A campaign is underway to get Congress to pass the SAFE Act, which has been stalled in congress since last year. Click on the link to sign the petition to stop horses being exported abroad for slaughter:

The US has banned the slaughter of horses at home. However, this ban means nothing while it’s still legal to transport horses thousands of miles to be slaughtered in the horsemeat trade, their last moments spent in the “kill box,” frightened and panicked before being chopped to bits. Wild horse slaughter in the U.S. was shut down in 2007 but the export industry still sends 20,000 horses every year to their deaths in Canada and Mexico. Not only this but the horses first endure long, gruelling journeys in cramped and cruel conditions before they are killed. According to a 2023 report from the American Journal of Veterinary Research, the horse export industry thrives and generates around $500 million a year,

With all the panic surrounding unverified claims that cats and dogs are being eaten in the United States, it’s a good time to draw attention to the plight of horses. The SAFE Act, or Save America’s Forgotten Equines Act (HR 3475/S 2037) is a bill that animal activists have been pushing to get passed for decades. In its current form the SAFE Act amends the 2018 Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act to add equines to the list of animals prohibited to be exported slaughter.

Polls show that 83% of Americans oppose horse slaughter. Yet thousands of horses each year face a horrible ending to their lives. The meat industry lobbies to protect the export of horse slaughter by claiming that if horses are not slaughtered, there will be more neglect and nowhere to rehome horses. Contrary to these claims, the export of horses has actually decreased over the years and shelters are ready to rehome horses, the majority of whom can live out happy and productive lives.

Horses are incredibly sensitive animals who need freedom of movement and family bonds with their fellow horses. Capturing them and transporting them for 24 hours to be killed is not only murder, it is prolonged torture.

As well as a petition there is also a website that makes it easy for you to write to your member of congress to pressure them to sponsor and pass the SAFE Act.

At Freedom 4 Animals, we have done extensive work to preserve the right of free-roaming horses to remain with their families and negotiate and advocate to protect horses from mistreatment, neglect and cruelty, as well as education and working with policy-makers and NGOs on legislation and initiatives to support and protect the freedom of horses.

Please read more about the work we do on behalf of horses and other animals.

It’s not just humans who use medicines or are drawn to wild plants to cure ailments. Animals are
known to self-medicate when they are ill, wounded or for stress and sadness. This
phenomenon, known as Zoopharmacognosy, has been observed in many species of animals. It
reveals how animals interact with their environment in a way people have written off as
exclusive to human science and medicine.

One common example is when dogs and cats eat grass to induce vomiting. There are many
other examples of animals using medicine in sophisticated ways. For example, apes have been
observed isolating the medicinal parts of plants by tearing off leaves and stems and taking them
internally or applying the pant to their wounds. Research in lambs has shown that animals can
learn to use medicine by observing the effects of certain plant foods. Animals eat plants to expel
parasites, get nutrients missing from their diets, and induce labor, among other things.

An Indonesian male orangutan named Rakus was observed applying plant sap and crushed
leaves to a wound on the “flange” surrounding his face, as a poultice. The plant, known locally
as akar kuning (Fibraurea tinctoria), is an Asian plant known for its antibacterial, antifungal, anti-
inflammatory and pain relief properties. Rakus was applying plant medication externally for
healing in the same manner that humans used this traditional medicine.

Andrea DiGiorgio, a biological anthropologist at Princeton University, noted that animals don’t
need to understand everything about the medicinal properties of a plant to be able to utilize the
resources in their environment in an intelligent way. DiGiorgio said: “I think this really speaks to
the intelligence that all animals have to utilize what works for them.”

Humans assume that the taxonomy of human knowledge accumulated through language and
writing gives us superior intelligence and understanding of our environment, but this speaks to
the advantages of human technological development rather than intelligence itself. This is
called Speciesism; and carries with the idea that humans are at the top of the hierarchy and
have the greater moral value.

Animal intelligence is rich and in tune with its environment. Often humans are looking in the
wrong places when they search for animal intelligence and knowledge, basing it on concepts of
intelligence that have been imposed by human and Western perspectives. If we observe
animals in their environment, we can see what we have missed. Animals often lead humans to
medicinal plants, water and shelter. Their remarkable senses and intelligence are not
meaningless tools that assist human technology, they should be respected in their own right.

