Blog

ALDF Speaks Out Against Factory Farm Pollution at Washington Board of Health Hearing


Posted by Liz Hallinan, ALDF Litigation Fellow on June 11, 2014

industrial-dairy-cc-usda-article-image-feature

Dairy cows being milked.

Today, Washington’s Board of Health is holding a hearing regarding the impacts of animal agriculture on public health and the environment. ALDF, along with several environmental groups, is speaking at the hearing to urge the Board to hold factory farms accountable for their role in polluting the state water supply.

Thousands of animals are confined in crowded and filthy conditions on factory farms in Washington where they are forced to stand in their own waste for their entire lives. These conditions not only lead to unimaginable animal suffering, but also contribute to the spread of disease, endangering both animal and human health. These thousands of animals also create an enormous amount of waste—which then goes untreated and leaks into ground and surface water.

For example, Washington has around 500 dairies, containing 200,000 cows who produce 20 million pounds of manure each day. This untreated manure is kept in unlined lagoons or is spread across fields. This waste then runs into surface and groundwater, polluting streams and aquifers with nitrates and E.Coli. In fact, the EPA has determined that the nitrate pollution of drinking water in the Lower Yakima Valley is the result of these industrial animal farms. Antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals fed to the animals on these farms also contaminate the drinking supply. Water pollution from factory farms is a well-established risk to public health.

manure-spreading-cc-Mark-Robinson-article-image-slim

Manure being spread on a field.

The Washington State Board of Health has the legal authority to promulgate rules to protect residents from the health hazards posed by manure from factory farms. ALDF is asking that the Board revise the regulations regarding the keeping of animals on concentrated animal operations to include specific and enforceable requirements for managing the spread of animal manure.

The Board of Health must act on this urgent matter, as neither the Washington Department of Ecology nor the Department of Agriculture is sufficiently regulating water pollution from factory farms. In fact, the Department of Ecology is charged by the federal Environmental Protection Agency with protecting the state waters under the Clean Water Act. However, the Department has so far ignored this duty and has required the federally mandated water pollution permit from only 1% of factory farms in the state.

It is imperative that Washington’s state agencies regulate the pollution coming from factory farms. Until then these facilities will continue to put both animal and human health at risk.

Click here to take action by asking the USDA to act on the coalition’s petition, 14-02.

27 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Will Lolita—Miami Seaquarium’s Lonely Orca—Star in Blackfish “Sequel”?


Posted by Jenni James, ALDF Litigation Fellow on June 10, 2014

The Miami Seaquarium is in the business of breaking laws. For decades, the Miami Seaquarium has confined Lolita, a wild born orca, in conditions that violate the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Lolita is kept in an undersized concrete aquarium prison and denied shade and the companionship of other orcas. Because of this, ALDF and PETA sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for renewing the Miami Seaquarium’s license.

The Miami Seaquarium has also been violating the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act—the law that protects employees from deadly workplace hazards, such as swimming with wild orcas. Miami Seaquarium has been requiring trainers to swim with and even ride upon Lolita as she performs tricks in her tiny tank, despite the law. ALDF included exclusive video evidence of this ongoing occupational hazard in a complaint sent to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). This complaint renews the request ALDF made first in November 2013, asking OSHA to investigate this blatant violation of the OSH Act.

To see the violation in question, click here (12:25 in the video).

The Miami Seaquarium has no excuse for its lawless behavior. The 2010 death of SeaWorld orca trainer Dawn Brancheau (made notorious by the award-winning documentary Blackfish), sparked a prolonged legal battle over employee safety. This battle ended in April 2014, when SeaWorld lost its appeal before a panel of judges from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez. The panel affirmed the decision below, which held that close contact with captive orcas is a recognized hazard, prohibited by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Despite this clear ruling, as depicted in ALDF’s video footage of Lolita’s May 10, 2014 performance, the Miami Seaquarium continues to ask its employees to put their lives on the line, all in the name of entertainment and profit. By doing so, they are inviting another tragic disaster like the one featured in Blackfish.

The legal issue is settled. The Miami Seaquarium is not immune from the Circuit Court’s decision. OSHA now has the opportunity to prevent another tragedy. In the process, Lolita will no longer be treated like a living surfboard. If you think an investigation is overdue, you can take action here.

54 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Caging Motherhood


Posted by Carol J. Adams, Guest Blogger on June 9, 2014

How is slavery normalized and naturalized? It may seem counterintuitive, but one way is to exhibit it. In the past, this involved selling enslaved African-Americans at public auctions or encouraging artistic depictions of “odalisques” (female slaves in the Ottoman Empire). Now, sows are transported to the California State Fair and kept on display in farrowing crates with their babies. That’s why, last summer, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against the Cal Expo and the U.C. Board of Regents for illegally transporting and displaying pregnant and nursing pigs at the Livestock Nursery Exhibit. Today, ALDF filed an appeal in that case.

