This Week in Animal Protection

What’s it like to be a dog being experimented on in a laboratory? A cat in the kill room of an animal “shelter”? A cow in a slaughterhouse? A mouse on a glue trap? A deer being hunted? A pig on a factory farm?

Animals have eyes and they see with them, the way we humans see with ours. They have ears and they hear with them; again, just like us. They have legs and they walk with them. They have mouths and they eat with them and so on. The idea that the eyes of animals see, the ears of animals hear, and the legs of animals walk the way they do for us is so obvious, it seems unworthy of comment. Few would doubt that the anatomical structures we share with animals function for them just as they function for us. This seems obvious, logical.

And yet, we convince ourselves that there’s an exception: the brain. Though animals have brains, they don’t think with them like we do: they have no self-awareness, no concept of death, no ability to love, no mother-baby bond, no understanding of what’s to come. It’s all just instinct.

Why is it better for humans to believe this? To pretend that this is true?

If there is no conception of death, a “shelter” can kill cats without any moral repercussions. It’s just like going to sleep, says PETA, except they never wake up.

If there is no mother-baby bond, we can take a newly born calf and turn him into veal, while we take his mother’s milk — his birthright — for our own children to drink.

If there is no understanding of what’s to come for the animal entering a slaughterhouse, then killing animals to eat them poses no moral imperative not to.

Intuitively, we know that none of this is true. How can it be that every body part of an animal functions the way it functions for us, except the brain?

It is often said that our understanding and knowledge of death separates the human animal from all other animals. We alone know that we will die — that one day, suddenly or slowly, our life, our loves, our dreams will end. Surely this awareness sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, we say, pointing to some of our greatest art, music, and literature — all inspired by what we know: that death awaits every living being. And yet, how very odd it is that we should be the only animal to know what life ultimately has in store for us. We share biological histories and physiologies — DNA, eyes, muscles, nerves, neurons, hormones — with other animals, and these may lead to similar behaviors, thought processes, and emotions — even about death.

The author is right: we are not the only animal to know what life ultimately has in store for us. As scientists now admit, death is a great equalizer among different species. But it is not the only one; so is the capacity to love —“love may be natural selection’s most compelling force, driving us and our fellow animals to care beyond reason for our families, loved ones, and children.”

Pigs, for example, have been found to be optimistic and agreeable, prefer familiar individuals to strangers, are sensitive to the experience of others, make decisions based on empathy, and have unique personality traits that overlap that of humans. They are not alone.

Based on (non-invasive) MRI scans of brains, Dr. Gregory Berns shows how consciousness and self-awareness and similar subjective experiences are not exclusive to humans or even unique among a select few species in the animal kingdom. They are the rule, not the exception.

Using some of the latest findings in comparative neurobiology — specifically the study of how different parts of the brain are connected to each other — he offers scientific proof of what we already intuitively know but conveniently ignore: that when the “structures in the brains of animals” are “organized in the same way as the corresponding parts of our brains,” and “these parts look the same” and “function[ ] in the same way,” then the subjective experiences are the same or at least similar.

Specifically, if the animal has a cortex — like dogs, cats, mice, deer, cows, and pigs — the animal is sentient. And “Beyond sentience lies consciousness and self-awareness.” As such, “its subjective experience can be understood by degrees of similarity to ours”:

With similar brain architectures for the experience of joy, pain, and even social bonds, we can assume that animals experience these things much like we do, albeit without the words for those subjective states…

If you want to know what it’s like to be a dog being experimented on, a cat in the kill room of an animal shelter, a cow in a slaughterhouse, a mouse on a glue trap, a deer being hunted, or a pig on a factory farm, imagine how you might experience those things:

An animal who is aware of his or her own pain and suffering may well experience the existential fear associated with imminent death. And awareness of other animals’ fear can only heighten such terror.

Terror. The same thing we would feel.

That alone should make us kinder to animals, intolerant of their killing, and unwilling to engage in actions which cause them to suffer. We shouldn’t torture a dog in a laboratory. We shouldn’t kill a cat in an animal “shelter.” We shouldn’t hunt deer. We shouldn’t kill rodents with glue traps. We shouldn’t confine a pig on a factory farm. “[L]ogically,” says Dr. Berns, “we shouldn’t eat a cow…”

But deep down, when one strips away the self-serving justifications, all of us already knew that. As does Dr. Berns, who admits — like so many others — that he tragically continues to do so anyway.

In this podcast, Jennifer and I have a conversation about rescuing animals in need of help and how we always seem to come across them when we are running late, on vacation, or simply take a wrong turn.

Often, it starts with seeing something on the side of the road and one of us asking, “what was that?” before turning the car around to do what we call the “double check.”

We also talk about how rescuers can feel isolated in a world that seems indifferent to the suffering of our fellow earthlings, like when an animal clearly needs help but others don’t stop to offer it. Thankfully, our numbers are growing and that is increasingly becoming rare.

The conversation is fun and upbeat. Please join us.

After seeing this on the side of the road and doing a ‘double check,’ it turned out to be nothing more than a piece of bark a dog had peed on. But sometimes the double check turns out to be an animal in need of help and that usually happens when you are running late, on vacation, or simply take a wrong turn.

My sister was once driving with her then boyfriend when she thought she saw a squirrel in the road. She asked him to turn around and go back to make sure the squirrel was ok. He said he didn’t want to. She later told me she knew right then that he wasn’t the guy for her.

In our family, we call it the “double check.”

It happens to Jennifer and I, a lot — seeing phantom injured animals along the road side that require a closer look. "What was that?" one of us will ask. And we always go back and check. Most of the time, the phantom turns out to be nothing — a shoe, or a crumpled bit of paper or a piece of garbage — and we can go back about our business, grateful and relieved to know there is nothing more to worry about. Sometimes, however, it is an animal — an injured pigeon, a lost dog, a sick cat.

