Update on Hayden Law

Hayden Animal Shelter Protection Law Survives Second Repeal Vote on April 11, 2012



I blogged previously about Governor Brown's plan to repeal important provisions of the Hayden Law.  Enacted in 1998, it is California's landmark shelter animal protection act.  The Hayden Law requires that dogs and cats be held four to six days before being euthanized (allowing more time for owners to find their pets) and be given basic emergency medical care.  Since it's state-mandated, local governments could ask the state for reimbursement for their care.

Governor Brown's proposal shortened holding times from 6 days to 3 days and eliminated rules mandating that shelters keep some evening or weekend hours so working families can retrieve their missing animals.[1]  The Hayden Law has been suspended since 2009, but supporters feel it is important to keep it on the books.  Governor Brown's office claims the law does not increase adoptions and says a repeal would save tens of millions of dollars.

Animal welfare workers and advocates, including Tom Hayden himself have lambasted state legislators and the governor's office with phone calls, faxes, and emails since Brown's proposal in January.[2]  A petition through change.org (which I signed) collected over 61,000 signatures.  The California Assembly Budget Subcommittee rejected Governor Brown's attempt to repeal critical elements of the Hayden Law on March 14.  The attempted repeal went to the State Senate Budget Subcommittee on April 11th, and it was again unanimously rejected.  Due to term limits, retirements, and a new open primary and redistricting, many races on the June ballot will be a free-for-all and some incumbents face uncertainty.  It looks as though legislators do not want to alienate the animal activists.  Although Brown's proposal is not dead yet, this second unanimous rejection puts it in serious jeopardy. 

---

[1] (http://www.examiner.com/article/governor-brown-proposes-to-destroy-hayden-act-no-one-seems-to-care?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150516614892381_20225221_10150516713892381#f453f1155b8c26

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/tom-hayden-animal-activist_n_1229438.html

California Pet-Lover's License Plate Campaign

This photo courtesy of Judie Mancuso shows the proposed California pet license plate on a car in Newport Beach, Calif. In a state where people wear their hearts on their bumpers, a specialty license plate campaign by pet lovers to save animal lives needs saving. With three months to go, they are struggling to get the support they need. / ASSOCIATED PRESS

As a way to curb dog and cat overpopulation, the California Pet Lover’s License Plate campaign was launched last year.  This campaign is a volunteer effort and has no money for advertising.   The  following video features the launch of the program  hosted by Ellen Lavinthal, an animal enthusiast who now runs the animal activist organization called Animal Alliance in Los Angeles.  It depicts Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, actor/artist/animal activist Pierce Brosnan, and Councilman Richard Alarcon unveiling the new California spay/neuter license plate at the West Los Angeles animal shelter.  Pierce Brosnan created and donated the artwork for the plate, modeling his own rescues Shilo and Angel Baby.  Brosnan says the $50 he spent to adopt Shilo was the best money he ever spent.  Angel Baby is an abyssinian cat he gifted his wife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HuLmjLp22rk

Proceeds from the sales will go toward spay and neuter programs across California, said campaign president and veterinary board member Judie Mancuso.  Many people do not spay/neuter their animals because they cannot afford it.  With this program, to spay/neuter a pet  in California will potentially be free or cost a very minimal amount.  In 2010, nearly 868,000 dogs and cats entered animal shelters in California;  more than half were euthanized.  Spay and neuter is the best way to stop overpopulation. 

The campaign’s sponsor, the Department of Consumer Affairs Veterinary Medical Board, set up the California Spay & Neuter License Plate Fund, Inc. to sell 7,500 plates before June 2012. As of this writing, the group sold 4,530 plates--still 2,970 preorders needed--to make the plates and activate the program.  Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana, said California spends more than $290 million a year to house and euthanize one million homeless dogs and cats. He continues, “The sooner those pre-orders are collected and the Department of Motor Vehicles can get those plates on the road, the sooner city and county shelters will reap the benefits”  (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20488322/governor-signs-bill-extending-pet-license-sales).  

Governor Brown came to the rescue April 26^th, signing a measure giving the California Spay & Neuter License Plate Fund an extra year for the sales. There are 32 million registered vehicles in California and more than 37.7 million people.  With six out of 10 Californians having pets, there could be at least 23 million pet owners in the state.

Cost for standard plates is $50; cost for a personalized message is $98.  This website has all the details California residents need to understand the spay/neuter program and place their orders for the special plates: (http://www.caspayplate.com/main.php). This program is unprecedented in California and has been hailed as a brilliant initiative that will benefit animal shelters and help curtail the number of homeless and unwanted dogs and cats throughout the state.  California will begin production of the new plate after 7,500 pre-orders have been submitted.  One of the biggest problems, Mancuso said, is that people don't see anything for their money for up to three years.  It takes up to 10 months after all the conditions are met to get the prison-made plates into production, Department of Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Jessica Gonzales said.  Knowing this, it is still worth the wait for me.   Spread this message to all your animal lover friends!

