Wayne Pacelle on Democratic Front-Runners

In January, Wayne Pacelle released his impressions of the Democratic candidates for president.

Written before the first few primaries, Pacelle wrote that all of the Democratic candidates were relatively strong on issues important to Humane USA (HSUS’s political action committee). Of John Kerry, the frontrunner for the nomination, Pacelle wrote,

Senator Kerry was the co-author with former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) of the successful effort to halt an annual $2 million subsidy for the mink industry – terminating a taxpayer give-away to the corporate mink industry. Kerry and Smith shepherded this amendment through the Senate during debate on the Fiscal Year 1995 Agriculture Appropriations Act, and they have repelled subsequent efforts by legislators aligned with the mink industry to revive the taxpayer boondoggle. Kerry has also been the co-author, with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), of letters in recent years sent to the leaders of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations to increase funding for existing animal protection laws, including the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter Act. Thanks in part to his leadership – and collaborating with the powerful senior member of the Appropriations Committee, Robert C. Byrd — the Congress has provided more than $26 million in new funds for animal protection programs in recent years.

Kerry has cosponsored almost every piece of animal protection legislation – including measures to combat cockfighting, bear baiting, canned hunts, puppy mills, the bear parts trade, the exotic pet trade, steel-jawed leghold traps, and the abuse of “downed” livestock – introduced on behalf of animals. A Washington Post profile of Senator Kerry, however, did create concern among animal advocates across the country. It reported that Kerry highlighted his interest in the hunting of mourning doves – an unusual activity to draw out at this stage of the campaign, given that dove hunting is illegal and enormously unpopular in both Iowa and New Hampshire, especially among Democratic activists.

As for Kerry’s only major competitor left standing, John Edwards, Pacelle wrote,

John Edwards of North Carolina immediately became a much-admired figure within the animal protection community by defeating incumbent U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth, who was the chamber’s only operator of an industrial hog factory. Still in his first term in the Senate, Edwards has been a consistently reliable supporter of animal protection and regularly cosponsors animal protection legislation or supports our positions on key votes, such as banning canned hunts. He did, however, oppose the amendment to halt the use of leghold traps on national wildlife refuges. His general support for our positions is noteworthy because North Carolina’s agriculture, hunting, and animal fighting industries are larger and more vocal than those in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Florida – the states represented by the other senators vying for the Democratic nomination.

Source:

An animal friendly president? Press Release, Wayne Pacelle, Humane USA, Undated.

Dispute in Louisiana Over State vs. Local Laws on Cockfighting

Louisiana’s Caddo parish is at the center of a dispute between supporters and opponents of cockfighting.

Louisiana is one of only two states where cockfighting is still explicitly legal. In 1987, however, Caddo approved a local animal cruelty law that current Sheriff Steve Prator interprets as outlawing cockfighting in the parish.

Prator told The Shreveport Times that his office received numerous complaints about cockfights in the rural parish. He investigated the complaints and had his deputies shut down two clubs where cockfights were being held.

A lawyer representing the owners of those two cockfighting establishments responded with a letter asserting that the sheriff had engaged in the “unconstitutional deprivation of property rights” by shutting down a legal business enterprise in Louisiana.

Cockfighting supporters in the state argue that the activity provides jobs for rural areas of Louisiana and does not constitute animal cruelty. Louisiana game breeder Grover Elrod told The Shreveport Times,

Animal rights activists have taken this too far. If you had a herd of cattle and someone came in and said you can’t slaughter that cow to eat because it’s cruel, what would you do? These are wild fowl, they’re not chickens. Just because they crow and lay eggs and cackle doesn’t mean they’re a chicken. They’re wild birds, and fighting is all they know, all they’re good for and that’s all they’ll ever do. That’s what people can’t seem to grasp.

On the other side of the issue, the Humane Society of the United States’ Wayne Pacelle congratulated the sheriff for taking action against the cockfighting pits. Pacelle told The Shreveport Times,

We consider cockfighting a barbaric and gruesome activity that should be outlawed in every jurisdiction in the United States. We’re delighted that Caddo Parish has a prohibition on this inhumane activity, and we strongly support the sheriff’s action to support the existing law.

