National Animal Interest Alliance

Fifth Graders Campaign Against Hedgehog Ban

A group of fifth graders learn that their state laws won't allow them to keep a hedgehog as their classroom pet, and as a result, we're treated to an inspiring story combining lessons in animal care and civics. Pretty good deal, if you ask me:

Rather than throw a temper tantrum or settle for a hamster, the savvy fifth graders decided to find out why. Their systematic research put them in touch with learned scientists, state representatives, the Lehigh Valley Zoo, the mayor --- even the governor. The Pa. Game Commission’s Title 58 137.1 outlawing the species was suddenly under fire.

[...]

The students challenged the Pa. Game Commission’s claim that hedgehogs pose dangers to the balance of Pennsylvania’s wildlife by eating the eggs of nestlings and to humans as potential carriers of leptospira (found in the urine of many wild species). Native to Africa, hedgehogs requires a minimum 70 degrees to thrive and would scarcely survive Pennsylvania’s harsh winters. The likelihood of being overrun by herds of hedgehogs proliferating in the wild (which, in one statement, the PGC compared to stink bugs as a non-native species) is slim indeed.

Research and reasonable arguments, with a side-dish of educational benefits to boot. Hard to be more positive and inspiring than that.

I think it's safe to say this a project these students will still remember vividly in 50 years!

^{Up, C, Down, C, Left, C, Right, C, A + Start!}

RSPCA more concerned with getting its ducks in a row than fighting cruelty?

I know they say it's wrong to shoot the messenger, but what if the messenger is withholding crucial information that allows suffering to continue unabated... in order to better capitalize on it? Can you at least taze them?

ANIMAL rights groups withheld film evidence of shocking animal cruelty in Indonesian slaughterhouses from the government for three months - before launching a major publicity campaign.

Shocking? Not really -- more like standard operating procedure for the groups whose fundraising and legislative efforts rely upon the existence of abusive and substandard animal agriculture practices. Yeah, really can't say I'm too surprised by this.

But this really does raise questions of responsibility and culpability, and opens the door for a discussion that is long overdue. Because clearly, there comes a point where it is less about caring for the individual welfare of animals than the larger agenda: a desire for publicity and a need to paint a hated industry in the most negative light possible. At some point -- and I won't pretend to have a perfect answer for where this point is -- the activist becomes an accomplice.

A Day at the Farm

Is a field trip to witness modern animal agricultural practices at work your idea of a good time? Probably not? OK, fair enough. But it's still something we all should do.

As a charter bus took the group through rural Kansas, where combines were just starting to roll across area wheat fields, beef industry leaders addressed head-on some of the most talked-about aspects of beef production, including rising meat prices, animal welfare, the use of hormones and antibiotics, and the challenge of insuring food safety.

Now, the knee-jerk response to this is going to be "How can you trust the Kansas Beef Council to do an unbiased presentation on their practices?" and there's a grain of truth to that sentiment -- obviously, this kind of farm tour is going to present a positive view of the beef industry. If it didn't, you'd have to wonder who is in charge of the council's public relations.

But that's not really the point. The point here is that we have people experiencing farms on a personal level -- with their own eyes, ears, and noses -- in some cases for the first time in their lives. And this kind of experience is essential for anybody who wants a deeper understanding of where their food comes from. I can't think of any negatives to this sort of exposure. In fact, the only burning question I'm left with is this: in the quoted article, farm visitors consisted primarily of chefs, students, distributors, and writers -- which is great -- but shouldn't this be something the everyday consumer is exposed to as well? 

The vast majority of people in the United States live in urban areas, and in a lot of places, you can go your entire life without ever seeing a cow. Any chance to explain the process to people, to help clear up the mythology, is something that needs to be grabbed hold of for dear life. Because even though most of us are almost entirely separated from our food supply, we all have to eat and would be better served by knowing where it is coming from.

And I think it's safe to say people are interested in knowing. While there are many cultural and philosophical components driving the (American) urban farming movement, "being closer to the food my friends and family eat" is a powerful part of the equation for virtually everybody involved.

