If you cannot use these buttons click

Humane USA News Archives

Current Articles

Current Press Releases

Current Humane USA in the News

Past Campaigns

Past Press Releases

Moran Endorsement Word document

Past Letters

Deutsch Word document

Joe Schwartz Word document

Stenholm Word document

News

Campaigns and Elections 2004

The PDF versions of these articles are available online. To save it to your desktop, right-click on the highlighted word and then select "Save Target As" from the drop-down menu that will appear.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

Humane USA PAC
P.O. Box 19224
Washington, D.C. 20036
Email: humaneusa@humaneusa.org

Please note that the following are past issues and the links may be broken or no longer appropriate. To help with current issues, click HERE.

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

Status in 2003 - 2004 : Pending

Humane USA Position : Support

H. R. 857
To prevent the slaughter of horses in and from the United States for human consumption by prohibiting the slaughter of horses for human consumption and by prohibiting the trade and transport of horseflesh and live horses intended for human consumption, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2003

Mr. SWEENEY (for himself, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. FORD, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. GREENWOOD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on International Relations and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (Introduced in House)

108th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 857
To prevent the slaughter of horses in and from the United States for human consumption by prohibiting the slaughter of horses for human consumption and by prohibiting the trade and transport of horseflesh and live horses intended for human consumption, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2003

A BILL
To prevent the slaughter of horses in and from the United States for human consumption by prohibiting the slaughter of horses for human consumption and by prohibiting the trade and transport of horseflesh and live horses intended for human consumption, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as `The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Horses have played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States.
(2) Horses in the United States are not raised for food or fiber.
(3) As a non-food and recreational animal, horses should be protected from slaughter.
(4) The foreign-owned horse slaughter industry has slaughtered and exported for human consumption over 3 million American horses in the last 2 decades.
(5) Approximately 55,000 American horses are slaughtered for human consumption annually in the United States by foreign-owned slaughterhouses. Tens of thousands of live horses are exported from the United States annually for slaughter.
(6) Horses slaughtered in these foreign-owned plants in the United States have often been hauled several thousand miles over several days, contrary to acceptable non-slaughter standards for water, food, and rest.
(7) Many horses shipped to slaughter are young, healthy animals. Others are old, sick, blind, crippled and in otherwise poor condition and are unfit to withstand the rigors of long travel. Horses sent to be slaughtered are often shipped on crowded double deck trucks designed for shorter necked species such as pigs, cattle and sheep, and are forced to travel in a bent position which can result in suffering, injury and death.
(8) Killing of horses by foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the United States contrasts with the preferable method of killing by chemical euthanasia.
(9) Horses endure repeated blows to the head with stunning equipment that often does not render the animals unconscious. Some horses proceed still conscious through the remaining stages of slaughter being bled out and dismembered.
(10) Because horses in America are not food animals, veterinarians commonly prescribe and treat horses with potent drugs that may reside in the horseflesh and be dangerous when consumed by humans.
(11) Because of the lack of disclosure on the part of the agents and dealers for the slaughter plants people's horses are many times acquired and slaughtered through fraud and misrepresentation. Slaughter also provides a quick and evidence-free outlet for stolen horses.
(12) The imposition of a ban on the sale of horseflesh for human consumption, regardless of its source, is consistent with the international obligations of the United States because it applies equally to domestic and foreign producers and avoids any discrimination among foreign sources of competing products. Such a ban is also consistent with provisions of international agreements to which the United States is a party that expressly allow for measures designed to protect the health and welfare of animals and to enjoin the use of deceptive trade practices in international or domestic commerce.

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is --

(1) to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption;
(2) to prohibit the sale, possession, and trade of horseflesh for human consumption;
(3) to prohibit the sale, possession, and trade of live horses for slaughter for human consumption.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions apply:

(1) EUTHANASIA- The term `euthanasia' means to kill an animal humanely by means that immediately renders the animal unconscious, with this state remaining until the animal's swift death.
(2) EXPORT- The term `export' means to take from any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to a place not subject to such jurisdiction, whether or not the taking constitutes an exportation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
(3) HORSE- The term `horse' means all members of the equid family, including horses, ponies, donkeys, mules, asses, and burros.
(4) HORSEFLESH- The term `horseflesh' means the flesh of a dead horse, including the animal's viscera, skin, hair, hide, hooves, and bones.
(5) HUMAN CONSUMPTION- The term `human consumption' means ingestion by people as a source of food.
(6) IMPORT- The term `import' means to bring into any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from a place not subject to such jurisdiction, whether or not the bringing constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
(7) PERSON- The term `person' means--

(A) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or other private entity;
(B) an officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of--

(i) the Federal Government; or
(ii) any State, municipality, or political subdivision of State; or

(8) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Agriculture.
(9) SLAUGHTER- The term `slaughter' means the commercial slaughter of one or more horses with the intent to sell, barter, or trade the flesh for human consumption.
(10) STATE- The term `State' means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory, or possession of the United States.
(11) TRANSPORT- The term `transport' means to move by any means, or to receive or load onto a vehicle for the purpose of movement.
(12) UNITED STATES- The term `United States' means the customs territory of the United States, as defined in general note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITED ACTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- A person shall not--

(1) slaughter a horse for human consumption;
(2) import into, or export from, the United States horseflesh for human consumption or live horses intended for slaughter for human consumption;
(3) sell or barter, offer to sell or barter, purchase, possess, transport, deliver, or receive horseflesh for human consumption or live horses intended for slaughter for human consumption; or
(4) solicit, request, or otherwise knowingly cause any act prohibited under paragraph (1), (2), or (3).

SEC. 6. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.