Rehabilitation Good for Michael Vick and Man's Best Friend

Photo: Michael Vick Fighting Dogs Get "Rehab" Care

Photograph by Molly Wald/Best Friends Animal Society

Little Red, a pit bull seized from football star Michael Vick's estate, rests near staff member Ed Fritz at the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Utah.

 

In April 2007, the news about Michael Vick’s involvement in an illegal dog-fighting operation broke.  Bad Newz Kennels was named after the town where Vick and three of his associates were raised—Newport News, Virginia—a poor and marginal community across the bay from the Norfolk shipyards. The Bad Newz Kennels (a 15-acre property) housed and trained over 50 pit bulls, staged dogfights, killed dogs, and ran a high stakes-gambling ring with purses up to $26,000.  Vick was accused of and admitted to financing the operation, directly participating in dogfights and executions, and personally handling thousands of dollars in related gambling.  This case alerted the nation to the viciousness of dog fighting that is commonplace in many communities despite the fact that dogfighting is outlawed in every state and the federal government.[1] 

The dogfighting operation bought dogs in Virginia and other states and brought them to the Bad Newsz facility, where Vick became a registered dog breeder.  The men tested dogs in fights, then shot, electrocuted, or hung dogs that did not perform well. [2]  They hosted fights in Virginia and transported dogs to other states to participate in fights.  Some dogs died in the pit, some dogs that lost fights were  executed.  On July 17, 2007, Vick was indicted by a federal grand jury with violating federal law 18 U.S.C. Section 371 “Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities” and to “Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture.”  Because he crossed state lines, the federal court became involved in an activity that would have been regulated by the state.  The interstate charge is a felony with a maximum penalty of five years prison.  A charge under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) for animal fighting activities would have carried only a maximum of one year per violation.

Vick’s indictment on September 24, 2007 brought two charges: 

• One count of violating VA Code Ann. Section 3.1-796.124 which makes it a Class 6 felony to promote dogfighting for amusement, sport, or financial gain or to possess, own, train, transport, or sell any dog intended for animal fighting.
• One count for violating VA Code Ann. Section 3.1-796.122 (H), which makes it a Class 6 felony to engage in torture, ill-treatment, beating, maiming, mutilation, or killing of animals.

The judge sentenced Vick to 23 months in prison at Leavenworth Penitentiary, three years’ supervised probation during which he cannot buy, sell or own dogs, fined $5,000, ordered to pay $928,073 as restitution for the 53 dogs seized from his property and was required to enter a drug/alcohol treatment program and pay for the cost of treatment.[3]  He served 18 of a 23-month sentence.  Vick had paid a public relations firm $23,000 before entering prison.  Once released, Vick agreed to speak to various community groups as part of an anti-dogfighting campaign organized by the Humane Society of the United States and was the subject of a BET documentary series. 

New laws and tougher penalties have been enacted in the wake of the Vick Case.  Governor Kaine (VA) signed a tough new dogfighting bill into law as of July 1, 2008.  Written by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), dogfighting can now be prosecuted under the state’s RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act”) laws, allowing prosecutors to indict dogfighting operations as organized criminal enterprises, and could send dogfighters like Michael Vick to jail for up to 20 years on a first conviction. The ability to bring a RICO case would provide specific advantages to prosecutors overseeing dogfighting investigations, including extended statutes of limitations, longer sentences, and larger fines.  Prosecutors also have the power to “seize and freeze” defendant assets prior to conviction in a RICO case.  If Vick’s charges had been part of a racketeering case, the authorities could have seized his Virginia house he used for his kennel operations and dogfights—a house he sold for well below market value shortly after the first search warrant was executed.[4] 

A team of animal behavior experts selected by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals analyzed the 49 seized dogs and then recommended whether they were suitable either to be adopted by families, trained as police dogs, placed in a sanctuary, or should be euthanized.  Only one dog was recommended for euthanasia because of extreme aggression. 

Journalist Jim Gorant described the assessment of the dogs:

The ASPCA team found fewer than a dozen of the dogs were hardened fighters.

 Two had to be put down—one was excessively violent and the other was suffering

from an irreparable injury.  Then there was a group characterized as “pancake

dogs”—animals so traumatized they flattened themselves on the ground and

 trembled when humans approached.  Another group seemed to be dogs of

 relatively friendly normal temperament who simply had never been socialized.[5]

What is really important now is that this case has had a positive effect on how canine victims of fighting rings are perceived and how they are treated following a bust. The notoriety of this case served as a large stage on which to demonstrate once and for all that dogs who have been press-ganged into servitude in dog-fighting rings are not damaged goods, as so many in the media and even many in mainstream animal welfare organizations have long proclaimed. 