This form of reproductive slavery begins with synchronizing sows’ pregnancies and delivery (including inducing labor). After giving birth, the sows are placed in farrowing crates. Farrowing crates were ostensibly created to keep the sow from rolling over and crushing her offspring. One wonders how pigs avoided extinction for all the centuries that they birthed prior to the creation of these body-gripping cages.

The farrowing crate frames female re-productivity: the ostensibly revered maternal body is controlled, dominated, displayed, and objectified. In fact, this captive reproduction deprives sows of expressing their maternal instinct which is to nurse and care for the piglets away from people.

The sow is burdened by sexist cultural representations that show her as wanting to be dominated, pregnant, and consumed. Consider “Lisa”:

lisa-copyright-carol-j-adams

A sexualized being who wants to bear children just for you.

Lisa was part of an exhibit at the annual convention of “pork producers.” Of course, the sow is—against her will—the real “pork producer.” For “Lisa,” production and reproduction are the same act, and her body is the raw material of production. I constantly hear from meat eaters, “it’s because of me that the animal I am eating was even born.” In fact, it’s because of the sow that “pork” and “bacon” exist; her status is so low she can be exhibited in her painful, cramped cage of motherhood. Exhibiting her is the act of reassurance that such treatment is okay. We can consult our own bodies (say on a cross country flight), and know that being confined and having restricted movement is not comfortable. Upon landing, besides reaching for their luggage stowed above them, people rise from the seats and stretch.

Any exhibit of sows in farrowing crates wants us to gawk, and in gawking be reassured. Discomfort? Anguish? “Lisa” and her sisters never get to stretch.

While the image of “Lisa” commits discursive violence, it exists to support a material form of violence. The sows at the California State Fair are not representations; they are actual beings, as is this sow:

pig-copyright-mercy-for-animals

Notice the words “Fat/Selfish bitch” in the upper left hand corner. Photo courtesy of Mercy of Animals Investigator, Iowa Select Farms.

From a sexualized female who “wants” to give you another baby through reproductive captivity to “fat selfish bitch,” the arc of the narrative being told about the child-bearing sow enforces on their lives and perpetuates some of the painful regressive stereotypes applied to women. Fat selfish bitch? Maybe she wanted to stretch.

Carol J. Adams is the author of The Sexual Politics of MeatEcoFeminism: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals & the Earth co-edited with Lori Gruen is forthcoming.

22 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

High Time to Modernize the Methods of Kosher Slaughter


Posted by Jeff Pierce and Carmine Lippolis, ALDF Litigation Fellows on June 6, 2014

kosher-slaughter2-copyright-amy-stevenson

The Times of Israel announced recently that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate has adopted a more modern view of gender: women will serve alongside men as Israel’s “kosher supervisors.” These watchmen and watchwomen ensure that slaughterhouse workers follow the religious mandates of shechita, granting (or withholding) the kosher imprimatur on commercially sold meat.

While we applaud the Chief Rabbinate for opening this door to women, we would urge them to modernize not merely the supervision of kosher slaughter but also its execution. The Chief Rabbinate should finally declare as abhorrent to Jewish law the abusive practice of “shackle and hoist” restraint, and should refuse to import any meat from those employing this cruelty.

But don’t kosher requirements already mandate the humane treatment of animals? Not exactly: kosher requirements generally dictate only how the animal must die. Namely, like this: while the animal is still conscious, the slaughterer makes a single slice across the animal’s throat; the animal’s blood pressure drops so suddenly that straightaway he loses consciousness.

Kosher requirements generally say far less about how the animal must live. Like their non-kosher counterparts, most animals who become kosher meat spend their lives in appalling confinement. Similarly, kosher requirements generally say little of how the animal must be handled in the moments surrounding death. Instead, secular regulations have filled that vacuum.

In the U.S., the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (PFDA) required that a slaughtered animal not collapse into the blood of those who went before him. Historically, the only method of kosher restraint was manual: the slaughterer would lay the animal on his side. But that didn’t comply with the PFDA. For the first time, kosher practitioners had to get the animal off the floor. Enter shackle and hoist. Ironically, the Jewish community opposed the PFDA because it essentially mandated cruelty.

The strong of heart may view this undercover footage of a shackle and hoist slaughterhouse in Uruguay, from which the U.S. and Israel import much of their kosher meat. In a 2010 article in The Los Angeles Times about that investigation, Temple Grandin, an expert on humane slaughter, said of shackle and hoist, “I’m getting fed up with it. It’s a really terrible practice and it needs to stop.” Grandin is joined by many influential Jewish groups who feel the same way. For example, the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards (CJLS) denounced shackle and hoist not only for its blatant cruelty but also because it violates another tenet of Jewish law, tsa’ar ba’alei chaim, the mandate not to cause suffering to living creatures.