South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has made headlines for boasting that she shot and killed her dog
in cold blood. Noem’s story was intended to paint her as a “no-nonsense” person who had no
problem doing what was necessary. In the same chapter, Noem also wrote about how she shot her
goat in cold blood. Public opinion shows that this has not worked out in her favor. The cold-blooded
killing of a companion animal who relied upon and trusted a human, apparently doesn’t look that
good to the public.

Dogs are human beings’ closest companions and our history has been symbiotic with them for
Millennia. Yet dogs are often the first victims of humans’ failure to take responsibility for this
relationship, as when dogs are euthanized if they attack another animal or a human, or appear to
pose a threat to property and safety. Poor training by human owners and misunderstanding of their dog companions instill trauma and aggressive behavior resulting in the dog’s misbehavior or failure to live up to human expectations.

In her autobiography, Kristi Noem shared how she shot a 14 month old wirehaired pointer named
Cricket who had come to her family with behavioral problems. Noem went as far as to say that she
“hated” the dog. She made no attempt to deal with her own feelings. Instead, her dog Cricket,
immediately became responsible for how she felt, justifying Noem’s execution of the dog. The story
was intended to convey that Noem was a tough person who understood life in rural America. Her
lack of remorse for the killing simply revealed that Noem didn’t care about the dog’s life.

Noem shot her dog Cricket after Cricket prematurely chased birds on a pheasant hunt, then jumped
out of Noem’s truck and mauled chickens on a neighbor’s property. Cricket was free to attack the
chickens, because Noem had failed to secure Cricket in the truck. Successful dog trainers and experts
agree that a dog’s behavior and conduct is the responsibility of the owner, and dogs who misbehave
can behave better with different interventions and understanding.

People who have dogs and other animals as companions have a responsibility to
their pets to act with empathy and patience. Neglect and cruelty affect a dog’s behavior as much as
they do humans. At 14 months old, Cricket was a young dog, a puppy, who deserved care and
guidance. Instead, her life was cut short by her care takers disregard for her life.

The backlash against Noem’s story shows that people will no longer accept a narrative that
blames animals for human issues. We must make a choice to extend our compassion to
other animals, beyond companion animals like cats and dogs. Cricket made headlines, but Noem also
shot her goat. No animal should have to take responsibility for an abusive human’s behavior by
paying the ultimate price.

Animal cruelty and protection laws are often notoriously selective. Who we protect and why often says more about humans’ relationship to animals than what the animals need or deserve. In Wyoming, a man who tortured a wolf is not responsible because Wyoming’s animal cruelty laws don’t protect predatory animals.

Wyoming’s animal cruelty laws only apply to domestic animals and pets, not “predatory animals.” Animal cruelty charges and penalties can’t protect these animals from the “the hunting, capture or destruction of any predatory animal or other wildlife in any manner not otherwise prohibited by law.”

What allegedly happened to the wolf in Sublette county is something that many people would view as the work of a sociopath or budding serial killer. The torture was calculated. The wolf was tortured for an extended period, and there was humiliation involved. The wolf was allegedly run down by Cody Roberts in a snowmobile, humiliated and displayed at a local bar while disabled, and then shot at the same bar. This prolonged injury, torture and death is something that would be considered unconscionable if it happened to a human. The violence is shielded however, by the acceptance of hunting animals, and protected by outdated laws.

An investigation into animal cruelty surrounding the incident is now underway, but the County Prosecutor has said that according to Wyoming Law it is legal to hunt a predatory animal by running it down in a snowmobile or another vehicle. The investigation will determine whether, legally, animal cruelty has taken place.

Before the public outcry drew attention to the incident, Cody Roberts received nothing more than a 250 dollar fine for the possession of live wildlife.

Grey wolves in Wyoming lost federal protection in 2012 and 2017 and animal rights groups are now suing the United States Federal Wildlife Services to restore protections for wolves in the state. The status of predators or dangerous animals in the human pantheon of wildlife we deem worth protecting is often low. We view these animals as historic enemies, or a threat to livestock and economic productivity, or merely existing to be hunted for sport. Wolves are individuals who relate to each other in a highly social manner and have histories and relationships that can last years. All beings are deserving of protection. The mythology of wolves is maintained from a violent human centered perspective that  must be transformed through education, activism and compassion.