Rebecca Huss, a professor at Valparaiso University School of Law, is the dog’s court-appointed guardian.  She decided which rescue organizations would receive the pit bulls, and noted that none of the groups knew they would receive money when they initially agreed to take the animals. Normally authorities euthanize dogs seized from fighting operations because of the potential danger to future owners or concerns that they will fall back into the wrong hands. The Vick dogs' situation is unique, because of the large sum of money set aside for lifetime care, extensive evaluation by animal behavior experts, and overwhelming demand by rescue groups to house the dogs.  As noted earlier, Vick was ordered to pay almost a million dollars for care of the dogs.  Of that amount, most rescue groups received $5,000 per adoptable dog.  However, Best Friends Animal Society in Kanab, Utah, received $18,275 per dog, because the animals could spend a significant amount of time—if not the rest of their lives—at the sanctuary (twenty-two of the hardest-case dogs went here).  Another group who took in many dogs was BAD RAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls) in Oakland. Several other groups around the country also opened their doors to the dogs: the Georgia SPCA in Suwanee, All or Nothing Rescue, Our Pack in San Francisco, CA, Richmond Animal League in Virginia, Recycled Love, Inc. in Baltimore Maryland, the Animal Farm Foundation, the SPCA for Monterey (I was volunteering here at the time), Out of the Pits, and Animal Rescue of Tidewater in Chesapeake, Virginia.[6]

The rehabilitation of the Vicktory Dogs, as they came to be known, proved to the world that there is a future for dogs who are victims of cruelty—even the most hardcore cases.  The work at Best Friends has bolstered the work being undertaken around the country on behalf of pit-bull-type dogs such as:

• Dogs seized in fighting busts have been saved, including the majority from the Missouri 500, such as Joy who still resides at the Sanctuary.[7]
• The Vicktory Dogs case was instrumental in getting the American Bar Association to adopt a resolution calling for the humane treatment, evaluation, and proper placement of all animal victims of cruelty, including fight-bust dogs.[8]
• Florida repealed the designation of all dogs and puppies seized in fighting busts as “dangerous.”  Now these victims of cruelty can be evaluated and adopted out, not immediately euthanized.[9]

Writer Jim Gorant has written a book entitled, The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption.[10]  In The Lost Dogs, we meet these amazing animals, a number of which are now living in loving homes, while some even work in therapy programs: Johnny Justice participates in Paws for Tales, which lets kids get comfortable with reading aloud by reading to dogs; Leo spends three hours a week with cancer patients and troubled teens. At the heart of the stories are the rescue workers who transformed the pups from victims of animal cruelty into healing caregivers themselves, unleashing priceless hope.

Here is a video from my favorite Sanctuary “Dog Town” about the Vicktory dogs entitled :  “Vick Dogs in Rehab”:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080128-vick-video-vin.html

The Vicktory Dogs are pioneers in the fight against canine profiling and have caused a paradigm shift and thereby helped save countless lives. 

---

[1] http://aldf.org/article.php?id=928

[2] http://aldf.org/downloads/vick_federal_indictment.pdf

[3] http://aldf.org/article.php?id.=928

[4] http://aldf.org/article.php?id=514.

[5] http://www.parade.com/news/2010/08/15-can-you-teach-a-bad-dog-new-tricks.html

[6] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/39863833.html

[7] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1942950,00.html

[8]http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/house_of_delegates/108b_2011_my.authcheckdam.pdf

[9] http://www.change.org/petitions/urge-florida-to-stop-condemning-animal-victims-of-cruelty

[10] http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/lost-dogs-jim-gorant/1100484631

Supreme Court Hears Free-Speech Case on Dogfight Videos

Decision on U.S. v Stevens, No. 08-769

In trying to come up with some interesting topics regarding animal advocacy and free speech, I came across the case of Robert J. Stevens, an infamous dogfighter and dogfight promoter.  He shipped his dogs to Japan to fight against other dogs and sold videos that taught others how to stage the same cruel fights.  These battles often ended in a dog’s death, disembowelment, and incomprehensible injuries.  He also wrote a book called Dogs of Velvet and Steel.[1]  During an investigation, law enforcement officials bought three videotapes from Stevens, the first two showing footage of pit bulls in dogfights, and the third showing footage of trained pit bulls attacking wild boar.  In April 2003, law enforcement officials searched Stevens' residence and found several copies of the videos and other related merchandise.  In March 2004, a grand jury sitting in the District Court of Western Pennsylvania indicted Stevens for violating a 1999 Public Law 106-152 (Title 18, Section 48), which prohibits a person from knowingly creating, selling, or possessing “a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain.”  It was mainly aimed at “crush” videos, which cater to fetishists who gain sexual gratification from watching women torture and kill small animals by stepping on them.[2]  An exception says this law “does not apply to any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”

Stevens moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law violated his First Amendment right to free speech and was therefore unconstitutional.  The District Court still denied Stevens’ motion and a jury found Stevens guilty on three counts of violating the law.  The District Court sentenced Stevens to thirty-seven months of imprisonment.  Attorneys for Stevens said his sentence was 14 months longer than Michael Vick’s prison term for running a dog-fighting ring.  Stevens appealed his convictions to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[3] 

The First Amendment gives anti-cruelty organizations the right to show videos by dogfighters to bring awareness to this crime.  The Government contends that depictions of illegal acts of animal cruelty lack expressive value and may be regulated as unprotected speech, but the Supreme Court disagreed and struck down Public Law 106-152, Title 19, Section 48 as unconstitutional.