Source:

Conflict brews over cockfighting. Don Walker, The Shreveport Times, January 10, 2004.

Supporters Deliver Signatures for Bear Baiting Ban Initiative

On January 1, Citizens United Against Bear Baiting delivered more than the 33,500 signatures required to put a ban on bear baiting on the November 2004 Alaska ballot.

The proposed initiative would read,

“An act prohibiting the baiting or intentional feeding of bears.”

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Alaska:

Alaska Statutes Title 16 is amended to add a new Section 16.05.781, as follows:

16.05.781. Baiting or intentional feeding of bears prohibited.

(a) A person may not bait or intentionally feed a bear for the purpose of hunting, photographing, or viewing.

(b) Under this section, to “bait” or “intentionally feed” means to intentionally give, deposit, distribute, discard, scatter or otherwise expose any attractant or edible material in order to attract or entice a bear to enter into, or to remain in, a location or area.

(c) A person who violates this section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Currently Alaska permits the baiting of black bears but not of brown bears. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game argues that baiting of black bears is a legitimate wildlife management tools, especially in area where it is otherwise difficult to hunt bears due to thick vegetation. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game about 500 of the 2,500 bears killed annually by hunters in Alaska are baited.

Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming also allow bear baiting. Ballot initiatives have led to the banning of bear baiting in Colorado, Oregon and Washington state.

Opponents of bear baiting argue that it is unsportsmanlike, unsafe (since it might encourage bears to seek out food left behind by people), and inhumane. Proponents argue that baiting is a long standing tradition and is safer than other methods of hunting because hunters have a clear shot at the animals they are hunting.

Major national hunting and anti-hunting groups are likely to work to influence the outcome of the voting. The Humane Society of the United States’ Wayne Pacelle told the Anchorage Daily News,

We will certainly encourage our 13,000 Alaska members to become involved and vote yes on the initiative.

Pacelle added that HSUS would encourage “indigenous” fund raising to pass the initiative.

Meanwhile, Rob Sexton of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance told the Anchorage Daily News, “We’ll call on sportsmen everywhere to help support the vote-no effort” and added that the effort to fight the ballot initiative would likely cost several hundred thousands of dollars.

As far as the arguments go, I agree with the Sportsmen’s Alliance that whether or not bear baiting is allowed should depend on whether it is a sound wildlife management practice rather than on vague arguments about whether or not it is “unfair.” Craig Medred of the Anchorage Daily News did a nice job of pointing out the problems with the fairness argument in a column for that newspaper,

All of which brings us back to Alaska, where wildlife is nowhere near as bountiful as Outside, where fewer and fewer hunt for sport, and where the idea of fairness has been dragged a baffling distance from its origins and sensibilities.

Suddenly, people are arguing about what’s fair to individual wild animals — as if that somehow mattered.

Does someone out there truly believe a bear cares whether it gets shot at a bait station or splashing in a salmon stream or frolicking in a berry patch, or that a wolf cares that death comes in the form of a single bullet from a quiet marksman hidden 300 yards away or a hail of bullets from an airplane or the noose of a snare?

The means of death are irrelevant to these animals. They want only to survive, but they can’t.

Sooner or later, they’re destined to die, as are we, because the cycle of life is built on death. It’s inherently unfair and random. One calf gets picked to become a breeding bull and spend its life in pampered enjoyment. Another gets earmarked to be fattened up for shipment to the slaughterhouse.

That’s the way it has been since the days of the dinosaurs. The animals with fangs and claws and tools kill and consume the plant eaters.

Sources:

Bear baiting ban signatures delivered. MARY PEMBERTON
Associated Press, January 9, 2004.

Bear baiting opponents deliver signatures aplenty. Joel Gay, Anchorage Daily News, January 9, 2004.

Who ever said hunting was supposed to be fair? Craig Medred, Anchorage Daily News, January 25, 2004.

