Because of a legal loophole, Japanese whalers can still kill large numbers of whales in the Antarctic every year, and this year, many pregnant and young whales were amongst the dead. Japan justifies these expeditions for scientific research, but their reasons are shaky.

For a start, the International Whaling Committee banned commercial whaling in 1985, and most countries, if not all, complied. A 1946 law that says whaling can still take place for scientific reasons is used as a justification for Japan’s expeditions. The whales on these expeditions can be sold for meat, leading to accusations that the scientific explanation is a convenient excuse. The scientific research is apparently undertaken to discover such factors as sexual maturity, nutritional condition and prey consumption of the whales. However critics have said this can be done by taking a biopsy instead. As well as claiming whale-hunting is done for scientific research, Japan has also defended its ancient “culture” of whaling.

122 pregnant whales and 114 juvenile whales died in this massacre. 333 whales in total were killed on this expedition. How did they die? By harpooning, ie using harpoons loaded with a 30g penthrite grenade.

Rather than terrorizing their population and using a violent method of killing them, Japanese whalers could find a more humane way of studying them, but they choose not to. Cultural inertia towards animals needs a wake-up call. Around the world, people are realizing that we don’t have to accept a cultural narrative about dominating and harming animals. It’s time to put pressure on the defenders of “cultural” cruelty to animals.

More info on this story:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12061465
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44307396
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/japan-whaling-kills-122-pregnant-whales-for-research/news-story/a1851aeec523563c79d593df7085e61b

Yellowstone’s bears have just finally recovered to the point that they have been taken off the endangered species list. But Wyoming wildlife officials have approved a Fall trophy hunt that would threaten the bears again. The hunt has strong opposition from many quarters, but it is still going ahead. It seems the plan is to actively reduce the bear population in the Greater Yellowstone area. Even female bears will be targeted. It’s been pointed out by the Sierra Club that grizzly bears are some of the slowest animals to reproduce, so hunting them, and especially their females, will decimate the population. All this, and there doesn’t appear to be any plan for sustainable initiatives that promote coexistence.

Then there’s the fact that hunters will be terrorizing a population that has been under siege for years. Would a population not under perpetual attack from humans be more likely to peacefully co-exist?

Please read, share and sign the Sierra club’s petition. There is no reason why Yellowstone’s bear families should have to be traumatized and decimated once again by human hunters.

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

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

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

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