Stevens argued that depictions of intentional harm to animals can have genuine expressive value and that such depictions should not be categorically banned because some find them offensive.  He points out that animal rights activists, journalists, and others have properly used depictions of animal cruelty to stimulate debate about the treatment of animals.  In support of Stevens, the Cato Institute argued that if the Supreme Court decides to preserve this law, Congress would be free to ban other forms of expression, including the “defamation” of religion and depictions of criminal acts in general whenever it felt that the benefits of a speech ban outweighed the costs.  Stevens further agues that the law is too vague about what kind of speech is prohibited.  Note the exceptions in the first paragraph above, instructing exceptions for “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.”  Stevens says that this carve-out would have a “chilling effect” on speech, because people will be afraid to speak for fear of inadvertently violating a law.  The NRA chimed in, saying they worried about ramifications of their popular hunting videos and media.  Since hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, their media could result in “depictions of animal cruelty” since this law includes any depictions of unlawful killing of animals.[4]   

The Court had difficulty distinguishing between animal cruelty itself and “depictions of animal cruelty.” In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts was reluctant to expand the definition of obscene material outside protection of the First Amendment beyond content of an explicitly sexual nature. The court voted 8-1 to invalidate the 1999 legislation because it covered almost any depiction of cruelty or violence to animals. The law was so broad it exposed a swath of constitutionality-protected speech to criminal prosecution.  However, the opinion left open the possibility that a narrower measure could pass constitutional muster.  David Horowitz, executive director of a group called the Media Coalition, applauded the ruling.  “If the court were to rewrite the First Amendment every time an unpopular or distasteful subject was at issue, we wouldn’t have any free speech left,” he said.  As we’ve studied in Free Speech class, this is the case of the slippery slope, where the urge to curb a recognized evil can easily lead to an even greater evil—wide censorship of a potentially growing range of content.  It was best that the court struck this down allowing author Rep. Elton Gallegly (R. Calif.) to craft a narrower law. 

Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society, urged Congress to adopt a more narrowly crafted law.  “Congress should act swiftly to make sure the First Amendment is not used as a shield for those committing barbaric acts of cruelty, and then peddling their videos on the Internet”.[5] 

Hours after the court struck down this law on April 20, 2010, the law’s author, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R., Calif.) worked to introduce a bill that will go after the “crush videos” that originally prompted the bill.  In July 2010, the House passed his new bill and in November, the Senate unanimously approved it.  In December, President Obama signed the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010 into law.[6]

---

[1] http://www.pitbullvictory.com/

[2] (http://www.stopcrush.org/

[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-769

[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-769

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/20/us-usa-animals-cruelty-idUSTRE63J3IO20100420

[6] http://congressionaldigest.com/obama-signs-new-bill-banning-crush-videos/

Pledge to be Fur Free

I spoke about Keith Basso in my previous blog (author of Portraits of the ‘Whiteman’), who also says jokes are political, analytic, and serve as cautionary tales to highlight the dangerous and stupid people to an entire community.  One subculture of animal welfare, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), jokes about actors Kate and Ashley Olsen because they wear animal fur and promote a fashion line, which uses fur.  In retaliation, PETA launched its “Trollsen Twins” campaign by unveiling an ad featuring images of them in the most unflattering photo that PETA could find (http://features.peta2.com/trollsens/)  The ad, which carries the tagline “Fur is Worn by Beautiful Animals and Ugly People,” was unveiled at the Olsen’s Walk of Fame star on Hollywood Boulevard in December 2007.  To coincide with the unveiling, PETA launched a website developed entirely to the Trollsens—who are known on the site as “Hairy-Kate” and “Trashly,” which features “Fatal Fashion”, an animated dress-up game complete with animal skins and the accompanying blood.  Visitors to the site can also pick up free Web banners showing the Trollsen sisters draped in animal skins—and blood.  PETA is telling the rest of us not to be like the Olsen twins.  They tell us that by wearing animal fur, we are condoning animal cruelty and say there is absolutely no reason to kill animals for their fur when there are so many fashionable and humane alternatives. 