Okay, but the CJLS is an authority only within Conservative Judaism. What about an Orthodox authority? The Chief Rabbinate itself. In 2008, after PETA publicized the above-referenced investigation, Israel’s highest religious leadership insisted it would “phase out” shackle and hoist. According to the Jerusalem Post, then-Chief Rabbi Metzger set the end of 2011 as the deadline. It’s now 2014, and steers are still strung up by a chain, bellowing and kicking as their blood courses to the killing floor. Alternatives exist that comply with both the kosher mandate and secular food safety requirements.

With the power to declare what is and is not kosher comes a responsibility not merely toward those who consume but also toward those who are consumed. As the Chief Rabbinate welcomes women into the field of kosher supervision, we urge the Rabbis to live up to the promise of their predecessors and to eliminate the most repugnant method of kosher slaughter.

11 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Horse Carriage Ban the Only Meaningful Way to Protect NYC’s Carriage Horses


Posted by Jeff Pierce, ALDF Litigation Fellow on June 5, 2014

Saverio Colarusso, the horse-drawn carriage driver charged with criminal animal cruelty in New York, is due back in court on June 16. Regardless of whether he cuts a plea deal or takes his case to trial, the allegation that he knowingly drove an injured horse (named Blondie) speaks volumes about the suffering that New York’s carriage horses endure.

new-york-carriage-horse-article-image-500px

(Mary Culpepper/Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages)

The facts in Blondie’s case, as alleged, are simple. Late last December, a police officer noticed that Blondie was limping and struggling while Mr. Colarusso was working her. When the officer questioned him, Mr. Colarusso reportedly stated that Blondie had been injured for four days. On that fourth day, Blondie had already been working the streets of New York City for five hours, all while her driver, by his own admission, knew she was injured.

Blondie had thrush, a painful hoof infection that, when left untreated, becomes severe enough to cause lameness. Thrush occurs in wet, muddy, or unsanitary conditions, like an unclean stable. Blondie lived at Clinton Park Stables–the same stables where, in early May, Irish actor Liam Neeson publicly hosted city councilmembers and touted the supposedly high quality of care the industry’s animals receive. Mr. Neeson, who has become the industry’s unofficial spokesman, insisted during an appearance on the Daily Show that carriage drivers “treat these horses like children.” But Mr. Colarusso’s case proves the contrary: carriage drivers make money by driving their horses, not by giving them the care and rest they deserve.

The case of Frank Luo, another shady carriage driver, reinforces the point. Mr. Luo is accused of trying to make an unhealthy, retirement-age horse named Ceasar (sic) appear to be a much younger, healthier horse named Carsen, so that he could continue to exploit Ceasar. When he got caught, he sent Ceasar out of state, beyond the reach of an official investigation. This is hardly any way to treat your children.

We’re sure Blondie and Ceasar are not the only horses forced to endure inhumane treatment, which is why the Animal Legal Defense Fund has an ongoing lawsuit against the NYPD to obtain public records of carriage-related accidents and injuries. This lawsuit was bolstered in April by the N.Y. Supreme Court’s agreement with ALDF that the public has a right to see these records.

With Mr. Colarusso’s criminal case still pending, the New York Post reported recently that New York’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), which regulates the carriage drivers, has revoked Mr. Colarusso’s license. The DCA opened its own case, opting wisely not to wait for Mr. Colarusso’s criminal case to run its course. Appearing before the department’s administrative judge, Mr. Colarusso tried to take back what he’d told the police officer, claiming that Blondie injured herself when she stumbled just 15 minutes prior to his questioning, startled by a garbage truck. The administrative judge didn’t buy it, and neither does the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

We applaud the DCA for revoking Mr. Colarusso’s license and urge it to do the same with Mr. Luo. In the meantime, we hope that Mr. Colarusso’s criminal case will reach a just end that properly acknowledges the suffering the industry’s voiceless victims endure, and we call upon the Mayor and City Council to move more swiftly to shut down an industry that, ultimately, victimizes all its horses.

Take Action

Take the pledge! Join ALDF in calling for the shut down of the horse-drawn carriage industry.

Take Action Button

22 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Legally Brief: the U.S. Must Ban Cosmetic Testing on Animals


Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF Executive Director on June 5, 2014

Legally Brief

Some good news may be coming for animals: the Humane Cosmetics Act, introduced by Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) as “HR 4148.” If passed, the Act would eliminate animal testing for cosmetics made or sold in the U.S. It would also make it illegal to sell or transport cosmetics across state lines if any part of that product has been manufactured by testing on animals after the ban is implemented. The bill has bipartisan support and recently Michael Grimm (R-NY) signed on as a co-sponsor, along with nearly 50 other members of Congress.

rabbit-cc-the-original-turtle-article-image-500pxAnimals—most commonly rabbits and rats—are used in acute toxicity tests where they are force-fed or forced to inhale massive doses of a chemical ingredient, and as a result will suffer severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, convulsions, paralysis, seizures, and/or bleeding before death. Other tests include eye and skin corrosion tests, in which rabbits are fully restrained while chemical substances are dripped into their eyes or rubbed into their shaved skin, creating ulcers, scabs, swelling, or blindness. These results are subjective at best and can only predict human reaction with approximately 65% accuracy in most cases.