If you ever wonder, “How do you know when you have met the one?” Our answer is pretty simple and straightforward: “Are they always willing to do the double check?”

In the podcast, Jennifer and I have a conversation about something awful that happened to us last week, and how sharing that awful story on social media resulted in something wonderful.

While out for a walk with our dog Oswald, I came across several mice stuck on glue traps who had been dumped in a bag on the side of the road. Over two days, I would find a total of five mice. Two were dead, one was crying but had been sandwiched between two traps and had been partially stepped on, and he died shortly afterward. But two were still squirming trying to get off, looking up at me. They were covered with poop and flies. I called Jennifer to come pick us up in the car. 

This is the story of what happened next: how we painstakingly got the mice off the glue traps and nursed them back to health then released them safely back into the wild. 

It is also the larger story of how we were able to gently and humanely evict rodents who moved into our attic and crawl space without anyone losing their lives and how you can, too. 

And, it is the story of how the experiences of last week almost broke our hearts and spirits, only to have millions of people redeem our faith in humanity.

While walking with Oswald, my dog, I came across mice stuck on glue traps, tossed out of a car in a bag on the side of the road. They were covered with poop and flies were buzzing around. They were still squirming trying to get off, looking up at me.

I called my wife to come pick us up in the car and for the next hour and a half, we used cooking oil and cornstarch to get them off the glue (and to get the glue off of them) without tearing skin or worse. They shrieked as they struggled and were severely dehydrated. They drank the water I offered them in a little bowl, even while still stuck to the trap.

The whole thing was heart-wrenching. But slowly and carefully, we got them both off and then just as carefully, got the glue off of them. By that evening, they were eating and sleeping next to each other. In the morning, they are more alert, though scared.

What kind of person would do this? Who would then just leave them on the street to slowly die? I’m hardly naive and realize that a lot of people — maybe even most — do not aspire to represent the best of humanity, do not extend their circle of compassion very far, and do not look at mice as having moral worth, but why would anyone embrace such barbaric cruelty? Such callous indifference to suffering?

When people ask why I do not lose hope at how incivil people can be to animals, I always talk about the progress we’ve made in so many different areas, that people can surprise you, and remind them we have to take the long view. Sure we have a long way to go, but, as a society, we have already come so far. But days like this admittedly knock me down.

The next morning, I got back up as we all must.

Not only did we make a difference for two of our fellow earthlings, but we posted to Next Door and gently asked our neighbors to embrace a kinder and more inclusive world view. And we will hope that they have the ethical maturity to accept the message. At the very least, perhaps they will learn that though they might not care, other people do. And by learning that they do, maybe we will have planted a seed that will someday flower.

They were released with a little makeshift home, a week's supply of food, and far away from humans and glue traps. Godspeed little ones...

From traditional body lotions, soaps, and household cleaning products to cheeses, butters, and veggie burgers, coconuts and their various derivatives (including coconut water, coconut oil, and coconut milk) are everywhere. Coconut-based ingredients can be found in almost all shampoos and conditioners, most cosmetics and household products, and many foods. 

They are especially prevalent in vegan foods. In 2020, the number of plant-based products increased 14% over the previous year. Growth of meat alternatives “is projected to increase from $4.6 billion in 2018 to a whopping $85 billion in 2030,” but that will pale in comparison to dairy alternatives, which are “estimated to dominate the overall plant-based products market.”

Driving this growth is concern about animal cruelty. Yet in an ironic tragedy, the majority of new vegan foods contain coconut-derived ingredients, substituting one form of animal cruelty for another as the majority of coconuts sold across the world come from countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, where they are picked by primates.

Agile and adept climbers, pig-tailed macaques are acquired as infants by farmers. They are chained at the neck and trained to climb trees to pick coconuts. They are beaten regularly, worked to exhaustion, fed non-nutritious food, and deprived of socialization with their kind. They suffer from PTSD and frequently engage in self-mutilating behavior. When they become old and outlive their usefulness — suffering from mental illness, missing teeth, and unable to forage for food or protect themselves from predators — they are left in the wild to die.

My wife and I first found out about this industry of abuse almost 10 years ago. We were doing research for one of our cookbooks that included a discussion of a similar issue: how animals are harmed in the production of palm oil. Rainforests are frequently clear-cut to make way for palm plantations, leading to habitat loss for Asian elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, and orangutans. But even worse is the fate suffered by those animals who are found eating palm fruit on these plantations. They are shot, beaten to death, and even set on fire.

Our solution was to replace palm oil with coconut oil in all our recipes. But first we did our due diligence to see whether coconut production was any better. Unfortunately, we could find little information about animal welfare practices. Not a single animal rights or animal protection group in the U.S. was addressing this issue — perhaps out of ignorance or perhaps because coconuts are so central to contemporary plant-based foods. There were no articles about it in mainstream publications, either.

Through painstaking research, we started to uncover evidence of horrible abuse far worse than anything we had previously imagined. We started writing about it on social media, in blogs, in our newly published cookbook, and, eventually, in an article for The Huffington Post.

After that well-circulated article, others began to notice, including mainstream news publications like The Washington Post, NPR, and the BBC. Eventually, this led to public figures speaking out on the issue; the boycott of Thailand coconut products by companies such as Costco; and the recent study by a team headed by an Oxford researcher.

When we first found out about the issue, we wrote to companies to ask about the harvesting of the coconuts used in their products. We were naive. Instead of asking them what country they sourced their coconuts from, we asked them if their suppliers used primate labor. Almost every company we reached out to claimed they were primate-labor free — except a few, such as Beyond Meat, that simply ignored our requests or told us it was “proprietary information.” But since many of these companies sourced from countries like Thailand, the confident, casual assurances were dubious. Coconut industry spokesmen admit that such a claim is “hard to believe” given the prevalence of monkey labor in these countries, where macaques pick upwards of “99 percent of the Thai coconuts.”