Sign the pledge to be fur-free: https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3191

Part 2: Participant Observation/Interview with a Shelter

Victor Turner, a well-known cultural anthropologist,  says that the status of liminal individuals is socially and structurally ambiguous.  The animals living in shelters are in an obvious state of liminality.  They do not belong permanently anywhere.  This produces a great deal of stress on the animals and because their immune system is thereby lowered, many come down with respiratory viruses or other easily transmitted ailments.  They are neither here nor there, as Turner states, a “betwixt and between” state of living in an animal “prison” and someone adopting them into their homes.  He says the liminal have nothing: “no status, insignia, secular clothing, rank, and kinship position, nothing to demarcate them structurally from their fellows.” The dogs have no real status over another dog when they come to the shelter.  All are assessed the same medically and behaviorally, neutered, vaccinated, and micro chipped.  The female dogs that are used in despicable puppy mill operations may never see past a liminal stage until death because they are kept in a small cage, breeding litter after litter, in many cases, their feet never touching the ground, just the wire cages, in their lifetime.  When they have no more useful life for breeding, they are euthanized. (I have rehabbed dogs that lived in puppy mill cages their entire lives—these animals did not even understand what “grass” feels like, let alone the freedom to run in a yard.) The moral implication of raising animals like livestock is obvious to me and is particularly tormenting to many others I have spoken with.

The term “double bind” was first introduced in 1956 by the anthropologist Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in their discussions on the complexity of communication in relation to schizophrenia.  It is a term which means asking a person to do two completely opposite and mutually conflicting things at the same time.  I suggest that shelter workers are caught in this "double-bind" situation.  On one hand, they are supposed to advocate for the animals—to nurse them back to health, to feed and love them, help them get adopted—and then they are told to euthanize them because there is not enough space.

Bob and Colleen are veterinarians for CAO for the past year and insist that stress is part of their job.  Colleen says animals coming to the shelter are better off here than on the street, in a puppy mill, or being abused by someone.  She says, “You have to get used to the stress and you have to find ways to deal with it.”  For Bob, one of the greatest pressures is caring for so many animals on an everyday basis.  He says, “You neuter and spay them hoping they get adopted.”  Sometimes they recognize the animals they are putting to sleep and this disturbs them.  Duane has volunteered for CAO for many years.  He surmises, “The public shows a lack of regard and respect for animals.  They see animals as disposable.  They throw animals away.  For example, when some pet owners lose a dog, they don’t even go look for it.  A major problem is the abuse and neglect of animals.”  This leads me to believe there is some resentment between these animal advocates and the public.  This dichotomy leads to a high amount of stress on animal care workers. 

Like Keith Basso's description of linguistic play among the Western Apache, the workers use humor to ease daily tensions from their double-bind situation.  In his book,  Portraits of the ‘Whiteman’ (2007) Basso draws on current theory in symbolic anthropology, sociolinguistics, and the dramaturgical model of human communication developed by Erving Goffman.  In Basso's book, Vine Delora, Jr. states,  “the more desperate the problem, the more humor is directed to describe it” (3).  When placed in stress-inducing situations, animal welfare workers often begin wisecracking.  They joke about the quality of veterinary care at the shelter and preferring their animals to their children.  One staff member, a euthanasia technician, revealed that she and other workers joke around while in the isolation unit.  “I want the last sound an animal hears to be the sound of laughter.”

The ways in which we treat animals has a great deal to do with the ways in which we treat ourselves and the social contexts in which we live.  There is so much professed love for animals, yet tolerance within our society for truly appalling and widespread forms of institutionalized abuse.  This schizophrenia exists because puppy mills are part of our capitalistic society and when money is involved, people rationalize all sorts of misdeeds and cruel acts towards others.  We can relate this dichotomy with the corporation, which also creates wealth, at the cost of lives (humans and animal) and the environment.  The remorseless rationale of “externalities” (as Milton Friedman explains, the unintended consequences on a transaction between two parties on a third) is responsible for countless cases of illness, death, poverty, pollution, exploitation, and lies. 

The question is, what can we do to alleviate the problem of the irresponsible commercial breeding of dogs and cats?  We can start by not buying from pet stores such as Pet Land, over the internet, or from newspaper ads.  Buying puppies from these sources keeps the mills in business.  Instead, adopt from local shelters or rescue groups.  Statistics show that approximately 25% of dogs in shelters are purebreds.  Next, always spay and neuter your pets.  If you have time, foster animals with a local shelter or rescue.  It costs nothing except time and love.  Finally yet importantly,  is legislation.  The 2011 Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act I spoke about in earlier blogs is still pending.  The Act, if passed, will bring all commercial dog breeders in the United States under federal oversight and mandate daily exercise.  Please help the ASPCA secure passage of the PUPS Act.  On this site, you can sign your name to an email advocating the passage of this bill:  http://capwiz.com/aspca/issues/alert/?alertid=48395556