New California Law on Agricultural Trespassing Goes Into Effect

On January 1, California’s new tougher standards for those convicted of trespassing on farms and ranches went into effect. Gov. Grey Davis signed SB 993 in October after it passed the California Assembly 63-5 and the state Senate 37-0.

As the legislative summary of the bill put it,

This bill would make it a trespass to enter upon lands or
buildings owned by any other person without the license of the owner
or legal occupant, where signs forbidding trespass are displayed, and
whereon cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, fowl, or any other animal is
being raised, bred, fed, or held for the purpose of food for human
consumption; or to injure, gather, or carry away any animal being
housed on any of those lands, without the license of the owner or
legal occupant; or to damage, destroy, or remove, or cause to be
removed, damaged or destroyed, any stakes, marks, fences, or signs
intended to designate the boundaries and limits of any of those
lands. By increasing the scope of an existing crime, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.

The upshot is that while a first offense will draw only a $100 fine, second and subsequent offenses can be punished by up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. Without the law, the stiffest penalty for basic trespassing was a $10 fine.

Sen. Chuck Poochigan introduced the bill and argued it was necessary to give law enforcement an unambiguous tool to deal with potential agricultural terrorism. Poochigan said of the act when it was up for consideration by the senate,

Acts of animal or
biological terrorism should be recognized as a significant
threat to California’s agriculture and consumers. Law
enforcement should be equipped to protect the resources and
citizens of the state from such acts. Existing law states that
it is a misdemeanor to enter land where oysters or other
shellfish are planted or growing or to injure, gather or carry
them away without the license of the owner or legal occupant.

This bill expands existing law by making it illegal to trespass
on lands where any animal is being housed, raised, bred, fed or
held for the purposes of food for human consumption. This bill
also corresponds with current law to make it illegal to injure
or carry away animals being held on these lands.

Animal rights activists and groups, not surprisingly, decried the passage of the bill. The Humane Society of the United States’ Wayne Pacelle told the Modesto Bee,

There’s growing concern about terrorism, and people can hit that hot button to justify severe laws to punish those who may be viewed as a threat to certain industries. THe industry is attempting to overreach, to inoculate itself from public scrutiny.

The full text of the new law can be read here.

Sources:

State toughens farm trespass laws. Eric Stern, Modesto Bee, January 2, 2004.

New York Gov. Pataki Vetoes Canned Hunt Legislation

Despite lobbying efforts by a number of animal rights groups, New York Gov. George Pataki (R) vetoed legislation designed to outlaw so-called canned hunts.

In 1999, Pataki signed a bill that made it illegal to hold canned hunts on areas of ten acres or less. Not surprisingly, this had led to no less than 110 canned hunt operations in New York located on 11 or more acres.

The legislation vetoed by Pataki would have banned (emphasis added),

. . . the shooting or spearing of a non-native big game mammal that is confined in a box, pen, cage or similar container [of ten or less contiguous acres] or in a fenced or other area from which there is no means for such mammal to escape;

Animal rights activists denounced the veto.

In a press release, Humane Society of the United States senior vice president Wayne Pacell said,

Governor Pataki has embarrassed himself with this appalling veto of a bill to stop the repugnant practice of shooting animals for a fee in fenced enclosures. The animal protection community in New York will long remember his pardon of animal abusers and his rebuke of humane advocates.

Michael Markarian, The Fund for Animals president, added,

Governor Pataki has thumbed his nose at New Yorkers, including animal advocates, hunters, and upstate newspapers that called for passage of this humane bill. He has aligned himself with the handful of unscrupulous individuals who would pay big bucks to shoot a zebra ambling up to a feed truck or a Corsican ram trapped in the corner of a fence.

Pataki, meanwhile, said that the bill would not only have applied to the 110 canned hunt operations operating on more than 10 acres, but also would have banned 340 deer and elk farms throughout the state.