Thankfully, others are not being naive either. When Costco announced they “do not support the use of monkeys for harvesting” and will, therefore, no longer sell coconut products from Thailand, they too rejected vague assurances of compliance, opting for onsite review of supplier farms.

In response, some farmers have been forced to admit that they do use primate labor, but claim that the macaques are treated well. “It is always relaxed, no shouting, no punishing,” said one monkey trainer. “Every few trees the monkey hugs his owner… and the monkey gets a massage. Outside working hours the monkeys are kept as a pet…” Of course, this is a lie.

The new study in the Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science — conducted onsite in Thailand — proves it.

The authors of the study found that, “Coconut harvesting using northern and southern pig-tailed macaques occurs throughout Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia” even though both species are “globally threatened, with decreasing populations.” The macaques are taken from the wild when very young in one of two ways: “by either baiting a wooden box or shooting the mother.” All the macaques are trained by “punishment using tight leashes and whips.” They are worked as much as eight hours every day to the point “of exhaustion” during which “they harvest between 500 and 1000 coconuts.” Their diet “was comprised mostly of inappropriate processed foods.”

Roughly 90% of them showed fear and distress just from being observed by the researchers. “A majority of macaques showed signs of abnormal repetitive behavior” including “pacing,” “self-biting,” “self-clasping,” “hair-plucking,” “self-masterbating,” and “repetitively back-flipping.”

This extreme fear, manifesting as aggression, is dealt with by “yanking the leash,” “shouting commands,” as well as “physically beating” them repeatedly. Researchers “did not observe a single case of positive reinforcement (reinforcing desirable behaviours by administering rewards).”

To prevent biting, some farmers pull out the macaques’ canine teeth. Although the study did not go into the exact process of teeth removal, generally, monkeys caught for human use such as in the pet trade have their teeth pulled out with pliers or nail clippers without anesthesia.

Not surprisingly, the macaques had “extremely poor welfare,” “no behaviours directly indicating a positive mental state were observed,” and many suffered from “mental illness symptoms including PTSD.”

When not working, not a single macaque was “provided with enrichment” and 99% of them “were tethered on a leash consisting of a metal ring around the neck with either a rope or chain attached that allowed limited movement.” Leashes were short, less than three feet, and none were allowed socialization or contact with their fellow primates:

For highly social animals like pig-tailed macaques, the absence of normal social interactions during infancy (i.e. grooming, play, and asserting/accepting dominance displays) often leads to an increase in self-directed aggression, aggression directed towards others, and the inability to behave normally in social situations. Depriving young macaques of social interactions during this critical learning period inhibits the development of skills necessary to survive independently.

And yet when they get older and are no longer efficient at picking coconuts, they are abandoned in the wild, even though they do not know how to take care of themselves or to forage for food and may be missing canine teeth they need both to defend themselves from predators and to eat natural foods. They are simply left to starve.

It is, in a word, slavery.

The study, “Assessing the welfare of coconut-harvesting macaques in Thailand,” is here.

For more information, what you can do, and a list of common but obscure coconut ingredient names such as cocamidopropyl betaine and vegetable glycerine, click here.

Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control officers kick a dog who is being held down with a hard-wired noose around his neck. Although transparency helps keeps abuse in check, the Department is moving to eliminate it and it has the support of organizations like the ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Society to do it.

Some 200 dogs and cats have escaped Kabul, but not everyone is celebrating. For the second time in as many months, an investigation into abusive conditions at the Philadelphia pound, including breaking a dog's jaw, killing him, and covering it up, has led to a recommendation of criminal charges. If the governor signs it, a bill that has passed the California legislature will end businesses that “house hundreds of dogs, mostly greyhounds, for the sole purpose of draining their blood.” The Knight First Amendment Institute has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services for violating the free speech rights of advocates by hiding comments critical of animal research on its social media pages. Utah is one shelter away from eliminating the gas chamber to kill animals. Millions of dogs and cats are at risk of losing their homes as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the CDC does not have the legal authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium in response to the pandemic. A new study shows that dogs can tell the difference between accidents and intentional actions by people. The number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing. And shelters are refusing to fully open to the public, threatening to increase the amount of neglect, abuse, and killing of animals. 

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection. 

* About 200 dogs and cats have escaped Kabul. They were flown on a “privately funded chartered plane.” Sadly, some people are complaining that they should have been left behind in favor of people, but that’s a facile comparison. And while I am truly sorry for those left behind, forgoing rescue attempts and letting those animals die wasn't a strategy for saving people. The fault for those in danger who did not make it out does not lie with innocent dogs and cats or those who rallied to save them.

* Last month, after staff at the Philadelphia, PA, pound broke a dog’s jaw, killed him, and then lied about it as part of a cover up, the director claimed “they are now reviewing their policies with staff to make sure this never happens again.” One month after promising to improve, a state inspection uncovered extensive filth and feces, as well as dogs not being examined or treated. It is the second time in as many months that an investigation into abusive conditions at the Philadelphia pound has led to a recommendation of “animal cruelty charges.”

* A bill in California to modernize an archaic system of providing blood for dogs who need transfusions has overwhelmingly passed the legislature. Currently, California is the only state that relies on businesses that “house hundreds of dogs, mostly greyhounds, for the sole purpose of draining their blood.” But "The days of captive ‘blood slave’ donor dogs may soon be over... if the governor signs a hard-fought bill that’s headed to his desk.”

* The Knight First Amendment Institute has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services for violating the free speech rights of advocates by hiding comments critical of animal research on its social media pages. Animals have no voice of their own and need others to speak for them. Deleting/hiding critical comments effectively silences them. This is true regardless of whether the animals are being abused or killed in a laboratory, factory farm, slaughterhouse, or animal “shelter.”