Furthermore, these tests have been done already, for years—and none of these cosmetic tests are required by law—not by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and not by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) or any other law or regulatory body. Worse still, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)—the federal law that regulates animal testing—is poorly enforced, and doesn’t address or provide any legal protection for most of the millions of animals tested on—like rats, mice, and birds.

So why are these cruel, unnecessary tests performed? It is likely that these tests are used by corporations to shield themselves from potential liability in the event they are sued. But even so, it is in the best interest for the industry itself to use alternatives to testing on animals because such tests are known to be unreliable, expensive, and time-consuming. More importantly, they cause tremendous and unnecessary suffering to sentient beings. Scientists have already developed alternatives that use human blood, cell, or skin tissues, or advanced computer technology to test the safety of cosmetic products. Companies already using these alternative methods have cut costs, time, and cruelty. There are numerous, widely available brands that have never been tested on animals—see ALDF’s Cruelty-Free Consumer Guide.

As recently noted in Scientific American, the U.S. has been behind the times when it comes to preventing cruelty to animals in unnecessary laboratory testing. The European Union has banned cosmetic testing and even prohibits the marketing of cosmetic products tested on animals. In contrast, China requires such testing, and the U.S., while not requiring it, has not stepped up to ban it. Happily, that may finally change with the Humane Cosmetics Act.

Just this week, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health held a Briefing on The Humane Cosmetics Act (H.R. 4148): Advances and Challenges in Replacing Animal Use in Cosmetic Testing in Washington, D.C., in which experts discussed the scientific advances in non-animal testing for cosmetic safety, and the scientific, legal, and policy challenges that remain, and how the Humane Cosmetics Act could impact other U.S. laws and policies.

The Humane Cosmetics Act would encourage the development of new testing methods that don’t harm animals, and increase the use of advanced testing alternatives already available. Better, more reliable methods of testing mean eliminating testing on animals. Our need to produce safe products corresponds directly with our need to make those products humane, and both are possible under the law.

For more information, order ALDF’s “Animal Testing and the Law” brochure.

98 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

California Gives ESA Protections to Lone Wolf and His Pups


Posted by Jennifer Molidor, ALDF Staff Writer on June 4, 2014

wolf-pups-cc-us-fish-and-wildlife-article-image-500px

Wolf pups spotted near the California border. (Photo by US Fish & Wildlife)

Fantastic news! The California Fish and Game Commission voted today to protect wolves under our state Endangered Species Act (ESA). California’s lone wolf, known as “OR-7,” aka “Journey,” is a male gray wolf who has roamed our northern mountains for several years, unprotected until now under the ESA. For years, we feared for Journey’s safety, particularly because shameful “coyote killing contests” are bad for wolves who are easily mistaken for coyotes and bad for the thousands of coyotes slaughtered each year nationwide. Now, with these new protections for wolves at least, killing a wolf in California carries a punishment of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to a year in the county jail, under the state’s Fish and Game code.

But today is a good news day for wolves—and not just because of the long-awaited protections under the ESA. Just hours before this announcement from the commission, it was confirmed that Journey has had pups!

The lone wolf now has a pack, and Journey and his family will be protected under state law. He has traveled thousands of miles throughout Oregon and Northern California and is the first and only wolf in California since 1924. He has been tracked in Shasta County, Siskiyou County, and Oregon’s Klamath County—and is perhaps the most well-known wolf in the United States and beyond. In fact, recently he was the subject of documentary called OR-7, which screened in Portland just last month.

Huge kudos goes to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) who has fought hard on this issue—and submitted a petition in 2012. As CBD knows, it’s not just good news for Journey: its good news for the future of our wild habitats and the wildlife who inhabit them—because gray wolves are a central part of the biodiversity of California’s mountainous northern ecosystems. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, crossing the boundary between California and Oregon, is a breathtaking, outstanding natural resource. In fact, it holds the largest concentration of intact watersheds and untouched wilderness on the Pacific coast, covers 10 million acres, and is defined by the mighty Rogue River watershed.

Congratulations Journey and pups! Slán abhaile, as they say in Irish. Safe journey home.