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/04/04/wyoming-animal-cruelty-laws-dont-apply-to-alleged-wolf-torment-case/

A solar eclipse is a temporary, but dramatic event that humans historically have striven to
understand, whether they arrived at mystical, religious or scientific conclusions. Humans, however,
are not the only animals to react to an eclipse of the sun. So far there have not been extensive
studies of what animals do when confronted by a solar eclipse, but scientific research emerging out
of the April 8 th eclipse might reveal how animals react to a total eclipse of the sun.

The results so far suggest that animals react in a number of different ways. The current
understanding also reveals how animals are sensitive in ways that humans may not be. Animals are
like humans in many ways, and one of these ways is that all animals are different, and have different
capabilities, heightened senses and social understandings of their environment.

For example, Jane Goodall observed chimpanzees pointing at a solar eclipse and screaming. Baboons
were observed increasing their grooming behavior, which is often associated with a stress response.
Other research observed animals launching into nighttime behaviors as if it was time to sleep.
Overall, animal behavior was diverse across different species, as some birds began singing new
songs, some spiders began weaving a different kind of web or breaking their webs, and many other
behaviors were observed that may have meaning only to the animals. Many animals displayed
anxiety and some animals, such as bears, were indifferent. Galapagos turtles began attempting to
breed during the eclipse.

Animal sensitivity could cause certain reactions in animals, to changes caused by the eclipse.
Photosynthesis drops during an eclipse, and charged particles in the atmosphere can cause heat
fluctuations and solar winds. Animals sensitive to oxygen, C02, temperature and wind could be more
acutely aware of an eclipse.

One thing that animal reactions teach us is that animals are not a block – they are many different
species of beings that share the earth with us and react differently to various stimuli.
A number of projects have begun researching animals’ response to the recent solar eclipse, and
they have invited the public to share their research findings from the eclipse. All animal research
should be conducted humanely and without harm or stress caused to the animals. Please support
research projects and gather research that does not harm animals. https://youtu.be/-fkgb4yBUuk?si=gYjpncxlNX-w3lmm

Using hidden cameras in agricultural facilities is still one of the best ways to reveal the horrific cruelty of industrial agriculture. This is why states continue to pass “ag gag” laws to restrict and punish any exposure of practices at agricultural facilities. 

An animal rights group, Mercy for Animals, used hidden surveillance to protest Senate Bill 16 in Kentucky, which aims to criminalize the use of recording equipment such as drones, cameras, video recorders, audio recorders etc. inside concentrated animal feeding operations. In doing so they exposed exactly the reason why criminalizing these practices shields violence and cruelty from the public eye.

Workers are known to abuse animals horribly at industrial agriculture facilities, and the farms that Mercy for Animals exposed were no exception. The group released videos showing workers kicking, stepping, throwing and stuffing chickens into cages for transport. The farms are described as contract farms providing chicken to Pilgrim’s Pride, one of the largest chicken producers in the United States.

Large industrial farms continue to claim that animals are killed humanely, and any problems are the result of bad apples. But the scale of cruelty and killing at these farms reveals that it is the norm for workers to dehumanize animals and abuse them before killing them. This is part of a psychological process that is not separate from industrial farming, it’s normalized by workers exposed to violence every day as part of their job. Animal rights groups continue to expose these conditions, and the farming groups protest that the problem is the individuals involved, and not the industrial scale of the killing operation itself.

One of the key tools animal rights activists have at their disposal is drones, which are cheap and capable of recording poor conditions, animal abuse and illegal hunting. Footage captured by drones has led to many successful campaigns on behalf of animals.

If blocking surveillance of animal rights abuses were just protecting private property, why is it that industrial farming interests are always behind these laws? The cruelty that we see on footage obtained by animal rights groups is clearly a fraction of what actually exists. We must continue to fight for the right to expose horrific cruelty and the lies of the industrial farming industry.

The Miami-Dade commission has served eviction papers to the Dolphin Company, the owners of the Miami Seaquarium, after the company presided over severe neglect and poor conditions for animals in their care for many years. The Miami-Dade commission has ordered the Dolphin Company to vacate the premises by the 21^st of April 2024. The commission’s letter cited violations of the lease agreement which included “not just a default, but a complete disregard for the safety of the animals housed on the premises.”

The history of the park is one of sadness, neglect, cruelty and enslavement for animals. The park’s history as an amenity for humans on the other hand, is one in which it enriched a private company and in the park’s earlier years was the third largest contributor to Miami-Dade County’s revenue through lease and tax payments.