(a) CRIMINAL PENALTIES- A person who violates section 5 shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) CIVIL PENALTIES-

(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates any provision of section 5 shall, in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty that may be imposed under title 18, United States Code, or any other provision of law, be assessed, by the Secretary, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 but not less than $2,500, and shall have confiscated all horses in that person's physical or legal possession at the time of arrest, if said horses are intended for slaughter.
(2) DEBARMENT- The Secretary shall prohibit a person from importing, exporting, transporting, trading, or selling horses in the United States, if the Secretary finds that the person has engaged in a pattern or practice of actions that has resulted in a final judicial or administrative determination with respect to the assessment of criminal or civil penalties for violations of any provision of this Act

(c) NOTICE; HEARING- No monetary penalty may be assessed under this subsection against a person unless the person is given notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to such violation in accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) ENFORCEMENT-

(1) USE OF PERSONNEL- The Secretary shall enforce this Act, and may use, by agreement, the personnel, services, and facilities of any other Federal, State, or local agency for the purposes of enforcing this Act. For good cause shown, the Secretary may remit or mitigate any civil penalty.
(2) EXECUTION OF PROCESS; ARREST; SEARCH; SEIZURE- Any person authorized by the Secretary to enforce this Act may execute any warrant or process issued by any officer or court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this Act. Such a person so authorized may, in addition to any other authority conferred by law--

(A) with or without warrant or other process, arrest any person committing in his presence or view a violation of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder;
(B) seize the cargo of any truck or other conveyance used or employed to violate this Act or the regulations issued hereunder or which reasonably appears to have been so used or employed; and
(C) seize, whenever and wherever found, all horses and horseflesh possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder and dispose of them, in accordance with this section and regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(3) PLACEMENT OF CONFISCATED HORSES-

(A) TEMPORARY PLACEMENT- After confiscation of a live horse pursuant to this Act, the arresting authorities shall work with animal welfare societies and animal control departments to ensure the temporary placement of the horse with an animal rescue facility that is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code, while the person charged with violating this Act is prosecuted. If placement at such a facility is not possible, the arresting authorities shall work with animal welfare societies and animal control departments to temporarily place the horse with a facility that has as its primary purpose the humane treatment of animals, or another suitable location.
(B) BONDS-

(i) POSTING OF BOND- The owner of a horse confiscated pursuant to this Act may prevent permanent placement of the horse by the facility that has temporary custody of the horse by posting a bond with the court in an amount the court determines is sufficient to provide for the necessary care and keeping of the horse for at least 60 days, including the day on which the horse was taken into custody. Such bond shall be filed with the court within 10 days after the horse is confiscated. If a bond is not so posted, the custodial facility shall determine permanent placement of the horse in accordance with reasonable practices for the humane treatment of animals. If the animal has not yet been returned to the owner at the end of the time for which expenses are covered by the bond, and if the owner desires to prevent permanent placement of the animal by the custodial facility, the owner shall post a new bond with the court within ten days following the prior bond's expiration. If a new bond is not so posted, the custodial facility shall determine permanent placement of the horse in accordance with reasonable practices for the humane treatment of animals.
(ii) COSTS FOR PROVIDING CARE FOR HORSE DEDUCTED FROM BOND- If a bond has been posted in accordance with clause (i), the custodial facility may draw from the bond the actual reasonable costs incurred by the facility in providing the necessary care and keeping of the confiscated horse from the date of the initial confiscation to the date of final disposition of the horse in the criminal action charging a violation of this Act.

(C) PERMANENT PLACEMENT- Any horse confiscated pursuant to this Act and not returned to the owner thereafter (except where otherwise provided in paragraph (4)) shall be placed permanently with an animal rescue facility or other suitable facility as described in this section upon--

(i) the conviction of the horse's owner pursuant to this Act;
(ii) the owner's surrender of the horse;
(iii) the failure of the horse's owner to post a bond as required in accordance with subparagraph (B); or
(iv) the Secretary's inability to identify the owner.

(4) EUTHANASIA OF HORSES-

(A) EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES- The Secretary or any law enforcement individual charged with enforcing this Act may order or perform the immediate euthanasia of any horse in the field when such horse is injured beyond recovery and suffering irreversibly. Methods used shall be in accordance with the most recent Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Panel on Euthanasia (2000) and State and local laws and may include gunshot, but shall not include electrocution or penetrating captive bolt.
(B) HORSES BEYOND RECOVERY AND UNPLACEABLE- The Secretary or any individual charged with enforcing this Act may order the euthanasia of any confiscated horse when injured, disabled, or diseased beyond recovery or when placement at an animal rescue facility or other suitable facility, as described in this section, is not possible within 90 days of any circumstance as described in section 6(d)(3)(C). An equine or large-animal veterinarian shall perform the euthanasia rated `Acceptable' for horses in the most recent Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Panel on Euthanasia (2000), but shall not include penetrating captive bolt, electrocution, gunshot, or other non-chemical means.

(e) FUNDING OF ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITIES-

(1) GRANTS- To the extent that funds are made available for this purpose by Acts of appropriation, the Secretary shall make grants to animal rescue facilities described in this section that have given adequate assurances to the Secretary that they are willing to accept horses confiscated pursuant to this Act.
(2) PENALTIES, FINES, AND FORFEITED PROPERTY- Amounts received as penalties, fines, or forfeited property under this Act shall be used for the care of any live horses seized from violators of this Act and taken into the possession of the United States or placed with an animal rescue facility as described in this section.

(f) CALCULATION OF VIOLATIONS- For purposes of this section, a separate offense shall be calculated as follows:

(1) Each live horse transported, traded, slaughtered, or possessed in violation of this Act shall constitute a separate offense.
(2) Every four hundred pounds or less of confiscated horseflesh shall constitute a separate offense.

SEC. 7. REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS.

Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and on an annual basis thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the efforts of the United States Government to enforce the provisions of this Act and the adequacy of the resources to do so.

SEC. 8. EXEMPTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in section 5, nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the regulation by any State of its horse population.
(b) EXCEPTION FOR DESIGNATED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL PURPOSES- A person described in section 4(7)(B) may engage in activities described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 5 solely for purposes of enforcing this Act.

SEC. 9. DATE OF ENFORCEMENT.

