- Image via Wikipedia
The 111th Congressional Animal Protection Caucus (CAPC) announced its formation yesterday, replacing the Friends of Animals Caucus of the previous Congress.
This bipartisan caucus, co-chaired by Rep Jim Moran (D-VA) and Elton Gallegly (R-CA), is committed to taking animal welfare to the next level. CAPC will provide fellow members of Congress with reliable information to produce common sense legislsation in line with public sentiment.
CAPC will work with HSUS and the Humane Society Legislative Fund(HSLF), which lobbies for animal welfare legislation and works to elect those candidates with more than a passing interest in humane issues.
Priorities include accurate fur labeling, stopping the export of horses for slaughter, tougher regulations on the internet sales of puppies, tougher laws on puppy mills.
Michael Markarian, head of HSLF, will help build concensus in Congress, as will HSUS, in favor of sound animal legislation, providing the Caucus with the benefit of his 15 years experience in the field.
Humane Lobby Day is an event held in 41 states across the US and is, says Markarian, an “important exercise in representative government.” It starts this month, so check the Lobby Day link for information on your state’s date. Travel to your state capitol, meet with like-minded people and let your representative know what strides you expect in animal welfare.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4250c187-b5b3-4035-93b9-621335474828)
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
11 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
I would be *very* cautious about any “animal welfare” legislation supported by HSUS. Both HSUS and PETA have in the past admitted that their ultimate goal is the elimination of ALL domestic animals – including dogs and cats. They have grown more circumspect in their public statements in recent years but they have not renounced that goal. Their appeal to “public sentiment” – instead of dealing with reality and facts – allows them to collect millions of dollars from animal-loving people who have no idea of the goals to which they are contributing. (They milked millions from the public after the Michael Vick dog fighting case became public – but then insisted that the dogs all be killed. Over their objections, all but a couple of those dogs have been rehabilitated and rehomed…)
Please *carefully* investigate any cause to which you contribute your financial or emotional support. Carefully read any legislation proposed in your jurisdiction and ask whether or not enforcement of *existing* laws might not solve the “problems” addressed by the new laws.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. So many people do not realize they may be contributing to or signing on to legislation that does not work in the best interests of the animals they are trying to protect.
Case in point, the subterfuge going on in the selling of Mandatory Spay Neuter legislation to the general public: Presented as a “must vote for, write your senators, lobby…if you care anything at all for animals suffering at shelters” the preponderance of evidence shows that this legislation is not successful. Instead it has succeeded in raising the kill numbers of animal shelters dramatically, especially at Animal Care and Control agencies, and has cost cities millions in tax dollars to boot!
Unfortunately the “smoke and mirrors” legislators, organizations, etc., are not often unmasked for what they are. You are right. We all need to be critical thinkers and discover the facts and truth behind slogans, rather than responding with “knee-jerk” automatic support to what sounds good.
Judy – I find your statement that the HSUS and PETA want to eliminate all domestic animals ridiculous and unfounded. If you are going to comment in this manner, then please give us a link to some evidence supporting your point.
Ms. Wertz comment is hardly unfounded! YOU my dear friend, need to research this yourself! Why would we afford these so called, Humane societies a chance to hack into and destroy information offered by numerous sites on this issue? There really isn’t enough space on the comments section to afford you, your request. I agree, we must look hard at all sides!
To Barbara Wertz:
“One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, CEO, HSUS
“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.” J.P. Goodwin, Director of Grassroots Outreach with HSUS. Formerly with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Mr Goodwin has a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.
Enough proof for you?
What are the dates of these quotes attributed to those HSUS representatives?
Ok, I looked it up, myself. See the entire comment and date, below. It sure seems to me that Pacelle was making this comment in the context of livestock breeding for human consumption purposes. I know that when there is a surplus of mixed breed cats and dogs to be killed at Animal Shelters, HSUS and most streetwise “pet” animal rescuers for that matter, support the ban on breeding purebreds. It’s a triage approach in the killing field of “excess pets.” It still exists even if the #’s are better. I am making what I think is logically speculation that his comment applied to companion animals is about taking the right steps to prevent the euthanasia of healthy, adoptable pets. Also, as this was back in ‘93, “people change.” And, by now the stance might be different. Also, those folks you call “animal radicals” or “animal terrorists” that now work @ HSUS have changed or they would still be with an extremist group. (How many of us were “star-eyed” Democrats that spent some time as adults as conservative Republicans? Ever write an “extreme” article as a college student? This isn’t much different. And, unless you have proof, it is irresponsible to accuse people of having perpetrated those illegal and violent acts, even if the org or individuals somehow affiliated with it, did them.) Of course, if you could totally stop all breeding of cows, dogs, etc., there would be none. But, come on, does anyone think (including the “animal people”) that’s gonna happen? It’s a theoretical, ideal or moral stance. As, we can’t orchestrate how this excess would be handled, we can’t make some “rule” that says, “OK, I will wave my magic wand and now only this many of this breed will be bred, etc., so that there is this perfect alignment of supply and demand of pets, down to the tiniest nuance.” Therefore, we go for the “sound bite” in this sound byte world.