The park is behind at least $180,000 in rent, which is one reason for the Miami-Dade commission’s decision. The decision was also motivated by the park’s numerous USDA violations and the loss of its Humane Society of America certification. Animal rights organizations have spoken out against the facility for years, in some cases managing to rescue animals, such as a pair of manatees, Romeo and Juliet. At least 120 dolphins and whales have died in captivity at the park. A dolphin named Sundance recently died shortly after a USDA inspection, where it was noted that the dolphin had “signs of gastric distress.” Federal inspections showed that the park’s infrastructure was deteriorating. A dolphin was found with a two-inch nail in its throat. Another dolphin was found with a broken metal bolt in its mouth.

One of the park’s major problems was that it couldn’t keep staff. Multiple staff resigned at the conditions of the park, and some alleged retaliation when they tried to speak up against the conditions. Due to money problems and difficulty retaining staff, the park didn’t have enough veterinarians to attend to the animals. The veterinary lab lacked basic tools and the animals were denied surgery, including a sea lion with eye pain, who stopped eating. One of the park’s animals, an Orca named Tokitae, gained recognition for all the wrong reasons, because the tank she was forced to live in was the nation’s smallest tank. Since coming to the world’s attention, Toki, also known as Lolita, has died.

Why did it take so long for the neglect to be put to an end? There is a bureaucratic process that has to happen to hold such facilities accountable. The park was known to be an unhealthy and cruel place for animals to live for decades. Attention wasn’t focused on the park soon enough because parks like these were for many years deemed to be acceptable entertainment and education for humans. The roles of animals at these parks, who are forced to perform for humans, and who are kept in restrictive conditions and separate from family members, were not questioned. It’s now time to question the rationale for keeping animals in these facilities. There may be some conservation reasons for keeping some species of animals captive, but even then, keeping animals in captivity, where they can be exploited, should be viewed with public skepticism and treated as a last resort.

The death of New York’s beloved owl Flaco was a tragic event that drew attention to the way in which a city-dwelling bird’s life can be tragically cut short. The cause of death? It seems that Flaco died after a collision with a building. Flaco’s death was also attributed to 4 kinds of rat poison that were found in his system. Additionally, he was also found to have a severe case of “pigeon herpesvirus” from eating feral pigeons. Toxicology also showed a breakdown of the pesticide DDT, but the levels of the pesticide were not significant enough to cause his death. The rodenticide and virus were both capable of causing severe illness, according to Dr. Paul Calle, chief veterinarian for the Wildlife Conservation society, though it’s unclear which one was responsible for the bird’s death. Flaco’s ultimate cause of death, a collision with a building, would likely have been caused by the bird flying disoriented while he was suffering from illness and poisoning.

Bird collisions are an incredibly common cause of death for birds. They are the second most common cause of death after domestic cats. Collisions with building glass kill between 90,000 and 230,000 migrating birds in New York City each year, according to Audubon NYC’s research. In addition, birds that dwell in big cities have much more contend with, as they have to deal with toxic pesticides commonly used by private homeowners in big cities like New York City. Wild Bird Fund director Rita McMahon said that rodenticide is to blame for 84% of the deaths of birds that they encounter, and that the poisons can stay in a bird’s system for up to 100 days.

Flaco was a Eurasian eagle-owl that escaped the Central Park Zoo after someone cut his cage’s stainless steel mesh. The Zoo attempted to recapture Flaco, but he began to improve his hunting skills and gain independence, so the Zoo were not able to entice him back with food.

Sightings of Flaco began to be common. New Yorkers celebrated the bird’s presence and his successful bid to live in the wild. The Central Park Zoo cautioned that Flaco might be endangered by eating a poisoned rodent or might prey on sensitive species. Flaco seemed to be doing well, but then in February 2024, a fallen owl was reported to the Wild Bird Fund, and the owl was confirmed to be Flaco. New Yorkers mourned his death and created a memorial to Flaco at the base of his favorite tree in Central Park.

Flaco’s death was a tragedy, but his life was an inspiration. Though he was safe at the Zoo, he followed his natural instinct for freedom and lived a life of independence before he died. His death has focused attention on the issue of bird safety in cities, and what humans can do to make cities safer for birds. New York Senators have renewed a push to pass the Dark Skies Act and renamed the Bird Friendly Buildings Act the FLACO Act. These pieces of legislation will require state owned buildings to make bird friendly provisions in their architecture and to reduce lighting at night, which has been shown to disorient night migrating birds that may fly into cities and die by collision. Birds face a host of threats in cities, including bird collisions, habitat loss, and poisoning by pesticide or rodenticide.

