Mark Twain noted that “No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” Apparently the efforts to combat global warming aren’t safe either, as an obscure procedural vote in the House of Representatives [last] week threw a major roadblock in the way of science-based solutions.

By a vote of 267-147, the House passed a motion by Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), instructing the conference committee on the Interior Appropriations bill to keep an amendment by Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) that prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from being allowed to gather any data on the contribution that animal agriculture makes to climate change. The House bill had included this Latham provision, but the Senate had rejected a similar amendment by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), meaning the conferees from both chambers had to negotiate on whether it stayed in the final bill.

The Senate and House leaders of the Interior Appropriations subcommittees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), fought hard to defeat these hostile maneuvers by lawmakers too closely aligned with agribusiness and to preserve the EPA’s authority to collect data on greenhouse gas emissions from the largest industrial factory farms. After the House vote, though, the bill was finalized with the Latham amendment included, and will soon be sent to the president for his signature.

The HSUS and a coalition of environmental and public health groups have petitioned the EPA to begin regulating air pollution from factory farms, and the agency recently announced that the largest animal factories (only those emitting more than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases from manure) would have to report on their emissions. But now Congress will block the agency’s action.

The rhetoric on the House floor from Simpson and others would make one think that a simple reporting requirement would force every American farmer out of business, and all the agricultural jobs would move to Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. Simpson even opined: “If the EPA had existed in Biblical times, there is no question in my mind that it would have regulated gas emissions from Noah’s Ark. Poor Noah and his livestock; they could withstand a 40-day flood, but they would never have survived the EPA.”

But Noah wasn’t confining animals in industrial factories, dumping thousands of tons of manure into lagoons, polluting our air and water, jeopardizing public health, or harming rural communities. Chairman Dicks pointed out the narrow focus of the agency’s rule, noting “that thousands of small farmers would be exempted, and only the 90 largest manure management systems in the country would be required to report their emissions, those who annually emit as much in greenhouse gases as 58,000 barrels of oil.”

It’s a setback for science and transparency, and it ties the hands of the U.S. at a time when our federal officials are about to sit down with leaders of many other countries in Copenhagen to try to reach an agreement on how to meet this global challenge. How can we develop good public policy solutions based on sound science if we can’t even collect data? With worldwide animal agriculture accounting for nearly one-fifth (or perhaps more) of all greenhouse gas emissions, Congress must stop giving the livestock sector a free pass—every industry must come to the table and be part of the solution.

—Michael Markarian

Puppy Love

The human desire to accentuate traits like dwarfism, however, appears to run deeper than recent trends might suggest. Thought to have been the first animal domesticated (from wolves, about 12,000 years ago), dogs, it appears, have consistently been selected for a certain set of qualities—among them soft fur, affectionate nature, and tractability—that, as it turns out, mirror qualities exhibited only by wolf puppies. No self-respecting adult wolf would deign to engage in the fawning and begging—or, indeed, the barking—that have become quintessential to the canine condition. The retention of these characteristics into adulthood is known as neoteny. Neoteny, a phenomenon observed across the biological spectrum—from cacti to salamanders to, some argue, humans—occurs when an organism continues to display juvenile traits even as it sexually matures. While neoteny has occasionally been advantageous in nature—as in the case of certain island birds that have evolved to conserve energy by retaining juvenile wings into adulthood, their insular homes having rendered flight superfluous—toy dogs represent an extreme case. It has been posited that humans possess an innate “cute response” that engenders nurturing feelings toward helpless-looking creatures—a quality advantageous in a species with exceedingly altricial, or undeveloped, offspring. Upon examination, toy dogs seem tailored to superstimulate just that instinct. They are, in essence, fetuses ex utero. Their foreshortened limbs and faces, limp ears, and, in some cases, underdeveloped cardiovascular and respiratory systems are all typical of fetal animals.

Arrested Development

Lest the reader interpret the recitation of these qualities as merely pejorative of a certain saccharine aesthetic, it should now be said that therein lies the problem. While it might be one thing if the canine genome were infinitely plastic and resilient, the reality is that the genetic medium is a limited one. The shrinking stature of toy dogs comes at a price, one that can be calculated in terms of neoteny. The foreshortened muzzles of dogs like “teacup” Chihuahuas, pugs, and Japanese chins can lead to dental problems and early tooth loss due to insufficient jaw space. Teacup breeds, the smallest type, which sport enlarged heads, often suffer from open fontanels—which are, as many a nervous parent will know, the unfused plates in the skull that, in normal development, eventually grow together. Because they have been selected to retain fetal characteristics, the skulls of these unfortunate dogs remain unfused throughout their lives, leaving them at risk of brain damage at the slightest injury. Other breeds, like the Cavalier King Charles spaniel, are at risk of developing brains too large for their skulls entirely. Many toy breeds also suffer from collapsing trachea disorder: because the cartilage in the trachea is not sufficiently developed, the tissue collapses on occasion, momentarily suffocating the dog. The list goes on: weakened hearts, hair in the ear canals (in the case of some toy poodles), spinal deformities in short-legged dogs like dachshunds—a veritable freakshow of fully avoidable genetic errors.