A farm tour doesn't offer the same kind of in-depth experience as producing one's own food, of course, but it does demystify -- which is vital -- and really personalizes just what it is we are eating. This is the kind of thing that makes for a more knowledgeable, conscientious, and harder-to-scam consumer -- the rare kind of thing that gives me hope in holding Idiocracy at bay, even if only for a few more years.

^{Uh, so I've been thinking about getting the band back together...}

Two Good Ideas from Ohio: Repealing BSL and Law Enforcement Training for ACOs

Back to Ohio...

To us, making owners and their dogs more accountable for their actions seems like a common-sense idea. The vast majority of "dog problems" can be solved with the right combination of education and enforcement; nuisance and dangerous dog issues are no exception.

Breed specific bans, on the other hand, punish good dogs and owners along with the bad, do little to change owner behavior, and stir sensationalism while creating a false sense of security. There's no nice way to put it: breed bans are destructive, backwards, and just all around plum stoopid.

Yet despite its horrendous track record, it seems like every legislative season we see more attempts to ban scary looking dogs. Fortunately, these attempts fail quite often. But not always... so when we read something like this:

A House committee Wednesday rewrote a bill that started out as just the removal of the "pit bull" from state law as the only breed inherently deemed vicious. The bill now includes three classifications of dogs -- vicious, dangerous, and nuisance -- that its supporters say will make it easier for wardens to criminally go after owners for their dogs' behavior.

It is a good, good thing. Focusing on problems rather than appearances (er, "deeds, not breeds") will save resources, allow for smarter enforcement, and avoid demonizing (and criminalizing) good dogs and their owners.

But wait... there's more!

 

New Law Enforcement Training Requirements for Ohio Humane Agents?

Looks like Ohio's humane agents are going to need law enforcement training...

House Bill 138 would require county humane society agents to complete at least 20 hours of training on Ohio Peace Officer Commission rules for "the investigation and prosecution of cruelty to and neglect of animals," according to an analysis by the state's Legislative Service Commission. Proof of the training would have to be filed with county recorder offices.

The goal is to ensure that humane society agents follow the proper law enforcement procedures when investigating alleged cruelty or neglect at kennels.

"Every day we hear more and more about cases of animal abuse," Gerberry said in a released statement. "It is important to emphasize that proper procedures must be followed at all times so that the courts will accept the evidence and proof that abuse has taken place. This can only be done with proper training."

Assuming that this training will also be highlighting safe, legitimate husbandry practices or devices, that may appear "abusive" to the uninitiated, and attract more law enforcement-minded (rather than animal-rightist minded) individuals to the fold, this could also be a very, very good thing.

Of course we're going to need some confirmation on just who's going to be conducting this training. That could make all the difference...

^{Class Is in Session}

Speaking of Animal Welfare: Wise Words on Animal Legislation

It's great when the blog basically writes itself, as was the case this morning. Just check out this article in The Hill, which includes some exceedingly wise words from Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) regarding animal legislation:

It is the duty of Congress to ensure that legislation is based on quality science and that it also holds those who use and care for animals to high ethical standards reflecting the values of responsibility and compassion that our society holds dear. 

Animals add tremendous value to our lives as pets; as working animals in the military, on our farms and in our homes; and by contributing to our knowledge base through their use in educational programs and biomedical research. With animals’ service to us comes our undeniable responsibility to protect their health and well-being, and veterinarians are critical partners in ensuring that animals are cared for appropriately.

Reliance upon sound science and an animal-welfare ethic -- as opposed to rights -- in determining appropriate legislation is really the key here, as is the recognition of our duty to protect the health and well-being of animals in our care -- as opposed to courting the notion that keeping animals is simply an "absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."

This is some conscientious, compassionate, level-headed advice if I've ever heard it, and something I can only hope catches on; it is the kind of thinking that lays the groundwork for real ethical and scientific advancements in the way we care for our animals.

Will Improving Animal Welfare Standards Satisfy Animal Rights Activists?