* Earlier this summer, the last remaining gas chamber in Ohio was dismantled and the state became gas chamber-free. In Utah, with the recent announcement that North Utah Valley Animal Shelter “will no longer use gas chamber euthanasia on animals at its facility,” the state is one shelter away from doing the same.

* The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the CDC does not have the legal authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium in response to the pandemic. The ruling could put millions of dogs and cats who live in a home or apartment that is not current on their rent or mortgage at risk of losing those homes. In response, The No Kill Advocacy Center has offered a roadmap for shelters to prevent killing.

* Ever bump into your dog or step on a tail because of inattentiveness? Your dog knows it was an accident. A new study shows that dogs can tell the difference between accidents and intentional actions by people. They are so good at reading people’s mental states, they can even tell whether people are happy or sad just by looking at the top half of their faces. 

As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing:

* East Monmouth County, NJ, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 97% for cats, and 98% for other animals. For dogs, it is part of the most exclusive club in the movement: those placing at least 99%.

* Camden County, NJ, reported a 95% placement rate for cats and 94% for dogs, the first year it has done so.

* Muncie, IN, reported a 98% placement rate for dogs and 96% for cats.

* And Wayne, NJ, reported a 96% placement rate for dogs, 97% for cats, and 100% for other animals.

These shelters and the data nationally prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, because there are too few homes, or because people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.

* We celebrated the birthday of the late Henry Bergh, the 19th Century animal advocate who incorporated the nation’s first SPCA and helped launch the humane movement in North America. Although he is not a very well known figure, we and the animals owe him a great deal. Every humane society that stands up for animals; every animal protection group that gives voice to the voiceless; and the millions of animals who have been saved thanks to the efforts of activists and advocates, are a living legacy to his life. Bergh was one of the first Americans to begin weaving the ideals of animal protection into our jurisprudence, the American psyche, and the fabric of American life.

And, finally, shelters are killing animals because they refuse to open fully to the public. Some, like Los Angeles County, have announced their intent to make it permanent. This threatens to erase the tremendous gains made by the No Kill movement over the last decade to force greater public access, as well as to force better and more sensible adoption and reclaim hours, all of which have been key to reducing shelter killing nationwide.  

But there’s another reason why closing doors to the public is so dangerous for animals: public scrutiny keeps neglect and abuse in check. Rescuers, potential adopters, volunteers, and other members of the public are the eyes, ears, and heart of the community. If they are not allowed to visit the facility unannounced, animals will suffer in silence. That’s not conjecture; it’s history. 

Under current Los Angeles County management, animals have been starved to death; cats have contracted fatal diseases because they were not given an examination, treatment, or vaccinations on intake; animals have been left with torn ears and gouged eyes without rehabilitative care; and animals have cannibalized one another because they were left without food. There’s more, including staff physically assaulting animals and staff simply clocking-in and then going home, getting paid for sleeping on the job, while animals are left in need. And yet groups like Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA are defending the change in policy and encouraging other communities to likewise limit unannounced public access to the pound.

A dog in a filthy kennel at Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control.

Shelters across the country are complaining that they are at overcapacity. A coalition in South Carolina has even declared a “state of emergency.” A spokesperson put it in stark terms: “The lives of thousands of animals in shelters across South Carolina are at stake.”

While shelters are blaming the public by saying they are surrendering animals in droves, the data tells a very different story. Pet Point, a shelter management software used by thousands of shelters and rescue groups across the country, recently revealed that intake numbers are still below pre-pandemic levels. “Looking at this data,” Pet Point’s Vice-President writes, “it doesn't look like it's being driven by extraordinary intake, as many have perceived.” Given that intakes are still below pre-pandemic levels, why the logjam?

The Pet Point analysis suggests an answer: inefficiency. Shelters have not returned to pre-pandemic staffing and practices. Many shelters have still not fully opened to the public for adoption. That means animals are not going out the front door as fast as they could. And not only are some shelters refusing to fully open to the public, some — like the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control — have announced that they never will. 

The department recently issued a report to the Board of Supervisors informing them that, if approved, they will no longer allow members of the public to visit county shelters to look for and reclaim lost pets, adopt new ones, rescue them from death, or just visit and play with the animals, unless those individuals have scheduled an appointment to do so. The department has the support of national groups like Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA, which are encouraging other shelters to adopt similar policies.

While shelter management in Los Angeles County claims that this “appointment only” policy will increase lifesaving (somehow), reduce intakes, and reduce stress for animals by limiting activity and noise levels, this is misleading. For animals, visitors mean stimulation, walks, getting played with, and finding homes. 

At the same time, the “appointment only” policy reduces their chance of being adopted and, in a regressive shelter, this is often a death sentence. According to a shelter watchdog and critic of the new policy, “At Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control, numerous people complained about the shelter not returning their calls when they tried to make adoption ‘appointments.’” The same issue is arising on the other coast in New York’s equally dysfunctional and regressive animal shelter. One family attempted “to adopt a dog from [New York City Animal Care and Control] NY ACC, [but their…] application was ‘pending’ for weeks before [that family] repeatedly called the shelter to get them to respond.”

This “appointment only” policy has also been criticized because it locks out “poor people and older people who don't have or are unable to use online services” from adopting, costing them and the animals a loving companion. It also erases tremendous gains made by the No Kill movement over the last decade to force greater public access, as well as to force better and more sensible adoption/reclaim hours, all of which have been key to reducing shelter killing nationwide.  

But there’s another reason why closing doors to the public is so dangerous for animals: public scrutiny keeps neglect and abuse in check. Rescuers, potential adopters, volunteers, and other members of the public are the eyes, ears, and heart of the community. If they are not allowed to visit the facility unannounced, animals will suffer in silence. That’s not conjecture; it’s history. 