Part 1: Participant Observation/Interview with a Shelter

A few semesters ago, I took a course in Cultural Anthropology.  My research paper was based on the commodity fetishism of animals.  The methods I utilized in this project included historical background research, participant observation, and interviews.  I consulted such books as Craig Brestrup’s Disposable Animals, Jana Kohl’s A Rare Breed of Love, Arnold Arluke’s and Clinton Sanders’ Regarding Animals, Tami Harbolt’s Bridging the Bond: The Cultural Construction of the Shelter Pet, referred to many web sites devoted to animal welfare such as the SPCA (The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), and the ARL (Animal Rescue League).  I tape recorded and typed out interviews with a number of workers at two local shelters, a shelter in Arizona (I was visiting family), and one animal rescue, and several Monterey County veterinarians.   I also volunteered at a Monterey County shelter on numerous occasions, was a guardian to a purebred chocolate Labrador named Belle, and fostered dogs through a Pacific Grove rescue.  This is part one regarding my participant observation and interviews for my research.

In Regarding Animals, Arluke and Sanders (1997) speak to the construction of pets stating that “Although animals have a physical being, once in contact with humans, they are given a cultural identity as people try to make sense of them, understand them, use them or communicate with them” (30).  The process begins when a dog is taken into a home.  Naming the new pet begins its transformation from a generic puppy into a specific member of the family.  The name gives the dog an identity.  However, acquiring a status in the family is contingent on family members’ willingness to meet the pet’s needs.  Pets that do not obey “house rules” or that are considered “too difficult” or do not meet certain “rites of passage” (such as potty training) may be surrendered to a shelter or euthanized—a disposable animal if you will.  The message is powerful, and shelter workers deal with its ramifications for animals everyday.

The theory of interpretive anthropology owes its origins and popularity to Clifford Geertz.  “The analysis of culture,” he declares, is “not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning”, the interpretation of culture entails “the elucidation of its symbolic meanings” via the application of “the ethnographer’s empathy, verstehen [means to ‘understand’ in German], insight, imagination, understanding, and the like."  As I enter a Monterey County animal shelter (I will refer to as CAO-County Animal Organization) early one morning for a day of participant-observation and interviews, I revisit Geertz’s beliefs and statements.

 “I’m looking for Annie,” I say walking to the receptionist desk.  Apparently, the shelter is not aware of my observation this day and there is a frenzy of phone calls.  Finally, Annie greets me in the front waiting area.  She is blonde and very thin, in her late thirties, with reflective gray eyes.  She is wearing jeans and the same CAO T-shirt that the other staff and volunteers are wearing.  Smiling and extending her hand, she says, “Let me give you the grand tour.”  I recognize the anti-microbial hand sanitizers placed intermittently in the dog kennel area, reminding humans to wash their hands because this is one way diseases like “kennel cough” are spread from animal to animal.  I am told that workers, volunteers, and the public must sanitize their hands before every dog/cat contact.  We walk through a door into the dog kennels.  Most kennels contain one to two dogs.  The barking is deafening, and the aroma of fresh urine is prevalent.  The air is humid, as each kennel must be hosed out daily, giving the water insufficient time to dry completely.  The cement floors are hard and unyielding against my feet as we walk from kennel to kennel, but there are blankets for every dog and sometimes, even toys.  Annie tells me the floors are heated so the dogs are not cold at night.  I hear key words during this observation such as “stray”, “abused”, “purebred”, “mutt”, “sick”, “shy”, “not adoptable”, “adoptable”, “old”, “hungry”, and “put to sleep” among others.  Some animals have retreated to the back of their kennel barely looking up and frightened.  Some dogs are jumping up and down and barking violently. 

I ask Annie how many dogs are adoptable this week.  She tells me the shelter has nearly 200 dogs in the facility, but only 50 are adoptable now.  I ask Annie what type of dog is adopted readily, if this is a “no kill shelter”, and if so, how long does a dog have before his last day on earth?  Annie tells me what I already surmised:  the younger, cuter dogs are adopted, while the older and “not-so-cute” dogs are passed over, as well as “black” dogs and cats.  Black dog discrimination (a.k.a. Black Dog Syndrome or BDS) is a phenomenon that has historically made black dogs and cats the most difficult of shelter animals to adopt out.  Knowledge of these biases has motivated many shelter workers and volunteers to put extra energy into getting their black dogs and cats noticed, including targeted adoption campaigns, tying bandanas or ribbons around their necks and placing brightly colored blankets and toys in their living areas.  I submit to you that a dog or cat’s appearance, its beauty if you will, dictates how it will be treated and if it will become adoptable or “disposable.” 