OK, that was a rhetorical question. Of course improving animal welfare standards will never satisfy an animal rights fanatic. In fact, the idea of improved standards and efficiency is downright frightening to some of the more extreme activists -- after all, addressing welfare concerns has the potential to make consumers more comfortable when it comes to the choice of using animal products. And we can't have that, now, can we*?

So, when I read this article on a swine barn with improved welfare standards and efficiency, I must confess to shaking my head in disbelief upon reading the following comment:

“We built this to satisfy the animal rights people"

Errr... sorry friends, but they're not going to be satisfied. Just not gonna happen.

That being said, whenever science-based agricultural advancements come along that improve welfare standards, efficiency, and environmental impact, it is something that deserves to be championed, as well as broadcast to the public.

Because while it is true that there is nothing animal agriculture can do that will ever satisfy the animal rights crowd (well, short of ceasing to exist), letting the public know when improvements come about and that agriculture is a constantly evolving art and science is essential.

In the wise words of Charlie Arnot:

"We need to first communicate ethics, then science, then economics."

---

^{*In fact, we're convinced that the furor from HSUS regarding egg facilities currently being built in the Pacific Northwest has far less to do with animal welfare concerns than fundraising concerns and their vegangelical desire to "ween" people off of eggs. These new facilities simply provide hens with too much space and cleanliness for HSUS to effectively campaign against.}

Investigation of Missing Los Angeles Shelter Pets Launched

Fewer animals in your region's shelters is a good thing, right?

But what about when they simply go missing (mostly from the same shelter)... and a pattern can be established that these vanishing animals tend to be the youngest, cutest, and most adoptable?

Are your Spidey senses tingling yet? Allegations have been made that at least some of these pets have been stolen to be sold -- and given the circumstances, you don't need to be wearing a tin foil cap to make the leap. In the meanwhile, a probe has been launched in the hopes of getting to the bottom of this.

FamilyFarmonomics

There's really not much to add to this CNN story about small-scale livestock producers other than that it should be required reading for anybody who cares about where their food comes from and is at all curious about just how (financially) sustainable many small, family farms truly are (sometimes not very sustainable at all)...

The five tips are well-detailed, if rather commonsensical; the piece of advice that most caught my eye was this:

Many large restaurant groups provide incentives through cash bonuses to chefs to keep their food cost down, thereby discouraging the use of more expensive local products. Family farms do not need to feed everyone, or sell to every restaurant, but one of the hard lessons is figuring out who not to sell to – when it is best to just walk away and deal with a chef who "gets it."

Know when to fold 'em indeed!

These "sustainable lessons" are merely light reading for many -- a curiosity -- but for a farmer, making the right choice can be everything. It's great seeing more and more places where people in agriculture to tell their stories.

A Daintier Environmental Hoofprint for Outdoor Dairy Cows?

From a recent ARS Article on the environmental impact of dairy cows:

The researchers found that total emissions for the greenhouse gases methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide were 8 percent lower in year-round outdoor production systems than in the high-production confinement systems. The biggest payoff? Keeping dairy cows outdoors all year lowered ammonia emissions by about 30 percent.

[...]

Although the confined cow produced 22,000 pounds of milk every year and the foraging cow produced only 13,000 pounds, the total amount of milk protein and fat produced on the two farms was essentially the same, because the foraging cows produced milk with more fat and protein. In addition, the same amount of land supported a larger number of the small-framed Holstein/Jersey crossbred cows.

In this modelling work, outdoor cows also reduced fuel use, lowered net greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent, and resulted in far less erosion and runoff than their indoor brethren.

Of course this all makes sense in a warm and fuzzy "just so" sort of way. But with data to back it up (rather than wishful thinking, as is so often the case), the comparison suddenly becomes quite a bit more compelling.

Definitely something to keep an eye on -- we're very interested in seeing more research in this area. There could be some serious downwind (heh) implications for the future of animal agriculture here.

 

^{Another methane joke? Really?}