 

4 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Pink the Pelican Released after Savage Animal Cruelty Attack


Posted by Shelley Rizzotti, Vice Chair, ALDF-LA on June 4, 2014

As an attorney dedicated to winning justice for animals, yesterday was a truly special day for me. I had the pleasure of watching the release of the California Brown Pelican named “Pink,” who was returned to the wild after a month and a half recovery from a savage attack. In the April 2014 attack, a perpetrator—who is still at large—butchered Pink’s entire throat pouch and left him to die. The International Bird Rescue—a San Pedro, Calif. based nonprofit—has been caring for Pink and rehabilitating him since the attack, and we are thrilled at his recovery and release.

pink-copyright-International-Bird-Rescue-Bill-Steinkamp-article-image-slim

Pink flies free after being released on June 3, 2014 at at White Point Park in San Pedro, California. (Copyright International Bird Rescue/Bill Steinkamp)

In a surgical room packed with reporters at International Bird Rescue yesterday, Pink received his final pre-release medical clearance. His pink hospital band (hence his nickname, “Pink”) was removed and replaced with a blue identifier: “V70.” He was then placed in a crate and transported a few miles to Royal Palms Beach Park, where even more press awaited to see him released.  As a Los Angeles Council Member was addressing the press, a little girl, walking through the park with her parents, approached the crate, oblivious to the cameras, microphones, film equipment and the 50 or more people surrounding the crate. She interrupted the Councilmember and told him she wanted to give the bird some bread. Her little voice silenced the crowd of hundreds, and her concern for the bird in the crate spoke to us all.

pink-the-pelican-cc-aldf-article-image-slim

Pink’s last checkup before his release.

Pink’s story isn’t just about a miraculous recovery and release. The heart of his story is really the torture of a defenseless animal. The photos of Pink’s weak and helpless state, with his throat slashed, incited people to action and drew huge media attention. As a result, International Bird Rescue says that reporting of bird injuries along the coast have drastically increased because of Pink’s story—meaning that countless other birds are also now getting a second chance at flying free.

This story reminds us that animal abuse everywhere needs to be reported and prosecuted. That is why the Animal Legal Defense Fund and International Bird Rescue, along with several concerned anonymous citizens, are offering a total $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person (s) responsible for this attack—which could mean felony penalties and prison time. In addition, the Port of Long Beach has put up $5,000 toward Pink’s surgical and rehabilitative care. California Brown Pelicans like Pink are threatened species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and under California’s Penal Code, which prohibits maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, or wounding a living animal. Although we are delighted by Pink’s recovery and release into the wild, his story demonstrates just how much animals need protection under the law.

pink-the-pelican2-cc-aldf-article-image-slim

Pink flies free, as all pelicans should.

Anyone with information that might lead to the arrest and conviction of the person (s) responsible for the mutilation of this bird should contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 310-328-1516.

No Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Summer Reading for Animal Advocates


Posted by Jennifer Molidor, ALDF Staff Writer on June 4, 2014

ALDF wants to hear from you! This week, we are inviting readers to write in and share their favorite animal protection-themed books. The best suggestions will be included in our post next week at aldf.org! Help us put together the best summer reading list on animal protection as you get ready for summer and catching up on those books you’ve been meaning to read!

dog-cc-Timo-Derstappen-article-image-feature

New Books Coming Up in the Animal Book Club

Recently in the Animal Book Club

Each of these books raises important issues that the Animal Legal Defense Fund is working on to help protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. These issues include:

What is the best animal book you’ve read recently? Do you have a favorite quote? Let us know!

Send your choices to Jennifer at books@aldf.org and don’t forget to “Like” us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter!

Happy Reading!

10 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Love animals? Volunteer at a Sanctuary!


Posted by Kelly Levenda, Animal Law Program Fellow and Nicole Pallotta, Ph.D., Student Programs Coordinator on June 3, 2014

Do you like spending time with rescued animals? Volunteer at a farmed animal sanctuary! This is a great group project for SALDF chapters. We visited Wildwood Farm Sanctuary in Newberg, Oregon. Their mission is to provide shelter and rehabilitation for abused and abandoned farmed animals, and inspire change in the way society views and treats them by promoting a compassionate and cruelty free lifestyle. At Wildwood we met ducks, rabbits, peacocks and pea hens, turkeys, chickens, alpacas, goats, and calves.

peacock-cc-kelly-lavenda-6111-article-image-slim

Rowdy, the male peacock, was abandoned and found wandering the streets of Portland. As male peacocks can be very vocal, many neighbors found him bothersome and disruptive. Now at Wildwood he is free to vocalize as loud and as much as he wants!

chicken-cc-kelly-lavenda-6116-article-image-slim

Wildwood took in 40 hens from the largest California farmed animal rescue. The Turlock, California, based company A&L Poultry abandoned 50,000 hens without food and left them to die. Animal Place, Farm Sanctuary, and Harvest Home Animal Sanctuary were able to rescue the surviving 5,000 hens. ALDF and Schiff Hardin have sued the owners of the egg farm to hold them responsible for their heinous cruelty. The hens now have a second chance at life, being able to express natural chicken behavior such as dust bathing, wandering, catching bugs in the tall grass, and building nests. They still bear the scars of being debeaked at just a few days of age, although that doesn’t stop them from enjoying life.