Supporters of the bill said that last part was nonsense, which puts the activists in a very odd position. For example, here’s a paragraph from a press release put out by The Fund for Animals addressing the issue of whether or not deer and elk farms would have been impacted,

Governor Pataki mistakenly believes that a ban on canned hunts would devastate white-tailed deer farms. The legislation is consistent with the current law which only deals with non-native mammals, and does not change the current exemption for domestic game breeders who raise white-tailed deer and have shoots on their properties. The bill would not apply to bird shooting preserves — only to operations offering the shooting of non-native big game mammals. Moreover, the bill memo indicated that it had no fiscal implications for state or local governments.

Hmmm . . . so The Fund for Animals’ position is that shooting a zebra at close range in enclosed space is inhumane, but screw the native deer and elk species? I’m just not following the logic there. Shouldn’t The Fund for Animals response to Pataki be that hunting deer and elk in enclosed spaces is cruel and that Pataki should want to outlaw the practice? The “don’t worry, we don’t care if you kill deer or elk” line is a bit strange coming from an animal rights group. Especially so since The Fund for Animals’ Dora Schomberg issued a brief press release about the veto that among other things claimed,

Governor Pataki may attempt to masquerade as an animal advocate by occasionally signing some non-controversial legislation to protect dogs or cats, but his decision to veto this much-needed legislation will result in untold suffering for wild animals and it reveals that he is not a genuine advocate of humane treatment.

So Pataki is not a genuine advocate because he only favors cats and dogs, while we’re supposed to believe The Fund is even though it hangs out deer and elk to dry? Could we see just a little consistency from these groups on occasion?

The full text of the vetoed legislation can be read here.

Source:

Pataki Endorses Cruel Treatment of Wildlife–Governor Vetoes Popular Canned Hunt Bill. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, August 27, 2003.

Activists out to can hunt. Amy Sacks, New York Daily News, September 13, 2003.

New York Governor Pataki Betrays the Animals. Press Release, Humane Society of the United States, August 28, 2003.

New York Governor Pataki Endorses Cruel Treatment of Wildlife. Press Release, Dora Schomberg, The Fund for Animals, August 27, 2003.

Alaska Lt. Governor Approves Initial Step in Initiative to Ban Bear Baiting

Alaska’s Lt. Governor Loren Leman approved the language of an initiative petition that, if successful, would ban bear baiting in that state.

Opponents of bear baiting argue that it is both unethical and potentially dangerous. Alaskan wilderness guide John Erickson told the Associated Press that the practice teaches bears to seek out human-supplied sources of food,

We are teaching them to eat garbage out in the woods. Once you get a bear in the dump, they are a garbage bear.

Black bears are the only species that Alaska allows hunters to bait, and close to 20 percent of the 2,500 bears killed annually in Alaska are black bears that are killed after having been baited. There are an estimated 100,000 black bears in Alaska.

The Humane Society of the United States argues that bear baiting is “unfair.” Wayne Pacelle told the Associated Press,

It’s not surprising wherever baiting occurs, it’s enormously controversial. It cannot
withstand public scrutiny, because it’s so unfair to the bear and because it causes obvious conflicts between bears and humans.

Supporters counter that it is no more unfair than using bird calls and decoys to attract birds or using baited hooks to catch fish. Or, as Alaska Daily News outdoor editor Craig Medred put it,

Yes, I know, some will say, “Well, gee, that doesn’t sound fair.”

It isn’t. Hunting isn’t fair. And it doesn’t matter whether the hunting is done by humans, wolves or, for that matter, bears. Predators are the animals with weapons, fangs and claws. The prey are the animals with the tasty flesh.

In the long-running and ongoing dance between predator and prey, individual predators are destined to win, and individual prey are destined to lose. The only thing that keeps the system going is the ability of the prey to — for lack of a better analogy — breed like rabbits.

This is the way nature works. There is nothing fair about it.

Supporters of the ban now must collect 23,286 in at least 27 election districts in order to place the initiative on the 2004 ballot.

Sources:

Baiting is traditional form of bear hunting. Craig Medred, Alaska Daily News, July 6, 2003.

Critics of bear baiting aim at voters. Mike Chambers, Associated Press, July 7, 2003.

Leman approves bear baiting initiative petition. Kenai Peninsula Online, June 20, 2003.