This Act shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

BACK

Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act

Status in 2003 - 2004 : Pending

Humane USA position : Support

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 1, 2003

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. ANDREWS, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. TANCREDO, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen enforcement of provisions relating to animal fighting, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

S. 736
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen enforcement of provisions relating to animal fighting, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 27, 2003

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. ALLARD, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. REID, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

H. R. 1532
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to strengthen enforcement of provisions relating to animal fighting, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act'.

SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (h) as subsections (d) through (i), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

`(c) SHARP INSTRUMENTS- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver in interstate or foreign commerce a knife, a gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended to be attached, to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.';

(3) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by striking `(c)' and inserting `(d)';
(4) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--

(A) by striking `(a), (b), or (c)' and inserting `(a), (b), (c), or (d)'; and
(B) by striking `1 year' and inserting `2 years';

(5) by striking subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) and inserting the following:

`(g) INVESTIGATIONS-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary or any person authorized by the Secretary shall make such investigations as the Secretary considers necessary to determine whether any person has violated or is violating any provision of this section.
`(2) ASSISTANCE- Through cooperative agreements, the Secretary may obtain the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, and other law enforcement agencies of the United States and of State, tribal, and local governmental agencies in the conduct of an investigation under paragraph (1).
`(3) WARRANTS-

`(A) ISSUANCE- A judge of the United States, United States magistrate judge, or judge of a State or tribal court of competent jurisdiction in the district in which is located an animal, paraphernalia, instrument, or other property or thing that there is probable cause to believe was involved, is about to be involved, or is intended to be involved in a violation of this section shall issue a warrant to search for and seize the animal or other property or thing.
`(B) APPLICATION; EXECUTION- A United States marshal or any person authorized under this section to conduct an investigation may apply for and execute a warrant issued under subparagraph (A), and any animal, paraphernalia, instrument, or other property or thing seized under such a warrant shall be held by the authorized person pending disposition of the animal, paraphernalia, instrument, or other property or thing by a court in accordance with this subsection.

`(4) STORAGE OF ANIMALS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- An animal seized by a United States marshal or other authorized person under paragraph (3) shall be taken promptly to an animal housing facility in which the animal shall be stored humanely.
`(B) NO FACILITY AVAILABLE- If there is not available a suitable animal storage facility sufficient in size to hold all of the animals involved in a violation, a United States marshal or other authorized person shall--

`(i) seize a representative sample of the animals for evidentiary purposes to be transported to an animal storage facility in which the animals shall be stored humanely; and
`(ii)(I) keep the remaining animals at the location where the animals were seized;
`(II) provide for the humane care of the animals; and
`(III) cause the animals to be banded, tagged, or marked by microchip and photographed or videotaped for evidentiary purposes.

`(5) CARE- While a seized animal is held in custody, a United States marshal or other authorized person shall ensure that the animal is provided necessary care (including housing, feeding, and veterinary treatment).
`(6) FORFEITURE-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Any animal, paraphernalia, instrument, vehicle, money, or other property or thing involved in a violation of this section shall be liable to be proceeded against and forfeited to the United States at any time on complaint filed in any United States district court or other court of the United States for any jurisdiction in which the animal, paraphernalia, instrument, vehicle, money, or other property or thing is found.
`(B) DISPOSITION- On entry of a judgment of forfeiture, a forfeited animal shall be disposed of by humane means, as the court may direct.
`(C) COSTS- Costs incurred by the United States for care of an animal seized and forfeited under this section shall be recoverable from the owner of the animal--

`(i) in the forfeiture proceeding, if the owner appears in the forfeiture proceeding; or
`(ii) in a separate civil action brought in the jurisdiction in which the owner is found, resides, or transacts business.

`(D) CLAIM TO PROPERTY-

`(i) IN GENERAL- The owner, custodian, or other person claiming an interest in a seized animal may prevent disposition of the animal by posting, or may be ordered by any United States district court or other court of the United States, or by any tribal court, for any jurisdiction in which the animal is found to post, not later than 10 days after the animal is seized, a bond with the court in an amount sufficient to provide for the care of the animal (including housing, feeding, and veterinary treatment) for not less than 30 days.
`(ii) RENEWAL- The owner, custodian, or other person claiming an interest in a seized animal may renew a bond, or be ordered to renew a bond, by posting a new bond, in an amount sufficient to provide for the care of the animal for at least an additional 30 days, not later than 10 days after the expiration of the period for which a previous bond was posted.
`(iii) DISPOSITION- If a bond expires and is not renewed, the animal may be disposed of as provided in subparagraph (A).

`(7) EUTHANIZATION- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (6), an animal may be humanely euthanized if a veterinarian determines that the animal is suffering extreme pain.'; and

(6) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--

(A) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2), by inserting before the semicolon the following: `(including a movement to, from, or within land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe)'; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking `telephone, radio, or television' and inserting `telephone, the Internet, radio, television, or any technology'.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- Section 23 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2153) is amended--

(1) by striking `SEC. 23. The Secretary' and inserting the following:

`SEC. 23. FEES; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

`(a) FEES- The Secretary'; and

(2) by striking the third sentence and inserting the following:

`(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.'.

(1) the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) May 13, 2003.

BACK

Captive Wildlife Safety Act

Status in 2003-2004: Pending

Humane USA position: Support

108th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1006
To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 27, 2003

Mr. MCKEON (for himself and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL
To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Captive Wildlife Safety Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES.

Section 2 of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371) is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (g) through (j) as subsections (h) through (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:

`(k) PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES- The term `prohibited wildlife species' means any live lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar.'.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 3 of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3372) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in paragraph (2)--

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking `, or' at the end and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting `or' after the semicolon at the end; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) any prohibited wildlife species (subject to subsection (e));';
(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting `or' after the semicolon at the end; and
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking `paragraphs (1) through (4)' and inserting `paragraphs (1) through (3)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(e) NONAPPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITED WILDLIFE SPECIES OFFENSE-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a)(2)(C) does not apply to--

`(A) any zoo, circus, research facility licensed or registered and inspected by a Federal agency, or aquarium;
`(B) any person accredited by the Association of Sanctuaries or the American Sanctuary Association;
`(C) any State college, university, or agency, State-licensed wildlife rehabilitator, or State-licensed veterinarian;
`(D) any incorporated humane society, animal shelter, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals;
`(E) any federally-licensed and inspected breeder or dealer that is conducting any breeding or dealing activity with a person referred to in this paragraph; or
`(F) any person having custody of a wild animal solely for the purpose of transporting the animal to a person referred to in this paragraph.