turkey-cc-kelly-lavenda-article-image-slim

Spencer the turkey was being raised to be killed for Thanksgiving dinner, but his owner had a change of heart and Wildwood took him in. Now, he is free to wander the barnyard where he loves to show off his beautiful plumage for the (human) ladies.

llama-cc-kelly-lavenda-6116-article-image-slim

The alpacas, Jax and Brownie, were rescued by authorities when the farm where they lived was investigated for animal cruelty. When they arrived at Wildwood, they were thirty pounds underweight, had overgrown hooves and teeth, and were terrified of people. They are slowly recovering from their neglect.

cows-cc-kelly-lavenda-6116-article-image-slim

The calves, Ferd, Blitzen, and Valentino, were rescued from a dairy farm the day they were born. After being taken away from their mothers shortly after their birth, they were scheduled to be picked up by a veal farmer. With permission from the dairy owner, Wildwood took the three calves and drove them to their new home in the backseat of a pickup truck!

nicole-kelly-cc-kelly-lavenda-article-image-slim

At ALDF we sometimes say “we may be the only lawyers on earth whose clients are all innocent.” The precious few farmed animals who find their way to safety and sanctuary, along with their brethren who are exploited and slaughtered by the millions each year, are innocent, and no less deserving of love and protection than those animals we define as “pets.” Currently farmed animals receive only miniscule protections by our legal system today. Sanctuaries for farmed animals are sites of cultural resistance that challenge the dominant narrative, forged through years of powerful socialization, that tells us it is normal to love cats, but not pigs, and protect dogs, but not cows. As long as the law so clearly fails to protect farmed animals, the easiest way to know you are not contributing to their abuse is by refusing to economically support the animal agriculture industry and adopting a plant-based diet.

More Information

To find an animal sanctuary near you, type “farm animal sanctuary” into Google, followed by your state, or other location.

5 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

The Ultimate Betrayal: Is There Happy Meat?


Posted by Jennifer Molidor, ALDF Staff Writer on May 29, 2014

the-ultimate-betrayalThis week, the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Animal Book Club is considering the question of “happy meat” or humane farming. Can the concept of humane slaughter be implemented realistically, or does the label merely make us feel better about the consumption of sentient beings? What does the law say, and how do animal protection laws, food safety laws, and trends in consumption reflect the contradictions in these concepts? These are issues considered in a recent book by Hope and Cogen Bohanec called The Ultimate Betrayal: Is There Happy Meat?

As consumers grow more conscious of the animal cruelty and the environmental degradation caused by industrial agriculture—known as factory farming—they pay more attention to labeling. For example, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has petitioned the USDA to regulate labels on meat and poultry containing antibiotics. That legal petition is bolstered by a petition signed by more than 100,000 people and counting, asking the USDA to require labels on meat derived from animals given antibiotics. Most antibiotics sold in this country are fed to farmed animals (rather than humans) who are not even sick. Antibiotics are given to animals preventatively—prior to the outbreak of illnesses derived from living in unimaginably close quarters on factory farms. This overuse of antibiotics is helping to breed resistance in bacteria, or “superbugs,” who are immune to antibiotics. This is potentially the number one health threat in the U.S. And consumers who want to avoid meat produced with antibiotics have no reliable way to identify such products without proper labels.

Conscious consumers often turn to alternatives like small and/or local farms, yet remain vulnerable to vague and loosely regulated labels like “organic” and “cage-free,” even though state law and regulatory agencies do not define these terms (or enforce the laws) very clearly. As the authors of The Ultimate Betrayal write, cage-free can mean “a large, windowless warehouse where tens of thousands of birds are confined inside on the floor… with just about one square foot of floor space per bird….” Furthermore, many cage-free warehouses are on the same factory farms as the controversial battery-cage operations. Truth-in-advertising is critical in order to ensure consumers are not deceived, and ALDF recently settled a lawsuit on this very issue with a Bay Area egg producer. We resolved a similar issue with the largest producer of force-fed “foie gras” (the diseased livers of young ducks and geese) in the nation, when they marketed themselves as “humane” producers.

Consumers do care about these issues. Californians passed “Prop 2,” which banned (as other states have) the use of “gestation crates” that prevent pregnant pigs from standing, turning around, or moving comfortably. Studies have shown that consumers are willing to pay a premium for animal products they perceive to have been produced “humanely.” Yet with anti-cruelty laws that are hard to enforce, and conditions at factory farms or even small farms that are difficult for the severely understaffed federal agencies like the USDA and FDA to regulate, how do we determine what is “humane” about consuming animal products? From warehouses and sheds to the hooks at the slaughterhouse, from environmental concerns to animal cruelty… just how humane can animal agriculture be? The authors conclude their study by writing “we are now convinced that the state of alternative agriculture is actually worse than we thought when we started this project. We found time and again that the conditions for the animals are only marginally improved by alternative farming methods and inherent cruelties abound.” For more information about alternative practices and the problem with “humane” meat, read The Ultimate Betrayal.