Unfortunately, this is a “kill shelter.”  When a dog is surrendered to a shelter by its owner, or found as a stray, it is assessed for behavior and health issues, which can take up to a week.  When a dog passes these tests, it is spayed or neutered and tattooed with an “S” (spayed) or “N” (neutered) on its belly.  It is vaccinated, micro chipped, defleaed and bathed; then and only then is it deemed “adoptable.”  Many dogs do not make it to this point.  They do not pass the series of behavior tests or are too sick and must be PTS (put to sleep).  Dogs that are adoptable, but overstay their welcome (sometimes 30 days or more) are also PTS—it just depends when the shelter runs out of room.  When visiting an animal shelter in Arizona, dogs close to the end of their stay were “put on sale.”  Instead of costing the typical $150, the shelter would ask only $50 and put a sign on a dog’s kennel that said “last week on earth” with a picture of the animal and a written description, extolling its great personality and qualities.  This was an extremely wrenching moment for me and set the stage for my becoming a huge advocate for animals.  I was told by an attendant the obvious about the sign: “It was placed there to encourage people to adopt.”  I mention this to Annie.  She looks me in the eye and says, “There is a sad side to all of this.”  I nod, but I am angry and depressed.

Part two of this blog continues the interview with Annie and the veterinarians who “mercifully” euthanize the animals at the shelter.

I am an Animal Rescuer *(ORIGINAL)* BY ANNETTE KING TUCKER ...
► 4:54► 4:54	www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsKKMV1RRN0

The Cove Documentary

Note:  I wrote a blog about the “Saddest Show on Earth” two weeks ago and I’d like to direct you to a short video that specifically emphasizes everything I was talking about and more.  Alec Baldwin speaks for PETA, and this is a must see.  You cannot walk away from this unaffected:

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/03/you-can-hate-peta-but-this-is-fking-bullshit/   After watching this video, the only circus you will ever attend in the future will be the Cirque du Soleil.

In my “Rethinking Swimming with the Dolphins” blog two days ago, I mention the 2009 documentary film The Cove, which analyzes and questions Japan’s dolphin hunting culture. The documentary won 25 well-respected awards, including the 2009 U.S. Audience Award at the 25^th annual Sundance Film Festival and the 2010 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.   The idea began in 2007, when former National Geographic photographer Louie Psihoyos and dolphin activist Richard O’Barry and crew traveled to Japan to covertly document the clandestine slaughter of dolphins using underwater microphones and high-definition cameras disguised as rocks. The film claims that from October 1^st through March every year 23,000 dolphins are killed by Japan’s whaling industry, a number several times greater than the number of whales killed in the Antarctic. The dolphin meat, containing toxic levels of mercury, is being sold as food in Japan, often times labeled as the more expensive whale meat.

Taiji fishermen engage in dolphin “drive hunting” whereby migrating dolphins are herded into a hidden cove where they are netted and killed with spears and knives over the side of small fishing boats, creating a massive blood bath. 


Most Japanese people are unaware of this annual government-sanctioned dolphin killing; the capture of these dolphins in Taiji is carried out by about 26 fishermen. They kill the dolphins with permits from their government. The film also alleges Japan “buys” votes from the International Whaling Commission, by paying support to smaller countries in favor of whaling, such as Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Laos, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/06/14/japans-vote-buying-at-the-iwc/) and ignores IWC's resolutions which bans the hunting of all whale species (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/oceans/the-international-whaling-commission-0). 

The film argues that dolphin hunting as practiced in Japan is unnecessary and cruel and is motivated by capitalism.  Dolphinariums (dolphin aquariums) are always looking for more dolphins to exhibit.  The fishermen drive a large school of bottlenose dolphins into the killing cove, and dolphin trainers and marine mammal veterinarians seek out the best-looking dolphins for display.  A live dolphin sold to a dolphinarium brings in a much higher profit than dead dolphin meat, which only brings about $600.  Live bottlenose dolphins have sold for as much as $150,000 each (http://www.denverpost.com/movies/ci_13000526).  The dolphins that are too old, too young, or have too many blemishes are not worth displaying and are slaughtered and the meat is sold in markets.  Japan has more than 50 dolphinariums and swim-with-dolphin programs, ranging from large aquarium facilities with huge tanks and dolphin shows to small tanks at motels or floating sea pens in harbors.  Then there is the smallest dolphinarium located close to the killing cove that I mentioned in my last blog. 

Thus far my interpretation of these issues is gleaned from a variety of focused environmental or animal advocacy perspectives. So what right do we as Westerners have to tell the Japanese what to do?   Dolphins are food, just as cows and pigs are food in America.  Do our slaughterhouses resemble the killing cove?

From the Japanese perspective, whales and dolphins are not particularly special. (I'm sure they were never interested in the "Flipper" tv series.)  Indeed scientific evidence supports their position, that while cetaceans do have large, complex brains, much of their neurons are devoted to maintaining their large bodies and energy-intensive sonar lobes.  However, the film indicates that most Japanese are unaware of the cruel drive hunting or the marketing of dolphin meat.   As noted earlier, dolphin meat is sometimes purposefully mislabeled as whale meat, and contains high concentrations of mercury, which causes memory, hearing, and eyesight loss, along with cerebral palsy and mental retardation.  For this reason, local politicians have advocated the removal of dolphin meat from children’s school lunches. 