`(2) REGULATIONS- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, shall promulgate regulations describing the persons or entities to which paragraph (1) applies.
`(3) STATE AUTHORITY- Nothing in this subsection preempts or supersedes the authority of a State to regulate wildlife species within that State.'.

(b) APPLICATION- Section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (as added by subsection (a)(1)(A)(iii)) shall apply beginning on the effective date of regulations promulgated under section 3(e)(2) of that Act (as added by subsection (a)(2)).

S. 269 Senate Bill
To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 30, 2003

Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(Same bill text)

BACK

Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003

Status in 2003-04 : Pending

Humane USA position : Support

H. R. 1472
To require the adoption and enforcement of regulations to prohibit the intentional feeding of bears on Federal public lands in order to end the hunting practice known as `bear baiting' and reduce the number of dangerous interactions between people and bears.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 27, 2003

Mr. GALLEGLY (for himself and Mr. MORAN of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To require the adoption and enforcement of regulations to prohibit the intentional feeding of bears on Federal public lands in order to end the hunting practice known as `bear baiting' and reduce the number of dangerous interactions between people and bears.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEEDING BEARS ON FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds the following:

(1) Federal land management agencies, including the Forest Service, National Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management, publish and distribute materials to the public discouraging any feeding of black bears.
(2) Even though Federal land managers are in agreement that private citizens should not provide food to bears, several Federal land management agencies do not prohibit licensed hunters from setting out food as bait for bears on Federal lands in States where baiting is permitted by State law.
(3) A typical bait station consists of hundreds of pounds of human-scented foods, often including parts of animal carcasses, pastries, fruits, and grease, that are simply piled on the forest floor or dumped in large drums.
(4) The foods used in a bait station are no different than the human-scented foods that a bear might find in a garbage can, dump, or campground, and after the bear hunting season ends, bait stations are often not removed.
(5) The presence of bait stations on Federal lands allows bears to increase their food intake and results in higher birth rates, increasing bear populations.
(6) Wildlife scientists agree that black bears are naturally wary of people, but that feeding bears human-scented foods can cause bears to lose their wariness and become emboldened in approaching people and property in search of food.
(7) Human-fed bears cause millions of dollars in property damage every year.
(8) Bears habituated to human food can pose a safety threat, occasionally resulting in attacks on human beings.
(9) Bears that come into conflict with people are often labeled as nuisance animals, and are often killed as a means of protecting people and property.
(10) When the National Park Service adopted policies to ban bear feeding and to end the practice of keeping garbage in open-air dumps, units of the National Park System experienced a dramatic decline in bear-human encounters.
(11) A majority of the States that allow bear hunting ban baiting, and black bears can be hunted successfully by means other than baiting.
(12) It is inconsistent for Federal land management agencies to demand that visitors to the Federal lands not feed bears, but to allow this practice by bear baiters.
(13) The United States already prohibits baiting of migratory birds.

(b) ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING NPS REGULATION- The Secretary of the Interior shall enforce the regulatory prohibition, contained in section 2.2(a)(2) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, against the feeding of wildlife on National Park System lands to prohibit individuals from intentionally feeding bears for the purpose of enticing bears to a particular area to be hunted, a practice known as `bear baiting'.
(c) ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING FWS REGULATION- The Secretary of the Interior shall enforce the regulatory prohibition, contained in section 32.2(h) of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, against bear baiting and the baiting of other wildlife on wildlife refuge areas.
(d) ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS FOR OTHER PUBLIC LANDS-

(1) REGULATION REQUIRED- The Secretary of the Interior, with respect to lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System lands, shall each adopt and enforce a regulation to prohibit individuals from intentionally feeding bears, including feeding for the purpose of enticing bears to a particular area to be hunted, a practice known as `bear baiting'.
(2) DEADLINE FOR ADOPTION- The regulations required by this subsection shall be issued in final form not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(e) EXCEPTION IN EXTRAORDINARY CASES- The regulations referred to in subsections (b) and (c), and the regulations required by subsection (d), shall provide an exception in extraordinary cases when the Secretary concerned determines that bear feeding is required for the welfare of the bear, preservation of public safety, or authorized wildlife research.

BACK

Federal Legislation

Short-Sighted: How Short-Term Thinking Crashed a Billion-Dollar Beef Export Market