Here’s the quote and date:
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, of Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.
OH, another point…There is a difference between “domestic animal” and “domesticated animal.” I’ll just bet that in this conversation, Pacelle very well could have confused those two. As, he’s used the “wrong” one in conjunction with talking about livestock. No one uses “livestock” to mean pet animals. Lifestock are “domesticated” species, but not a “domestic animal” or pet. (This is more “legal” wording, as I know that many a lucky and deserving lifestock species has made someone a great “pet,” as they were treated that way!) Cats and dogs are domesticated species and domestic animals. “Domestic animal” is the legal term used in many animal control laws. Typically, along with or either/or the definition which includes “companion animals” and including the list of the various species that are included under the term.
Thanks for all your thoughtful commentary, Melissa. You have a very good point with regard to language use and the miscommunications that result. And in the HSUS’s most recent (2005)statement of policy that because, to paraphrase, social values change the statement made is not set in stone and will change with the times, indicates they have the right to change their minds. I agree more than a few of us would not necessarily want to be defined by a quote attributed to us more than a decade ago, especially if we put our foot in it. (It’s why I wonder anyone would actually want to be a politician.) But these statements have come back to haunt HSUS on more than this occasion. While you can’t change history, you can clarify what is on the record, particularly when you hire people with a controversial background. Clarity can be difficult, but should be sought.
From Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation, April 1, 2009
“Battling to Breed Better Laws”
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/04/puppy-mill-bills.html
“….I understand when cockfighters or bear baiters attack HSUS-backed legislation, spreading their invective and outright falsehoods. They are generally not good citizens, and their ideas have long been discredited. But there is a class of commercial dog breeders out there—apparently, a good number of them who are not even high-volume puppy mills—who raise their voices loudly against any attempt to impose reasonable standards of care for dogs and limits on how large these operations can be. Since they can hardly attack the substance of the legislation—because the provisions are so obviously rational (such as giving the animals an opportunity to exercise, or not forcing them to live on wire flooring their entire lives)—they attack The HSUS, almost unable to restrain themselves. They spew knowingly false things about The HSUS wanting to ban all pet ownership. In the past, in my blog and elsewhere, I’ve addressed these prevarications, where they take one quote completely out of context from 15 or 20 years ago, and treat that fragmented comment as doctrine, even though there are decades of public statements and action on my part and that of my colleagues that unmistakably celebrate the human-animal bond and The HSUS’s vigorous support of pet keeping.
Not only is pet keeping a birthright and bedrock principle of The HSUS, but we actively support responsible breeding. We always advocate that would-be pet owners go to shelters or breed rescue groups to get a life-long companion, but we ask those who do not to please follow specific guidelines in purchasing a pet from a breeder. In fact, we are about to launch an HSUS Breeders’ Advisory Group, comprised of long-time dog breeders who care about the welfare of dogs and support reasonable limits on the conduct of commercial breeders….”
Thanks for the quote from Wayne’s blog, Barbara. I appreciate your contribution!
While there are bad people in the business of supplying dogs to fighting rings and running the puppy mills who villify HSUS, there are also many people of good repute with decades of animal welfare efforts listed on their CVs who see serious problems of policy antithetical to animal welfare aims.
Nathan Winograd, animal welfare people at the Pet Connection, and other legitimate agents and organizations have concluded by HSUS’s own actions that, like testifying against San Francisco’s bid to be No Kill city just weeks ago, there is something that needs fixing at HSUS. This does not negate the very good work they do in so many areas. it is just a fact of the institutionalization of policy that stays on the “books” without review or with the review of the same people who wrote it. In other words, no new thinking gets through.
It then becomes incumbant on the rest of the community to point out the problem. Without substantive response to the community, the community then asks more publicly. It seems to be the only way to get an indication of what such a large fund-raising organization is going to do about these concerns, if anything.
HSUS seems entrenched and invested in out-dated models of dog behavior, case in point, the Michael Vick dogs, and the recent travesty of HSUS testimony supporting the killing of all dogs captured from a fighting ring, including puppies that had already been in foster homes before the “bust” occured. There’s a story on this blog that will give you the details.
These are the precise points of diverging policy between those who work with dogs and agents like HSUS. All dogs captured from fighting rings need not be summarily destroyed, as proved time and again by Best Friends and their coalition, as well as by the hundreds of shelters who work to rehabilitate these dogs over years. Working against a no-kill city, as HSUS did in San Francisco, is another symptom of something else gone wrong. What is anyone supposed to think?