Flaco the owl was an animal who stood out and reminded city dwellers that animal lives have meaning. With the publicity around his death, now is a good time to push local legislators to take steps to introduce legislation to make cities more bird friendly. You can also reach out to your local bird conservation societies to see how you can join the effort to protect birds in cities.

In an exciting breakthrough for research in animal communication, the SETI institute managed to
have the first ever conversation with a humpbacked whale. The SETI institute began as a NASA
research program to understand and search for life beyond earth. The Whale-SETI team is using the
mathematics of information theory to understand terrestrial, non-human communication as a way
to develop filters to apply to any communication with extraterrestrial life.

Humpback whales are social and intelligent creatures who make tools and communicate with songs
and social calls. The Whale-SETI team has been studying humpback whale communication, which
include “contact calls” that whales use to communicate their presence to other whales. The team of
scientists from the SETI Institute, UC Davis and the Alaska Whale Foundation played the contact calls
into the sea via an underwater speaker, and a humpback whale named Twain approached and
circled the team’s boat while responding in a style that matched the original contact signal. The
researchers managed to have a 20 minute conversation with Twain. It is the first known
“conversation” between humans and humpback whales. Humpback whales also display non-audio
communicative behavior when they blow bubble rings in the presence of humans.

Whale SETI may be viewed as a springboard for communicating with extraterrestrial life. However
communication with animals could have more immediate benefits for animals in our world, right
now. Whales are one of the marine creatures who are profoundly affected by human activity. Whale song is disrupted by the noise of ships. If we can communicate with non-human animals our decision making should consider them as equal participants.

Humans have erroneously viewed human communication as synonymous with superior intelligence.
Without the ability to communicate with other animals and with a so-called superior intelligence
human activity has rampaged throughout animal habitats without the consent of animals. Every step
towards understanding animal intelligence and communication provides further evidence that these
assumptions are wrong. Scientific knowledge should not dictate our respect for non-human animals,
however scientific discovery can provide a basis for progressive animal rights policy and zero
tolerance for cruelty towards non-human lives.

South Korea’s dogmeat trade has long been a national source of shame, especially to younger
people, who have developed more progressive views about animals. Pets such as domestic dogs and
cats have become more popular, changing people’s views of dogs as disposable animals that can
be farmed for meat. The dogmeat trade has been dying out on its own, but it has lingered on. The
dog meat trade is incredibly cruel and dogs are often killed in extremely painful ways. Dogs are kept
caged and suffer cruel conditions where they see other dogs killed. As social animals, this must be
unbearable to them.

Last year, South Korea’s parliament voted near unanimously to ban the dog meat industry. The law
takes effect in 2027 and will ban any future slaughter breeding and sale of dogs for dog meat.
The consumption of dog meat is based on historical traditions and unscientific beliefs about the
health benefits of dog meat. One of the most horrifying things about these traditions is that dogs are
deliberately tortured before death because of the belief that the adrenaline levels in the animal will
contribute to health benefits. Although dog meat was traditionally eaten in South Korea in the past,
there is evidence that this was not widespread and it became more popular due to false beliefs
about its effects on virility in older men. Animals have long been tortured because of human crazes
and the dog meat industry is a particularly cruel example. Not only are animals farmed for dog meat
but also abandoned pets are collected from the streets and slaughtered for the dog meat trade.

Activists inside and outside of the countries where dog meat is eaten have protested the practice.
On the other hand, condemning the practice has been associated with anti-Asian racism in incidents
in the US where restaurants have been falsely accused of selling dog meat. Consuming dog meat is
not “barbaric” because of a country’s culture, it is barbaric because humans are capable of extreme
cruelty towards animals when it is in their own interests.

Although it’s positive that dogs will be protected from this horrific cruelty in the future, the dog
meat ban should not draw attention away from the suffering of all animals such as cows, which in
Western culture are slaughtered for meat while in Korean culture traditionally were not killed and
kept as work animals. Animal rights activists and philosophers have argued against “speciesism,” in
which some animals are considered more deserving of safety than others. Banning dog meat is a
reflection of the public’s increasing intolerance of cruelty toward animals that are kept as pets.
Ultimately we must fight for animal rights to be extended beyond pets and towards all animals.