The mad cow case in Washington state in December 2003 brought to light a number of chilling practices that occur routinely in the modern meat business-not the least of which is that our government had knowingly allowed the slaughter of downed and diseased cattle for human consumption. The HSUS and other animal welfare groups had for years warned that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was playing Russian roulette with the nation's meat supply by allowing downer animals-cattle too sick or injured to stand or walk-to be killed and processed for human food. Most downers are spent dairy cattle, like the Holstein in Washington that tested positive for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). The USDA estimates that about 200,000 downers are shipped to slaughter each year. Because they can't walk into a slaughterhouse, the cattle are dragged with chains or pushed with bulldozers or forklifts-one of the worst cruelties perpetrated against farmed animals- to get them to the kill floor. The USDA itself had warned in 2003, in a Federal Register notice, that downed animals "represent a significant pathway for spread of disease if they are not handled or disposed of with appropriate safeguards." A year later, in the USDA's Federal Register notice on January 12, 2004, the agency gets even more specific: "Surveillance data from European countries in which BSE has been detected indicate that non-ambulatory cattle are among the animals that have a greater incidence of BSE than other cattle." (For instance, Swiss data show a 49 to 58 times higher chance of finding BSE in downers than in cattle reported to veterinary authorities as BSE-suspect under passive surveillance.) Despite this known threat, USDA tested fewer than 10 percent of downers in 2003 for BSE. And even then, the tested, high-risk animals were often processed for human consumption. Take the case of the BSE-infected cow in Washington-the animal was slaughtered on December 9 and immediately processed and channeled into the food supply. The USDA did not obtain preliminary test results for BSE until December 22- nearly two weeks after the cow's parts were processed and sent to eight states, and as far away as Guam. Once the USDA learned of the test results, the agency went on a mad scramble to find where the meat was processed and sold. After this first-ever BSE finding in the United States, the cattle and dairy industries, and the federal government, reflexively told the public that our food supply was safe. It seemed a false assurance, reminiscent of a 1990 press conference in which the British minister of agriculture fed his young daughter a hamburger to demonstrate the safety of British beef. After all, previous U.S. actions spoke louder than those hollow words in late December: Earlier in 2003, when a single mad cow was discovered in Alberta, the United States quickly banned all beef imports from Canada. Foreign governments certainly didn't buy into the United State's claims; dozens of countries immediately suspended imports of U.S. beef, dealing a $3 billion blow to the American beef industry. Now, less than two months after the mad-cow finding, the USDA has announced that its investigation into the case is finished, and officials have admitted they could not locate 52 cows who had entered the United States at the same time as the infected Holstein. Eleven of those cows were considered high risk because they may have eaten the same contaminated feed or may have been born around the same time. The announcement was squarely aimed at foreign governments, its subtext undeniable: It's safe to import U.S. beef again. A Willful Disregard Congress and the Agriculture Department don't have the best track record when it comes to reconciling farm policies with facts. They must share the blame-and face the fact-that they failed to halt the processing for human consumption of a class of animals most likely to carry BSE. It's not as if this issue crept up on members of Congress. For years, congressional allies of the meat industry downplayed the warnings about BSE in downers, despite overwhelming scientific evidence from Europe. In fact, legislation to ban the transport of downed animals to prevent them from entering the food supply was first introduced more than a decade ago by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and U.S. Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY). In 2001, Ackerman offered his downed animal legislation as an amendment to the Farm Security Act, also known as the Farm bill. After some debate, the House approved his amendment by voice vote. In the Senate, Akaka teamed up with then Agriculture Committee chairman, Tom Harkin, to have the same provision approved. With both chambers approving nearly identical provisions on downed animals, The HSUS and its chief ally in this fight, the New York-based Farm Sanctuary, thought the matter was effectively settled. But a conference committee, convened to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the Farm bill, decided to re-examine the downed animal provision. In the end, the conferees nixed it in its entirety. In its place, the conferees directed the USDA to produce a study of the issue-a hollow maneuver to create the mere appearance of meaningful action when none was planned. To this date, the USDA has not produced such a study. In 2003, Akaka and Ackerman tried again. As he did before, Senator Akaka succeeded in passing his downed animal language-this time as an amendment to the agriculture spending bill. Rep. Ackerman offered a similar amendment to the House's agriculture spending bill. "Just a few months ago, a mad cow was discovered across our border in Alberta," he pointed out in his speech on the House floor. "The USDA.has concluded that if mad cow disease ever did occur in the United States, it would most likely be found among downed cattle.Just one infected mad cow crippled Canada's meat industry.Canada should be a lesson to us. We must pass this legislation." At his side, Ackerman had placed a poignant photo of a suffering downed cow- to dramatize that this debate was not an abstraction, but a policy matter that would help alleviate the enormous suffering endured by downed animals. This time, his floor amendment met with more resistance than in 2001. Representatives Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and Henry Bonilla (R-TX), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, sounded off against the amendment, arguing that the ban would hurt the industry and would hurt the USDA's monitoring of BSE at slaughterhouses. But it was Rep. Charles Stenholm, the ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, who set out a more detailed case against Ackerman's amendment. The Texas representative argued that the processing of downed animals for human consumption actually protected consumers because producers would bring these animals to slaughterhouses where they would be tested for disease. The truly sick animals, Stenholm continued, would be condemned by USDA veterinarians and not channeled into the food supply, but the animals with broken legs or some other injury would be slaughtered and their meat would be safe to eat. If the downers didn't come to the slaughterhouse, they wouldn't be tested at all and would be buried on the farm, perhaps spreading BSE to other cows. Stenholm assured members of the House, "That sick animal [in the picture] will never find its way into the food system. Period." A rancher himself from Abilene, Stenholm took a jab at the credibility of Ackerman, who represents an urban constituency in New York City. "The gentleman does not understand the cattle business as many in this body do," he sniped. The House was evenly divided after the debate. When the voting ended, Ackerman's amendment had failed by just three votes-199-202. Because the Senate approved Akaka's amendment, the matter had to be decided by a conference committee again. But as before, the conferees bowed to the wishes of the cattlemen and dairy lobbies, and jettisoned the downed animal provision, despite a valiant effort by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) to keep the Akaka amendment in the final legislation. The Prophet and the Politician In looking back on the pivotal debate in the House, Ackerman's comments proved remarkably prophetic. The first case of mad cow was found in a downer, as he predicted. In fact, the animal was found less than six months after the House debate, and just a month after the House-Senate conference committee nixed Akaka's amendment to the agriculture spending bill. What's more, the mad cow meat was channeled into the human food supply, threatening the safety of the meat supplied to consumers-just as Ackerman guessed it would be. In response, more than 40 nations banned imports of U.S.