Please Curb Your Breeder

It is possible to breed these miniature creatures in a responsible manner. Doing so, however, requires patience and planning—it will likely take an ethical breeder a far more circuitous route to develop, say, a line of blue Chihuahuas with long hair because of the generations of outcrossing (mating to unrelated dogs) needed to maintain the genetic integrity of the line and to compensate for the inevitable backcrossing to select for the desired trait. The relentless pursuit of novel combinations of proportion, color, and coat leads some breeders to take the path of least resistance (and gravest consequence to the dogs). Litters produced after several generations of inbreeding usually yield predominately stillborn or deformed puppies, among which one may be viable, albeit enervated by its weakened genome.

Sadly, with Yorkshire terriers (a breed that, especially in teacup varieties, is a frequent victim of inbreeding) recently surpassing even golden retrievers in popularity in the United States, breeders looking to exploit the expanding market for petite pets are well-served to ignore the dictates of genetic ethics and persist in breeding for the bottom line. Without legislation regulating breeding practices, little stands in their way. And, with the American Kennel Club reporting increases of more than 200 percent in the registry of breeds like pugs and Chihuahuas over a five year period beginning in the early 2000s—nevermind the countless dogs bred outside the auspices of the AKC—the trend shows few signs of abating.

Tempest over Teacups

Some have argued that kennel clubs share responsibility for the breeding practices that lead to congenital disorders by virtue of their stress on the importance of type—the specifications that breeds are expected to meet in the show arena—over the health problems that might arise through persistent selection for extreme appearance. The American Kennel Club accepts the practice of inbreeding and indeed considers it unavoidable, though it advises that only experienced breeders attempt it. However, in 2008 the British Kennel Club was motivated by public outcry to review its breed standards in order to eliminate ideals (such as the Pekingese’s drastically shortened face) that carry obvious health liabilities. While organizations like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have picketed major purebred dog events like the Westminster Dog Show in attempts to draw attention to the problem, addressing irresponsible backyard breeding operations and puppy mills is a more challenging proposition.

—Rich Pallardy

Images: smooth-coat Chihuahua (© Photos.com/Jupiterimages); King Charles spaniel (© Photos.com/Jupiterimages); Pomeranian being prepared for dog show (Sam Panthaky—AFP/Getty Images); three-week-old Chihuahua puppy (Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images).

To Learn More

• This BBC documentary, credited with helping to catalyze the British Kennel Club’s reevaluation of its breed standards, provides an overview of the genetic difficulties that result from inbreeding.
• This site lists genetic disorders commonly suffered by each breed of dog (including various toy breeds). While these disorders may occur even in responsibly bred dogs, the list provides a good indication of the types of problems that can be exacerbated by inbreeding.

How Can I Help?

While some argue that purebred dogs should be boycotted altogether, their appeal to many is irresistible. Should you be in the market for a purebred dog (toy or otherwise), here are a few points to consider:
• Ask to see the breeder’s records. A responsible breeder should be happy (and even proud) to show you your prospective puppy’s heritage. You can than assess the degree to which the line has been inbred.
• Never buy a dog from a pet store. The likelihood that the animal came from a backyard breeder or puppy mill is extremely high. Few responsible breeders will sell their dogs to pet stores.
• Consider adopting from a breed rescue. Even purebred dogs are discarded by their owners at an alarming rate and adopting from a rescue at least does not reward negligent breeders. Two rescues that find adoptive homes for toy breeds are Wolfspirit’s Toy Breed Puppy Mill Rescue and SOS (Save our Small) Dogs.

I just finished browsing the October issue of The Trapper and Predator Caller. Now don’t get me wrong, this isn’t pleasure reading by any stretch.

But what is a bit amusing is that while trapping proponents publicly claim that trapping is humane, selective (i.e., rarely catching dogs, cats, and endangered species), that it provides much needed income to poor trappers, and that it is well regulated and based on rigorous scientific data, their own trade magazine tells a very different story.