Abuse Thrives in Darkness

A rabbit furiously tries to drink water from an empty container at the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control.

The staff called it “Spinal Monday.” 

Several years ago at the Los Angeles County pound, a volunteer found a rabbit in a back room outside of public view who was suffering from an exposed spine and being cannibalized by other rabbits. A subsequent investigation uncovered that the rabbit had been left alive in her cage for one week in that condition. Also discovered in the cage was a dead rabbit, his decomposing body covered with flies, and another rabbit with an eye popping out of his socket who was being attacked by the others. None of these animals had food or water. “Shelter” employees claimed to be unaware of these conditions, even though they were required to clean the cages every day. Out of public sight is out of mind for staff. During an unannounced visit to the same facility two years later, attorneys from The No Kill Advocacy Center found filthy rabbit cages and empty water bowls, apparently once again “forgotten” in an out-of-the-way back room.

Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control officers kicking a dog restrained with a hard-wired noose around his neck in a backroom.

These are not anomalies. Under current Los Angeles County management, animals have been starved to death; cats have contracted panleukopenia because they were not given an examination, treatment, or vaccinations on intake; animals have been left with torn ears and gouged eyes without rehabilitative care; and animals have been warehoused in filthy conditions. There’s more, including staff physically assaulting animals and staff simply clocking-in and then going home, getting paid for sleeping on the clock, while animals are left in need. While many of these problems occurred years ago, others are more recent.

Mr. Pickles, for example, was a young, healthy cat who was surrendered by his family to the L.A. county pound system. He was placed in what is known as the “feral” building. The building is behind a locked gate, inaccessible to the public. There, healthy cats like Mr. Pickles are housed next to sick cats, ensuring that those who enter healthy don’t leave that way, if they leave at all. 

Mr. Pickles turned out to be very sweet, rubbing up against the bars of his cage when staff walked by and calling out to them with a soft meow. He was so pliable, in fact, someone put a pair of Mr. Potato Head glasses on him and snapped his photo to show others how cute he was. A volunteer who was given permission to enter the building to pick up a different cat took a video of Mr. Pickles being friendly. She, too, saw immediately that despite being labeled “feral,” Mr. Pickles was social with people. She had hoped the video would get him moved to a public building for adoption. Others tried too; one of them writing in large block letters on his cage card: VERY SWEET CAT.

Despite these attempts, staff at the pound killed him with a lethal dose of barbiturates. In a bid to cover up the malfeasance, Mr. Pickles was labeled “unadoptable.” “I have personally verified and therefore, recommend based on the criteria in OPK 120, that this animal is eligible for PTS,” a staff member wrote on his official paperwork. PTS — meaning “Put to Sleep” — is a euphemism for killing. OPK 120 is the policy that authorizes the killing of cats who are alleged to have “a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make them unsuitable for placement as a pet.” According to the pound director, cats are only killed in cases of “severe injury, untreatable illness, or dangerous/wild temperament,” a claim no one believes; including, I suspect, the shelter director herself.

Mr. Pickles was not injured. He was not ill. He was not dangerous. And putting aside how cruel it is to kill cats even if they truly are “feral,” Mr. Pickles was not. It was quite literally written on his cage. But according to a whistleblower, mislabeling cats is something that “happens a lot.” It’s easy to do when animals are hidden away from public view. The only reason we know of Mr. Pickles is because of a whistleblower, who has since gone silent because their job was threatened. Without public oversight, shelter staff will have even fewer practical limits on their power to neglect, to abuse, to kill, and to lie about it. Any animal that enters the Los Angeles County system faces the same fate as Mr. Pickles.

A Mission Betrayed

A severely injured dog dragged across the pavement by Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control officers. The dog was subsequently killed.

Across the country and over the past 20 years, one primary thing has forced regressive shelters to improve: the court of public opinion. When the public hears about neglect, abuse, and killing in their local shelter, they denounce it and demand changes. It is no surprise then that regressive, historically abusive pound systems like those in Los Angeles and New York would reject transparency and accountability by closing their doors to the unannounced public.

It is equally not surprising that large, national groups like Best Friends and the ASPCA, are endorsing the effort. Like the ASPCA, Best Friends has a long history of corruption, including but not limited to:

* Defending shelter directors who killed animals in the face of a rescue alternative.

* Opposing efforts to mandate public-private partnerships between municipal pounds and non-profit No Kill organizations that would have saved roughly 25,000 animals a year in New York.

* Protecting shelter management in the City of Los Angeles when that shelter was killing community cats and opposing litigation that would have forced them to stop. 

* Falsely claiming Los Angeles city shelters are No Kill, shielding them from scrutiny for abandonment, killing, neglect of duty, and threatening to arrest rescuers. 

* And promoting policies at shelters intended to silence rescuers and volunteers.

Their embrace of diminished transparency and accountability is par for the course.

A Worrying Trend

A cat abandoned in the parking lot of Los Angeles Animal Services when the person trying to surrender him was turned away because the pound closed its doors for much of the year. A rescuer trying to help the cat was told by staff that she needed a permit to trap him, would not be given a permit, and was not allowed to even provide food or water on threat of prosecution. Other shy cats were not so “lucky” as the pound was under a court order to kill even healthy “feral” cats. And yet, Best Friends falsely claimed that the city is No Kill.

In the past two decades, shelters that have fully invested in lifesaving — comprehensively implementing the programs and services of the No Kill Equation — have achieved placement rates greater than 95% and as high as 99%. Collectively, these achievements have helped lead to a decline in killing nationwide of 90% from its high water mark of 16 million in the 1970s. It has been called “the single biggest success of the modern animal protection movement.”