-produced beef, dealing a major blow to the cattle industry-again as Ackerman had predicted. By contrast, Stenholm's arguments were not only dismissive, but ill-informed about the USDA's monitoring system. Stenholm failed to note that the USDA had been testing only 20,000 of the 36 million cattle sent to slaughter each year, including just a small portion of the downers. USDA inspectors were regularly letting 75% of downers into the human food supply, even though the agency had conceded in a January 2003 Federal Register notice that it was impossible to detect BSE by visual inspection. Even when animals were tested, they were still routinely processed for human food, the lab results arriving well after the animal's parts had been digested by American consumers. Stenholm's claim that a "sick animal will never find its way into the food system" was demonstrably false-as the Washington state case proved. Ironically, it is Stenholm and other self-proclaimed allies of the industry who may have unwittingly done the beef business so much damage. Because he and a few other legislators were so resistant to efforts to euthanize abused and acutely high-risk animals-which represent a tiny fraction of the total number of cattle annually sent to slaughter-they thwarted a sensible reform that was in the industry's best interest. Simply put, the U.S. policy that allowed the processing of downers was wrong. It was also convoluted. A few years ago, the USDA itself had banned downer meat in the national school lunch program, presumably because of the humane and food-safety questions. If it was wrong for kids in school to eat downer meat, why wouldn't it be wrong for kids at home-or for adults in any setting-to consume that meat? The government was even lagging far behind the fast-food industry, given that McDonald's and Burger King had years before vowed not to purchase meat from any slaughterhouses accepting downers. Economic Myopia The economic calculus of the beef industry has been, without question, woefully short-sighted. A study by California Department of Agriculture veterinarian Pam Hullinger revealed that the pay-off for processing downed animals was miniscule; the average net value to the farmer was just $28.70 per downed animal, after shipping and other costs are factored in. This economic value can hardly compare to the importance of maintaining the $3 billion U.S. beef export market-a market that essentially was shut down after the BSE finding. The beef and dairy industries, and their government allies, risked the loss of their multi-billion dollar export market (and jeopardized American consumer confidence in their product) just so they could squeeze a few more dollars out of tormented animals who constituted less than one-third of one percent of the cattle slaughtered each year in the United States. Ackerman said the policy persisted because of "greed, greed, and greed." Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman took the right step on December 30 by imposing an administrative ban on the processing of downed cattle, a move embraced even by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other industry groups. This decision not only protects downers in the United States, but has also had a ripple effect on other countries. The federal government requires nations that want to export beef into the United States to adopt a comparable ban on downers. In response, 10 counties have already banned the transport and slaughtering of downed animals, including cattle-producing behemoth Brazil. This should have settled the matter. But during hearings in late January on the downer issue, Goodlatte, Stenholm and some other agriculture committee members astonishingly took issue with Veneman's action, suggesting that the USDA over-reacted to the mad cow case. They said that farmers would lose money if animals with broken legs could not be sold for slaughter. But a system that requires USDA inspectors to distinguish between sick and injured downers would be unworkable and reckless-because inspectors often cannot correctly diagnose why animals are downed. Such a system would return us to the same flawed inspection process that we relied on prior to Veneman's December 30 announcement. Look at three different BSE cases for evidence: A USDA veterinarian identified the Washington state cow as a downer because of calving injuries. The cow in the May 2003 case in Canada was believed to be a downer because of pneumonia, and the cow in a 1993 case in Canada (an animal imported from the United Kingdom) was considered a downer because of a broken leg. Would inspectors know to stop a cow simply because of a broken leg or calving injuries? These are the very type of injuries that opponents say won't pose a threat to consumers. The fact is, any problem with an animal's gait, which may cause a broken leg, may in fact be caused by disease. According to the USDA, "Surveillance for BSE in Europe has also shown that the typical clinical signs associated with BSE cannot always be observed in non-ambulatory cattle infected with BSE because the signs of BSE often cannot be differentiated from the typical clinical signs of the many other diseases and conditions affecting non-ambulatory cattle." Stenholm, Goodlatte, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), and some others questioned Veneman on the USDA's testing program, saying that a ban on downers at slaughterhouses would severely complicate the testing of these high-risk animals. Veneman responded by pointing out that the USDA will compensate for this by increasing testing at rendering plants and on farms. Critics of the downer ban, while lamenting the loss of testing opportunities at slaughterhouses, have failed to utter a word about the estimated one million livestock that die on farms. These so-called "deadstock" outnumber downers five to one and, according to the USDA, are even a higher risk for BSE than downers. The failure of congressional critics to express any concern about the testing of these animals suggests that adequate testing is not really their primary concern. Rather, they are concerned about individual cattlemen being able to cash in on each downed cow. The HSUS, and its allies in Congress, are pressing for Congress to codify the administrative ban on downed animals, and to expand it to include other livestock, such as pigs. We are heartened by the Bush Administration's action, but we want to make it more durable, in light of past efforts by industry and its congressional allies to scuttle strong protections for these animals and consumers. Too often, our critics attempt to trivialize our concerns about animal protection, suggesting that society has more important things to consider than the well-being of animals. We, of course, believe there is a moral imperative to act on behalf of the powerless; in fact, it's precisely because of their powerlessness that we are compelled to act. But even beyond the argument for the ethical treatment of animals, it's also true that treating the world's creatures decently is often best both for consumers and for the animal-use industries. We saw all of these dynamics at work in the congressional debate on the downer issue and the subsequent mad cow discovery in the United States. The policy we advocated from the start was sensible for animals, for consumers, and even for industry. We hope that policymakers and industry will one day recognize this fact and their responsibility, and not have public policies be shaped by crisis management. Copyright © 2004 The Humane Society of the United States. All rights reserved.