Authors Hope and Cogen Bohanec, two local activists residing in ALDF’s own backyard of Sonoma County, California, have long dedicated their lives to animal advocacy and environmental protection. Hope Bohanec is Projects Manager for United Poultry Concerns. The Ultimate Betrayal is now available in soft cover and e-book on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

5 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Legally Brief: ALDF’s Case to Free Tony the Tiger


Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF Executive Director on May 22, 2014

Legally Brief

Our campaign to free Tony the Tiger continues. What would it mean to “free” a 14 year-old Siberian-Bengal Tiger named Tony who has spent all his life in a small cage at a Louisiana truck stop? Freeing Tony would mean sending him to a reputable sanctuary, where he can finally have some peace in his lifetime and live like a tiger—rather than as a truck stop gimmick in a concrete prison pacing back and forth continuously, surrounded by noise and diesel truck exhaust. The Animal Legal Defense Fund has spent years in court fighting for Tony’s freedom. And we won—our victory was upheld by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, and the Louisiana State Supreme Court refused to revisit that decision. But Tony’s owner, having lost repeatedly in court, while continuing to display Tony illegally, has tried to sneak a bill, “SB 250,” through the Louisiana legislature that would allow him to skirt the law.

That’s why the Animal Legal Defense Fund works to protect animals by covering all the bases within the legal system. We work with legislatures to ensure laws reflect what’s best for animals. We work with law enforcement to ensure that these laws are actually enforced. And—in addition to our highly successful animal law education initiatives, with hundreds of student ALDF chapters in the top law schools in the land—when individuals violate the law, like Tony’s owner, we file suit and take them to court.

The Louisiana legislature is now considering “SB 250,” which, if passed, could essentially undo every victory ALDF has achieved for Tony and relegate him to a life living in a truck stop parking lot. The bill aims to “exempt certain persons from the requirements of the big exotic cats rules.” Exempting “certain persons” (meaning Tony’s owner) would not only remove Tony’s legal protections, but it would allow an individual like Tony’s owner to undermine the judicial process. Aside from keeping Tony imprisoned, passing such a bill would send the dangerous message that if you don’t like a law, you can just hire some lobbyists to try to rewrite it—in this case Louisiana’s ban on private ownership of tigers and other exotic cats. As that law’s sponsor, representative Warren Triche, notes, it was written specifically to prevent tragic situations like Tony’s. For this tiger, and for all animals, we must make it clear that playing fast and loose with the law is unacceptable, no matter how deep your pockets or how tight your political connections.

tony-the-tiger-copyright-JS-2014

This frustrating saga shows how hard it is for animal advocates to protect animals. But long as we work together to unite all aspects of the legal system, from criminal justice to innovative litigation and legislative affairs, we will win the case against animal cruelty. It’s important that everyone stands up for animals and does their part.

Here at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we have a strong connection to Tony’s plight, and our hearts break at the possibility that he may never get his freedom. And if this kind of sneaky, back-door affront to our legal system is allowed to continue, many other tigers may face the same fate.

Tony urgently needs your help—please take action for Tony today, and read more about his story here.

Take Action Button

13 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Improving Conditions for Captive Primates


Posted by Liz Hallinan, ALDF Litigation Fellow on May 20, 2014

chimp-cc-richard-lewis-article-image-feature

Last week, ALDF joined a coalition of animal welfare organizations petitioning the USDA to improve the conditions for primates in laboratories across the country. Years of creative research and hundreds of studies have documented the complex mental abilities of primates. We know that most primates—like monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees—are highly social and use sophisticated reasoning to understand tools, numbers, and other individuals. Yet these intelligent creatures are often subjected to horribly substandard conditions in research laboratories where they are housed alone in barren cages, without access to the outdoors or even to natural materials.

The federal Animal Welfare Act sets the minimum standards for animals in research laboratories. This law requires the USDA to establish rules governing the treatment and housing of many research animals (excluding rats, mice, and birds). In 1985, Congress amended the Animal Welfare Act to include the requirement that research facilities provide space and conditions that promote the psychological health and well-being of primates. In response, the USDA passed a regulation stating that laboratories must “develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates.”

What does this mean for apes and monkeys? This vague regulation allows research laboratories to determine their own minimum standard for primate welfare. Not surprisingly, as a result, many laboratories ignore the severe suffering of isolated primates, and USDA inspectors cannot adequately enforce the promotion of psychological well-being for these animals. There is a better way to make sure primates receive proper care under the law.

Instead of these vague regulations, ALDF’s petition requests that the USDA adopt the strict guidelines that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) developed for chimpanzee care in 2013. These guidelines recognize the intelligence and sensitivity of chimpanzees and their need for social and environmental stimulation. These guidelines also require that chimpanzees be housed in sufficiently large social groups, have year-round access to the outdoors, be fed a varied diet, and that they have access to natural materials and bedding. The petition requests that, at a minimum, the USDA adopt these clear standards for chimpanzees—and adopt similar standards for all other primate species used in research.