But that puts organizations and shelters that have not embraced comprehensive reforms at a terrible disadvantage and under greater public scrutiny. By turning away animals in need, including blind cats found walking around lost in circles; refusing lost dogs, telling finders to release them back on the street; failing to pick up kittens left abandoned on sidewalks; and more, these shelters can claim reduced intakes and higher placement rates, improving their statistics at the expense of animals. 

For this reason, higher “placement rates” are no longer a guarantee of a job well done. Instead of evidence of hard work and a commitment to No Kill, these numbers can be the result of turning people and animals away, mischaracterizing animals like Mr. Pickles as a threat to public safety, limiting the flow of incriminating information by hiding abuse from the public, and threatening rescuers and volunteers who would otherwise expose inhumane conditions or other mistreatment.

And it is by design. Indeed, that just may be how Best Friends intends to (falsely) claim America has achieved a No Kill nation, something it is promising will occur by 2025, all so that it can fundraise from a caring, but unsuspecting, public to the tune of tens of millions of donation dollars every year.

To prevent this sham, we must open the shelters fully to the public and to the light of public scrutiny. Transparency is not only the best disinfection against corruption, without it, the animals perish.

Prince celebrates his Gotcha Day! As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, this could be the story of every shelter animal in America.

The AKC wants you to believe that a dog shortage has reached crisis proportions. A gender studies professor objects to helping disabled dogs and cats gain mobility. Raleigh, NC, criminalizes compassion for “feral” cats. There are no chickens in the new “chicken” nuggets for sale at the stadium of the San Francisco Giants. The market for vegan meats will increase five-fold over the next 10 years. A Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that a Kansas law making it illegal to film and publicize animal abuse on farms violates the First Amendment. A new study finds “that pets owned by people experiencing homelessness” are as healthy “as the general pet population.” The number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing. The youngest orca at SeaWorld in San Diego has died. And a new study out of Oregon State University set out to answer the question: Do cats love us? No surprise, they do.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

* Is there a "Great American Dog Shortage"? The AKC wants you to believe that there is. They also want you to believe that shelter and rescue dogs are dangerous and the only way to meet demand is to expand commercial breeding. But what do we find when we follow the evidence instead of the money? What we find is that rescue and shelter dogs can meet demand, that these dogs are dying for homes, and that the vast majority are healthy, friendly, and pose no threat. We don’t need to factory farm dogs.

* Dymka, a cat suffering from frostbite that required amputation of all four of her legs, is walking again thanks to 3D printed titanium legs. She’s one of many dogs and cats who were either born with a disability or suffered accidents but are being helped by prosthetics or wheelchairs. Unfortunately, not everyone is celebrating. In a new book, a professor of gender studies at Kansas State University, tragically objects to these stories, claiming they “reveal salacious and almost pornographic exceptionalizations of disabled bodies” and “erase” the experiences of disabled people. They do no such thing.

* An animal control officer in Raleigh, NC, is accusing the mayor of feeding a feral cat in violation of law. The Mayor said that the City will be “fining me at my house every day. I have my favorite feral cat and he is like one of the family.” Banning the feeding of community cats, she says, “goes a little too far.”

* There are no chickens in the new “chicken” nuggets for sale at the stadium of the San Francisco Giants. The new nuggets are part of an overall growth in plant-based foods with Bloomberg reporting that the market for vegan meats will increase five-fold over the next 10 years: from $30 billion in sales to over $160 billion. That is good news for animals, including chickens, who are the most abused animal in the world, with over 60 billion killed every year to be eaten.

* A Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that a Kansas law making it illegal to film and publicize animal abuse on farms violates the First Amendment. The Court held that Kansas may not legislate speech in order to prevent undercover investigations that expose inhumane conditions. It is a victory for anyone who has spoken out on behalf of animals abused and killed in any context.

* A new study finds “that pets owned by people experiencing homelessness” are “as healthy as the general pet population, even finding that the animals are less likely to be overweight.” People of all walks of life love their pets.

As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing:

* Ewing Township, NJ, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 99% for cats, and 100% for other animals. It is part of the most exclusive club in the movement: those placing 99%+.

* Pequannock Township, NJ, reported a 100% placement rate for dogs, 98% for cats, and 100% for other animals. For dogs and rabbits and other small animals, it, too, is part of the most exclusive club in the movement.

* Likewise, Porter County, IN, reported a 97% placement rate for dogs and 97% for cats.

* The shelter that serves the cities of Bridgewater, Manville, and Green Brook, NJ, reported a placement rate of 98% for cats, 98% for dogs, and 100% for other animals.

* Marquette, MI, reported a placement rate of 96% for dogs, 98% for cats, and 98% for rabbits, hamsters, and other small animals.

* Fulton County, IN, reported a 100% placement rate for dogs and 97% for cats.

* West Milford, NJ, also reported a placement rate of 95% for cats, 98% for dogs, and 100% for other animals. 

These shelters and the data nationally prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, because there are too few homes, or because people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.

* In tragic news, the youngest orca at SeaWorld in San Diego has died. The company does not know why. Amaya was only six years old. She is at least the fifth young whale to die in captivity across marine parks in the U.S. this year, many of them suddenly with some experts opining that it is captivity itself which is to blame. SeaWorld is no stranger to poor care and early death of orcas which led the California Coastal Commission in 2015 to ban the breeding of orcas at SeaWorld and ruled that no new whales from the wild could be kept there. 

And, finally, we all know how much we love our cats, but a new study out of Oregon State University set out to answer the question: Do they love us back? OSU researchers recruited people and their pet cats to determine whether cats, like dogs, see their caregivers as surrogate parents. The study found — to the surprise of no one who has ever lived with cats — that they do. In fact, their attachment was as good as children and better than dogs.