BACK

HUGE VICTORY FOR DOWNED ANIMALS:

I n a landmark victory for animals, on Tuesday (12/30) the USDA issued a ban on the slaughter and marketing of downed animals. The ban comes one week to the day of the first confirmed case of Mad Cow disease was reported in the U.S., and after more than a decade of lobbying by animal protection groups seeking the ban.

Thanks to a torrent of media interest and an outpouring of emails, letters, and phone calls to Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, the USDA took decisive action today with Secretary Ann Veneman's announcement that "USDA will ban all downer cattle from the human food chain." While a number of states restrict the movement of downers at state-licensed facilities, the newly-announced federal ban will apply in all states and at all federally inspected slaughterhouses, which account for the vast majority of all animals slaughtered in the United States.

This is a great victory in the fight to implement more humane treatment for millions of farmed animals. At least 200,000 of these animals become "downed" every year in the U.S. With a ban on the sale and slaughter of downed animals, livestock owners will be forced to treat their animals more humanely so that they do not become nonambulatory in the first place. And those animals who do become too sick or injured to walk on their own will no longer have to suffer the cruelty of being dragged, beaten, or pushed with bulldozers to the killing floor.

Says Wayne Pacelle, a senior vice president of The HSUS, ""We are delighted with Secretary Veneman's emphatic declaration that downed cattle are unfit for human consumption and will not be channeled into the human food supply. This decision also means that these animals will no longer be inhumanely treated by being dragged by chains or pushed by bulldozers to get them to slaughter."

To read the full text of the USDA press release, go to:
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/12/0449.htm

BACK

WASHINGTON (November 5, 2003) - The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is applauding the U.S. Senate for approving an amendment that bans the processing of so-called "downed" farm animals for human consumption. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) introduced the amendment during today's debate on the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations Act, H.R. 2673. The amendment was accepted by the managers of the appropriations bill and approved by voice vote.

Too sick or injured to walk, "downed animals" are dragged, electrocuted, beaten, and even bulldozed to move them to slaughter, often for low-grade meat products. In addition to humane concerns, the animals pose serious food safety threats because downed animals are much more likely to be afflicted with diseases that can be passed to humans. The cow diagnosed in May in Alberta, Canada with Mad Cow Disease was a downed cow. The single case of Mad Cow Disease had enormous economic consequences for Canada's entire beef industry.

"We are very excited that the U.S. Senate has approved this important animal protection and food safety measure," said Wayne Pacelle, a senior vice president at The HSUS. "There can be no excuse for abusing downed animals by pushing them with bulldozers or wrapping a chain around their legs and dragging them to slaughter. And why should we play Russian roulette with American consumers by allowing downed animals to enter the food supply?"

The House of Representatives narrowly defeated a similar measure during debate of the Agriculture appropriations bill in July. That amendment, authored by Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Steve LaTourette (R-OH), failed by a 199-202 vote. The final outcome will be determined by a House-Senate conference committee.

"In the wake of the Mad Cow incident that severely disrupted Canada's beef industry, the government is moving to ban the transport of downed animals to slaughterhouses," remarked Gene Bauston, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal advocacy organization based in New York state. "The U.S. can learn from this experience by adopting a no-downer policy before disaster strikes here."

The HSUS has more than seven million members and constituents. The HSUS is a mainstream voice for animals, with active programs in companion animals and equine protection, wildlife and habitat protection, animals in research and farm animals and sustainable agriculture. The HSUS has protected all animals through legislation, litigation, investigation, education, advocacy and field work. The non-profit organization, which celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2004, is based in Washington, DC and has 10 regional offices across the country. For more information, visit The HSUS' Web site - www.hsus.org.

For More Information Contact:
Rachel Querry: 301-258-8255 E-mail: rquerry@hsus.org
or Gene Bauston: 607-583-2225 x227

BACK

California
The voting record of the California State Legislature for 2002 is now on the Paw PAC web site. If you live in California, visit www.pawpac.org to see how your legislators voted on important animal protection legislation.

Upcoming Legislation
The New Mexico State Legislature convened on January 18, 2005. The following animal protection bills were discussed:

1. Cockfighting Ban--New Mexico is optimistic about becoming the 49th state to outlaw cockfighting in 2005--the Chinese year of the Rooster. Support for a ban among lawmakers is growing and the issue has been included in legislative candidate questionnaires from the state's largest newspapers.

2. Animal Sheltering Services Act--This bill was very popular in 2004, but was unable to navigate the Legislature before they adjourned for the year. It would create a state Animal Sheltering Services Board that would provide oversight and guidance to public animal shelters and those performing humane euthanasia.

3. Antifreeze Safety--Prompted by a high-profile poisoning case, this bill requires a bittering agent be added to antifreeze sold in the state. The interference by antifreeze industry lobbying in 2004 has only created greater support for this measure among both legislators and the public.

4. Student Choice in Dissection--New Mexico hopes to be added to a growing list of states that have guaranteed choice for students in public schools, grades K-12. This would provide access to an ethical science education for those requesting it as well as expose many others to exciting new virtual anatomy programs.

How You Can Help:
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has not taken a public position on a cockfighting ban, only stating that this issue is "below my radar." Please contact him and urge him to support a ban. Continuing as a silent supporter of this cruelty puts a blemish on a state dependant on tourist dollars.

Governor Bill Richardson
Office of the Governor
State Capital, Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Phone: 505-476-2200
Fax: 505-476-2226
On-line: www.governor.state.nm.us/constituentcontact.html

For more information on New Mexico state legislation: www.apvnm.org

H. 1311 - ANIMAL FIGHTING
SUPPORT This bill would make changes to the Massachusetts animal fighting statutes to clarify law enforcement authority to seize paraphernalia related to animal fighting and to seize animals being bred to fight. Sponsor: Representative Kafka. Status: Hearing held April 10, 2003 in the Judiciary Committee.

Pets As Prizes
Giving away pets as prizes or business inducements is a simple misdemeanor in Iowa after July 1, 2004. Carnivals and midways will no longer be able to give animals,including fish, as prizes for ring tosses or other activities. Legislators who helped: Senator Pat Ward, Senator Donald Redfern, Representative Kent Kramer

Animal Fighting
The effort to make animal fighting and activity associated with it a felony was successful in Iowa this year (prior to this year, Iowa was one of only three states that did not have a felony dog fighting penalty). Being a spectator at an animal fighting event is an aggravated misdemeanor, but all other activity associated with animal fighting is a Class D felony. Legislators who helped: Representative Chuck Gipp, Representative George Eichhorn, Representative Jim Van Fossen, Representative Jim Lykam, Senator Donald Redfern, Senator David Miller, Senator Stewart E. Iverson, Jr.