For almost 30 years, Congress has recognized that primates possess highly developed cognitive abilities and therefore require significant psychological care. It is about time the USDA passes regulations reflecting this knowledge.

24 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Mother’s Day Spotlight: Betty and Peanut


Posted by Megan Backus, ALDF Media Relations Associate on May 11, 2014

In 2010, while volunteering for a local dog rescue, I met Betty and Peanut. The timid Chihuahua pair were mother and daughter and had been rescued from a Northern California puppy mill.

betty-peanut-article-image-feature

For me, it was love at first sight with the adorable duo, so naturally when their foster family could no longer keep them, I offered to take them in. As the months went by we become closely attached, and I realized there was no way I could let them go. I made the decision to adopt them, and it’s been a heartwarming journey ever since. During the past few years they have truly come out of their shells and learned how to accept kindness. The girls love visiting with new people, playing with toys, going on walks and snuggle time. I’m deeply grateful that I was able to keep this deeply bonded mother and daughter together, especially after the neglect and poor conditions they endured for the first years of their lives.

However, not all dogs are given such happy endings. Thousands of dogs are suffering immensely in “puppy mills”—large-scale, unethical commercial dog-breeding facilities—so they can be sold to unsuspecting consumers. Dogs produced in puppy mills not only endure terrible conditions before purchase, but are prone to contagious disease, heart and hip problems, and serious breathing difficulties.

Please take action now and tell the USDA to shut down law-breaking puppy mills!

Take Action Button

2 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

A United Front against Ag Gag


Posted by Stephen Wells, ALDF Executive Director on May 8, 2014

Legally Brief

What issue holds the power to unite a coalition as broad ranging as animal protection organizations, labor unions, civil rights groups, journalists, and environmental watchdogs? The legal work the Animal Legal Defense Fund does on behalf of animals brings together those who stand up to injustice anywhere—and so-called “ag gag” laws are truly an affront to justice everywhere.

In the last two weeks, the AFL-CIO, the Government Accountability Project, and many journalist organizations—including National Public Radio—led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, submitted legal briefs in support of ALDF’s lawsuit against the state of Idaho for its controversial and unconstitutional ag gag law (and its recent attempt to have our lawsuit thrown out of court). In the lawsuit itself, ALDF is joined by the ACLU, Center for Food Safety, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in challenging the state’s attempt to criminalize whistle-blowers who might expose cruel, unsafe, or illegal activities on factory farms.

ALDF, PETA, the ACLU, and Center for Food Safety, are also representing Farm Sanctuary, Farm Forward, Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment, the Idaho Hispanic Caucus Institute for Research and Education, River’s Wish Sanctuary, Sandpoint Vegetarians, Western Watersheds Project, journalist Will Potter, undercover investigations consultant Daniel Hauff, investigator Monte Hickman, professor James McWilliams, investigative journalist Blair Koch, and the political journal CounterPunch. ALDF’s similar lawsuit against the state of Utah for its unconstitutional ag gag statute has also received immense support from constitutional law experts and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

cow-barn-CC-Clan-UiBriainarticle-image-feature

To put it plainly, lobbyists for industrial agriculture, like the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, are attempting to write their own laws—laws that sacrifice our constitutional rights to pad their profits. But the tide is turning and most recent ag gag bills have failed. Why? Because people are uniting against corporate ag’s attempt to “gag” whistle-blowers who expose the truth. And this type of coalition and bridge-building is exactly what will help us protect animals, people, and our planet.

Factory farming is not only the largest contributor to animal cruelty—with billions of animals brutalized each year—but is one of the top contributors to climate change and presents ongoing violations of environmental laws and worker safety laws, health hazards, food safety recalls, and challenges to our rights to freedom of press.

For this reason, animal organizations like ALDF are working with environmentalists, journalists, law enforcement, civil rights advocates, and labor unionists. And the Animal Legal Defense is one of the forefront national nonprofits pulling together these groups by taking on the serious problems raised by industrial agriculture. “With much of the conversation rightly focused on animal welfare, we want Idahoans and the court to also understand that this law has the potential to imperil workers, and infringes on workers’ rights to a safe workplace,” said Rian Van Leuven, President of the Idaho State AFL-CIO. “If a worker wanted to demonstrate that worker safety was being jeopardized by unsafe conditions—such as an unventilated manure pit, broken equipment, or an electrocution hazard—and they took a photo of such conditions, they’d be subject to criminal penalties. That runs against everything we stand for.”

In so many ways, factory farming runs against everything most of us stand for.

 

23 Comments  |  Leave A Comment

Be a Partner in Protection!

Donate monthly to help animals.

or make a one-time gift »

Stay Connected

Sign up for Action Alerts.


Join Us

Follow ALDF on these networks:

Facebook Twitter YouTube Pinterest

Stay Connected

Sign up for Action Alerts.