Japanese consumption of whale and dolphin meat and Japan's general spurring of International Whaling Commission resolutions are multi-faceted and layered issues.  From another perspective, the problem is not that killing dolphins and whales is inherently immoral, as The Cove sensationalizes, but that the Japanese are taking more than their fair share of what belongs to everybody despite unanimous censure as well as humanitarian, ecological, and public health concerns. 

Rethinking Swimming with the Dolphins

 

One of the things that used to be on my bucket list was to swim with dolphins, until I saw the documentary “The Cove” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KRD8e20fBo&feature=player_embedded) and this article by the BBC news. “Is it Wrong to Swim with Dolphins?” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8572855.stm).  British researchers have found that swimming close to bottlenose dolphins disturbs dolphins in their habitat, preventing them from resting, feeding or nurturing their young.  In this article, Dr. Horace Dobbs, founder and honorary director of International Dolphin Watch, says, “Keeping dolphins at resorts or aquatic parks is akin to torture, as it separates these sociable animals from their pods.  It would be like locking me in a lavatory.  We should respect [dolphins] in the same way that we respect other people.”

The Oscar-nominated The Cove takes us to Taiji, Japan to witness the cruelty of the annual dolphin slaughter, exposes us to the dangers of eating mercury poisoned dolphin meat, and warns us that dolphins behave erratically when they are in captivity.  Richard O’Barry, the famously rueful trainer of “Flipper”, the world’s most famous and favorite dolphin in the 1964 TV series, clearly states that conditions in any holding tanks are likely to drive any dolphin insane.  For one thing, dolphins’ extraordinarily sensitive hearing, which enables them to locate and communicate with each other over miles of ocean, cannot process the sonar assault caused by their confinement tanks’ bare and unbaffled walls.  He also points out that dolphins/whales are among the few wild species in captivity that are forced to perform for their keep.  The 2010 death of veteran SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, caused by Tilikum, the captive 12,300 lb. male Orca “killer whale,” has reignited the captivity controversy and reminds us of  O’Barry’s policy position (http://www.wesh.com/news/22674574/detail.html). 

The brush of Brancheau’s ponytail against Tilikum’s nose appears to have incited the attack.  Despite Brancheau’s death, SeaWorld will not destroy the largest Orca in captivity.  Russ Rector, a former dolphin trainer in Fort Lauderdale who runs the Dolphin Freedom Foundation says, “Tilikum is a casualty of captivity; it has destroyed his mind and turned him demented.” Naomi Rose, a marine mammal scientist with the Humane Society of the United States, says putting Tilikum down is not a solution.  “It’s not his fault what happened, just as it wasn’t Dawn Brancheau’s.  The fault lies with using these wild animals as entertainment—this was an accident waiting to happen”  (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/25/killer-whale-tilikum-drowned-trainer-hair/print). 

The Whale and Dolphin Society said it’s time to recognize that keeping animals up to 26 ft long in small tanks is no longer acceptable.  “The spaces are inadequate, the psychological damage is deep.  There are highly social, long-distance acoustic animals who are harmed by living in concrete pens.” 

O’Barry says the world’s smallest dolphin tank is located in the Taiji Whale Museum in Taiji, Japan.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W49bpPAzQ-Q&feature=player_embedded).  He says the tank is as big as a medium-sized conference room, and named the two dolphins “Sad” and “Lonely” because the two Pan-pacific spotted dolphins are listless and “hanging at the surface of the tank as if they were dead.” 

O’Barry says they suffer from Captive Dolphin Depression Syndrome, or CDDS.  “They will lay like that in the tank, with their head against the walls because they have nothing to do” (http://www.takepart.com/blog-series/cove-watch/2012/01/30/worlds-smallest-dolphin-tank-must-be-closed-says-ric-obarry). 

 Compared to the fact that dolphin pods can swim up to 100 miles a day hunting for food, even the largest aquarium compares to less than 1 percent of their natural environment, cruel and unusual punishment. O’Barry is trying to get the attention of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) into shutting down this tank before it is too late and at the very least transferring these dolphins to a dolphinarium seawater pen a few hundred yards away—where they can receive sunlight and fresh air. 

You can help by signing this petition to shut down the smallest dolphin tank in the world:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/10/shut-down-the-smallest-dolphin-tank-in-the-world/


4/1/12--Update:  According to Ric O'Barry, Director of The Dolphin Project Earth Island Institute, "Sad" and "Lonely" have been moved to a larger, open-air tank.  A lot of the credit is due to mixed martial arts star, Enson Inoue, who personally called the Mayor of Taiji, Kazutaka Sangen, imploring him to move the two spotted dolphins.  According to O'Barry, "While the tank they are now in is not exactly huge, and lacks the stimulus of waves and natural seawater found in the sea pens, it is certainly better than the small dungeon they were locked in before."  (http://savejapandolphins.org/blog/post/partial-victory-sad-and-lonely-are-moved)