Humane USA/PA The purpose of Humane USA/PA is to support legislators and elect candidates to office who have worked, or will work, for the adoption of public policies that promote the well-being of animals. We will concentrate primarily on wildlife issues. We work closely with the animal lobby PLAN (Pennsylvania Legislative Animal Network) and the Fund for Animals insofar as their efforts in Pennsylvania concern wildlife. I Humane USA/PA supported the election of Ed Rendell for governor. II Humane USA/PA supported Senator Specter in his primary race this year: a number of Humane USA/PA volunteers made phone calls to get out the vote. III Humane USA/PA opposed the so-called Right to Hunt Bill (HB 1512) which passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on February 9, 2004. This bill will amend the Pennsylvania constitution. We oppose this bill because: 1) It would clutter up and demean our constitution. 2) It could invite a rash of amendments. 3) It caters to a special interest group. IV Humane USA/PA also opposes HB 1448, the bill that authorizes the Pennsylvania Game Commission to issue permits for fox hounding preserves. We oppose this bill because: 1) It is cruel, leading to the stress, and possible physical injury, or death of foxes. 2) It could spread disease from captive to wild foxes. 3) It has no provision to prevent reproduction of captive foxes. 4) It has no clear provision to care for any fox kits that might be born. V Humane USA/PA believes an Advisor on Humane Issues for Animals would be an immense aid to Governor Rendell. Such an advisor could: 1) Present â€oanimal issuesâ€ to the Governor that concern Pennsylvania residents. 2) Supply facts and figures as well as the latest scientific information on such issues.

Maine Ballot Measures

Alaska Ballot Measures

Arizona Ballot Measures

Montana Ballot Measures

H. 1534 - MOOSE HUNTING
OPPOSE This bill would establish a moose hunting season in Massachusetts. Sponsor: Representative Gobi. Status: Hearing held April 10th in the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee.

H. 2657 - REPORTING ANIMAL AND CHILD ABUSE
SUPPORT This bill would allow employees and contractors of the Department of Social Services (DSS) who are investigating child abuse to report suspected animal abuse. This bill is the result of the constantly increasing research that documents the link between violence toward humans and animal abuse. Sponsor: Representative Koutoujian. Status: Hearing held May 15, 2003 in the Public Safety Committee.

H. 1252 - DISSECTION CHOICE
SUPPORT This bill will allow students who do not want to participate in specimen dissection the right to use alternative learning methods without penalty. Students who do not wish to dissect animals for ethical, religious or moral reasons need their right to choose alternative methods guaranteed by law. Studies show that students using alternatives, such as realistic computer programs, performed as well as, if not better than, students using specimens. Additionally, computer programs are reusable -- a critical point in today's budget crisis. Sponsor: Representative Kafka. Status: In the House

S. 184 - CIRCUSES AND EXOTIC ANIMALS
SUPPORT A new bill would prohibit certain animals (primates, tigers, bears and elephants) from performing in circuses. Wild animals in circuses and traveling wild animal acts cause suffering and give a false picture of the animals displayed. Quincy, Revere, Braintree, Weymouth and Provincetown, Mass. have all passed ordinances prohibiting circuses within their boundaries. Sponsor: Senator Hedlund. Status: Hearing held May 7, 2003 in the Criminal Justice Committee. Visit www.CircusSpotlight.org for more information.

H. 200 - BODY-GRIPPING TRAPS
OPPOSE This bill would repeal the Wildlife Protection Act by removing the restrictions on the use of body-gripping traps. This law was amended a few years ago and successfully restricts the use of body-gripping traps except in cases there is a health or safety threat. It is unnecessary to use these cruel traps in other circumstances. Sponsor: Representative Peterson. Status: Hearing held April 10, 2003 in the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee.

H. 4283 - LEGHOLD TRAPS
OPPOSE This bill, which was filed late and therefore does not have a bill number yet, would not only remove the restrictions that passed in the 1996 ballot question, but removes the entire section of law on trapping and would even allow steel leghold traps on land! Sponsor: Representative Carron. Status: Hearing held February 12, 2004 in the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee.

S. 198 - INCREASING THE PENALTIES FOR ANIMAL ABUSE
SUPPORT This bill would increase the penalties in M.G.L. Ch. 272 sec. 77 from 1 year and/or $1,000 to 5 years (for a felony) and/or 2.5 years or $2,500. Penalties for animal cruelty in Massachusetts are lower than penalties in many other states. Sponsor: Senator Moore. Status: On the Senate calendar.

The Humane Veal Bill (Assemby Bill 329, Senate Bill 159)
Requires no tether and adequate diet for veal calves. Sponsor - Senator Wayne R. Bryant Sponsor Loretta Weinberg Sponsor Reed Gusciora

Provides civil action against person committing act of cruelty against domestic companion animal. (Assembly Bill 2411)
Support but needs some modifications. Sponsor Assemblymen Jeff Van Drew, David Mayer, Brian Stack, Reed Gusciora.

Prohibits black bear hunting until completion of report submitted by Rutgers. (Assembly Bill 2452)
Sponsor Reed Gusciora

Permits tenants in rental premises to keep certain pet animals. (Assembly Bill 2570)
Says private rental units must allow pets with certain qualifications. Sponsor Wilfredo Caraballo Sponsor Neil Cohen

NJ Student Choice Bill (Assembly Bill 2233)
Gives students in grades K-12 the option to not dissect. Sponsor Wilfredo Caraballo

Oppose: A3736 (R. Smith, D4), which would authorize deer hunting with bow & arrow on Sundays
The bill has passed out of committee, the next step is a full vote by the Assembly.

Support: A-2794 Wolfe, A-2233 Caraballo and S1739 Turner , A-2852 Chiappone, A-2704 Chiappone, A-3219 Greenstein, A-804 Gusciora

BACK

Paid for by HumaneUSA, www.humaneusa.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.