While some have suggested that the study was a waste of time and money and that anyone with cats could have told researchers that, studies like this are still important. As long as they are non-invasive, voluntary, and allow the cats to quit or walk away if they are bored or stressed, the studies help overcome a bias in the scientific community of “underestimating cats' socio-cognitive abilities.” And having more studies conclude that cats have a rich inner life, deep feelings, and a great capacity for love can only serve to increase their status and the view of their moral worth. This is important because it is not just university researchers who have this bias. 

This view of cats is also historically endemic in the sheltering community. Shelters often treat cats as second-class citizens, with the bulk of program resources, socializing efforts, and volunteer time spent with dogs. This isn’t necessarily because people love dogs more and cats less, but because they believe that dogs need more and cats are relatively low-maintenance. This study and others like it prove that cats suffer psychologically if not provided stimulation, socialization, and made to feel loved and safe. They deserve a fair share of sheltering resources. And we can use studies like this to push shelter managers to make sure they get it.

Authorities found these conditions at an AKC “Breeder of Merit” only eight days after an AKC inspection found “everything was up to par.” The “Breeder of Merit” was charged with cruelty. 

If you believe the article in Axios, by Jennifer Kingson, America is in the grip of a great dog shortage. “Demand for pet dogs is far outstripping supply,” she writes, “and the imbalance is expected to worsen.” The way Kingson tells it: millions of Americans want to get a dog but can't find one. Unless we take action, millions more will face the same problem. 

But what action should we take?

According to Kingson, even though dogs are being killed in animal shelters, Americans can’t adopt more because shelters lack adoptable dogs. “Today,” she says, “it is primarily sick or dangerous dogs that are euthanized — and when you ‘rescue’ a dog from a shelter, the animal may simply be a foreign import that was brought to the U.S. to slake demand.” To Kingson, these foreign-born dogs are also dangerous. 

Even though millions of them are in need of homes, the U.S. government shouldn’t allow dogs to be brought here, she says, for fear of importing rabies along with them. 

The only option, Kingson concludes, is to expand commercial breeding. The problem, she says, is that “While shady ‘puppy mills’ do exist, most domestic breeders are highly ethical but are being squeezed by state and local laws that limit conditions for breeding dogs.”

It’s a crisis of epic proportions — at least according to the puppy breeders and industry lobbyists Kingson relies on to make her case. These include:

* Mark Cushing, a lobbyist for industries that profit off animals, including pet food companies;

* Sheila Goffe, a lobbyist for the American Kennel Club (AKC), an organization which profits from breeding; and,

* Patti Strand, “who has bred dalmations for 52 years.”

But what would we find if we ignored the self-appointed, financially-interested breeding proponents Kingson spoke to and instead looked at the evidence for ourselves? Is it dangerous to adopt dogs from shelters? Is it dangerous to rescue dogs from abroad? Is it ethical to breed dogs by the millions?

Despite the fear-mongering, what the evidence shows is that rescue and shelter dogs can meet demand, that these dogs are dying for homes and represent a clarion call upon our conscience, and that the vast majority are healthy, friendly, and pose no threat. We don’t need to factory farm dogs on a commercial scale.

The sky is in no danger of falling. 

The vast majority of shelter dogs are healthy, friendly, and do not pose a threat

Although there are dogs dying in animal shelters, Kingson claims that we cannot adopt more because, “it is primarily sick or dangerous dogs that are [killed].” This is misleading.

It is true that in the past two decades, shelters that have fully invested in lifesaving by comprehensively implementing the programs and services of the No Kill Equation, have achieved placement rates greater than 95% and as high as 99%. Collectively, these achievements have helped lead to a decline in killing nationwide of 90% from its high water mark in the 1970s. It has been called “the single biggest success of the modern animal protection movement.” But we have not yet achieved a No Kill nation.

To the contrary, shelters across the U.S. are complaining about the need for more adopters, with a coalition in South Carolina declaring a “state of emergency.” A spokesperson put it in stark terms: “The lives of thousands of animals in shelters across South Carolina are at stake.” 

We’ve made tremendous progress to be sure, but one million dogs or more are still being killed. These dogs are neither sick nor dangerous. They are young: the average age is two years old. Most are healthy. And they are friendly. In short, it is premature to declare victory. 

The vast majority of rescue dogs are healthy, friendly, and do not pose a threat; some need a little extra TLC

To make the claim that dogs from abroad represent a profound threat to human health, Kingson points to the temporary ban by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on allowing dogs into the U.S. from 113 countries. She claims that the ban was necessary because “rabies and other diseases that can jump from dogs to humans are cropping up in places where they were all but eradicated.” This is also misleading.

While the CDC did enact a temporary one-year ban on dogs arriving from certain countries, it did so in response to what it found was a rise in the number of false rabies certificates. The number of false certificates, however, represented only 0.05% of the total and the CDC did not identify an increase in dog-to-human rabies transmission, with only 1-3 human rabies cases per year. Historically, 90% of these cases are wildlife related. The ban also only impacts 6% of dogs arriving from other countries. The risk, to put it mildly, is minimal. And better screening at the border, rather than a ban, provides a way to minimize it even further without sacrificing dogs abroad or, as we shall see, increasing their abuse at home through commercial breeding. 

This has life and death consequences — and emotional ones. “Several soldiers said the [‘heartbreaking’] ban… will most likely force them to say goodbye to the dogs they formed bonds with on deployment — dogs like Pepper, who was skin and bones when she was found three months ago by a U.S. soldier on patrol in Jordan.” Said the soldier: “I want nothing more than to bring her home and show her a better life.” The ban is also hurting street dogs, like Pihu “who had suffered spinal injuries and infections so bad that both hind legs had to be amputated,” but is now living and thriving in the U.S. with the American tourist who brought her home and treated her. And it is threatening dogs from the meat trade, who face being eaten if not saved by rescue groups and adopted to families in the United States. 

