of African Elephants says that their population had plummeted by roughly 30 percent from 2007 to 2014. Supporters of hunting say fees go to conservation, but activists are concerned that fees from big game hunting are siphoned into corruption. Even Trump himself has expressed skepticism about funds from hunting going back into conservation.

There aren’t many organizations who care less about life than the NRA. Their support of big game hunting shows how regard for human and animal life is intimately connected. When Trump’s own Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke supports lifting the ban, installs the “big buck hunter” videogame in his employee cafeteria and lifts a ban on lead bullets that poison animals, it’s clear that the administration is part of a more insidious problem. Violence is violence, and with every decision the Trump administration makes, it gives explicit and implicit support to organizations that are unfriendly to life on this planet.

Read more about this story here: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/06/591209422/trump-administration-quietly-decides-again-to-allow-elephant-trophy-imports

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