None of this appears to move Kingson who paints a picture of unwelcome dog “immigration” from undesirable countries and, in referring to them as “foreign imports,” reduces them to objects unworthy of moral consideration. It smacks — if you’ll pardon the pun — of ‘dog whistling.’ 

Thankfully, the American public is not taking the bait as there does not seem to be any group in favor of the ban, with the exception of the AKC. 

Because of broad public support for rescuing these dogs, the House of Representatives recently passed an amendment to a spending bill that would give “the CDC capacity for a rabies screening program to protect dogs in America while allowing for the importation of dogs stranded abroad.” The broadly bipartisan bill cleared the House on a voice vote and is expected to pass in the Senate.

There is no principled distinction between puppy mills and commercial breeders 

Kingson’s final claim that, “While shady ‘puppy mills’ do exist, most domestic breeders are highly ethical,” is as false as the others. It also comes from the AKC. How ethical are AKC certified breeders? 

Despite certifying hundreds of thousands of breeders, including designating thousands of those as “the most conscientious and most committed breeders,” the AKC did not inspect upwards of 95% of them. Based on information provided by the AKC itself, The Canine Review found that there are only 10 inspectors for nearly 140,000 “certified” breeders. Given so few inspectors, over 130,000 “would never be inspected at all.” 

The Canine Review also found that, “Even when the AKC does inspect a breeder, its skeletal team often misses or overlooks obvious signs of neglect or abuse…”  In one instance, dogs were living in such filth, such dire — indeed, criminal — conditions that the “AKC Breeder of Merit… was arrested and charged with animal cruelty.” Her arrest came “only eight days after an AKC inspector visited the breeder’s property and issued a report saying everything was up to par.”

Kingson wants us to believe that there is a difference between “puppy mills” and commercial breeders, but the evidence compels otherwise. Dogs and puppies are not commodities. At the very least, they shouldn’t be. They are sentient beings who, most Americans agree, are entitled to protection. Commercial breeding, by contrast, treats dogs as factory parts. Not surprisingly, they tend toward abuse. 

As a study in the Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science found, “Common to virtually all [Commercial Breeding Enterprises] CBEs are the following: large numbers of dogs;… housing dogs in or near the minimum space permitted by law; housing breeding dogs for their entire reproductive lives — in most cases, years — in their cages or runs; dogs rarely if ever permitted out of their primary enclosures for exercise or play; absence of toys or other forms of enrichment; minimal to no positive human interaction or companionship; and minimal to no health care.”

Because of the trauma they experience at the facilities, former breeding dogs exhibited more fear, nervousness, health problems, compulsive behaviors, house soiling, and sensitivity to touch compared to shelter dogs. In some cases, significantly more. Many of these dogs experience “regular and often persistent fear or anxiety, even after years in their adoptive households.” Not only do one in four former breeding dogs have significant health problems, many of them are psychologically and emotionally shut down, compulsively staring at nothing.

And their offspring also suffer. A subsequent study found that puppies “sold through pet stores and/or born in high-volume, commercial breeding establishments (CBE) show an increased number of problem behaviors as adults.” For example, puppies bought in pet stores were:

* More than twice as likely to be aggressive compared to those adopted from shelters;

* More likely to develop social fears (of strangers, children, and other dogs) than from all other sources;

* More likely to be separated from their mothers at a young age leading to a four-fold increase in destructive behaviors;

* More excitable, less trainable, had increased separation-related behaviors, escape behavior, and sensitivity to being touched; and,

* More likely to house soil.

In layman’s terms, commercial breeders engage in systematic mistreatment, causing severe emotional scars that last for generations. They are all puppy mills. 

Where do we go from here?

Instead of more commercial breeding, we must expand our efforts to educate the public about puppy mills, the physical deformities or defects that result from inbreeding, how breeding animals for their appearance leads to phenotypes that cause shorter, harder lives, and the immorality of turning animals into factory cogs. 

We must also expand our efforts to educate the public about the unscientific nature of discriminating against dogs on the basis of alleged “breed,” the false view of shelter and rescued animals as damaged, and the equally false view that purposely-bred animals are more “predictable” and make “better” family pets.

We must continue to pass bans on the retail sale of commercially-bred animals in pet stores, as has been done in five states and about 400 cities nationwide. Passing a complete ban on commercial breeding may not be politically possible at this time in history — after all, the industry remains wealthy and well-connected with lobbyists in the halls of power and journalists like Kingson spreading misinformation on their behalf. For now, we must regulate commercial breeding as much as possible by setting limits on the number of breeding females; creating dog-generous housing; making veterinary care, exercise, play, and socialization mandatory; and ensuring cruelty laws apply and are robustly enforced. This should include one-strike rules that cause breeders to lose their licenses for serious offenses.

Our society is on a rapid, positive trend away from the exploitation of dogs. One of the most exciting manifestations of this is the decline in pound killing. Fewer people are buying animals and overall adoption rates are increasing. Of the $72.5 billion spent on caring for animals in 2018, the amount spent to purchase animals actually declined by 4.3% and is now “the smallest area of total pet industry spend[ing].” When it comes to adding a new animal to their household, more people are “turning to shelters and rescues.” 

While Kingson and her industry sources see this as a crisis, it is evidence that we are succeeding. This is what the animal protection movement wanted to happen. We need to nurture and expand this, at the same time that we force shelters to embrace progressive practices, like the No Kill Equation, in order to increase adoption and reduce killing even further. Doing so will create a more compassionate and just world for dogs.

If we do all that — when we do all that — when all 50 U.S. states are No Kill, when its districts and territories are No Kill, when neighboring countries and then the rest of the world is No Kill, if there is still a clamor for more dogs to love and share our homes with — when that day comes, we can have a discussion about how to ethically respond. 

But as long as dogs are dying, regardless of why they are dying or where they are dying, adoption and rescue remain ethical imperatives — and they should probably be legal mandates, too.