For example, on the issue of accidentally trapping domestic dogs, the Kansas Fur Harvesters President’s Report noted that:

I am sure that if another dog gets caught in a bodygripping trap or snare, there will be a regulation change. Regulation changes are not as bad as legislation because as the New York trappers associations past president said, “regulation is easier to change than legislation.” New York just went through a dog being killed in a bodygripping trap and had to work with the Department of Natural Resources to format new trapping regulation to keep the legislature from making changes.

Great. Good to know, that when the trapping interests work with state wildlife departments to make regulation changes ostensibly to better protect companion animals from falling victim to body crushing traps, they do so with the intent of eventually weakening those regulations.

O.k., so I already knew that, but still.

The report also noted that

problems have arisen in every state that bodygripping traps and snares can be legally set.

Again, I knew that, but good to know that they know it too and, as such, are lying through their teeth when they suggest otherwise to the public.

Next, on the issue of the economic importance of trapping. The New Jersey Trappers Association report noted,

I hope everyone is planning to get out and have fun. Lord knows we will not be doing this for the money.

The Vermont Trappers Association shed some light on the depth of the science it uses in determining whether wildlife populations are healthy,

By the amount of road kill I am seeing, there is no shortage of critters this year.

And back to the previous point about money, he also notes,

If you are in this sport to get rich you are fooling yourself … most trappers do it for the fun of being outside and not the mighty buck.

I can think of a lot of other ways to be outside that do not involve crushing, maiming, and killing animals. Perhaps there is a dearth of creativity in them thar parts.

[The] Vermont Trappers Association also shed some light on enforcement (or lack thereof) of trapping.

… there is a possibility that wardens will no longer respond to your house to tag animals taken by trapping … I think it’s high time to go to a self reporting system where the trapper fills out an annual report on what species he harvests, similar to what we do now. I understand the importance of the fish and wildlife folks to conduct some research on some animals, but this has gone on for years. I guess I personally would need to know what is gained. I do believe it will be a pain in the packbasket to hunt down a warden during their busiest time of the year. …

Great, so what he is saying is: If a warden won’t make a house call to record the number of animals you’ve killed and you can’t be bothered to find a warden (who is really too busy anyway to be bothered), then what should happen is the industry should just regulate itself with a voluntary reporting system. (Don’t laugh too hard. Some states actually do this.) Oh, and why the heck does the fish and game agency need to keep track of how many animals are killed anyway when all they have to do just look a the amount of road kill and rest assured that wildlife populations are just fine.

Yeah, right, these are the people we should entrust with the care of our wildlife.

To top it off, the October issue ended with a story about a trapper who shot a hole in his own boat after climbing up a tree in pursuit of a raccoon. The tree fell over, his boat was tied to the tree and, well, you get the picture.

These are the self-proclaimed wildlife professionals who assert that trapping is safe, necessary, humane, economically important, and well regulated.

—Monica Engebretson

Federal legislation

The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 3907 and S. 1834, was reintroduced on October 22 to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally. Under current law, researchers can obtain animals from breeders, owners, or random source (Class B) dealers. It is these random source animal dealers who are targeted by this legislation because of their poor history of keeping accurate records of where they obtain the animals they are reselling. Many times these animals have come from owners who did not know that they would be sold to researchers. In addition, these random source animals have fallen out of favor with researchers because of their uncertain medical history, making this an ideal time to end the licensing of Class B dealers under the Animal Welfare Act.

The current proposal allows the use of dogs and cats by a research facility for research or educational purposes only if the dog or cat is obtained from:

(1) A licensed dealer that has bred and raised the dog or cat;
(2) A publicly owned and operated pound or shelter that: is registered with the Secretary; is in compliance with requirements for holding and transferring animals to dealers; [and] obtained the dog or cat from its legal owner, other than a pound or shelter NOTE: Nothing in this bill requires a pound or shelter to sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to a research facility or Federal research facility.
(3) A person who is donating the dog or cat and who: bred and raised the dog or cat; or owned the dog or cat for not less than 1 year immediately preceding the donation; [or]
(4) A research facility licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture.

The bill will penalize both the buyers and sellers of animals coming from an impermissible source. While the continued trafficking in cats and dogs for research is far from ideal, this legislation will provide safeguards for animals who are bred and live as companion animals.

Please contact your Representative and Senators and ask them to support of this legislation!

State legislation

Ohio’s general election on November 3, 2009, will include a proposed constitutional amendment, Issue 2, that would make it much more difficult for the adoption of humane farming measures in the future. This provision would give agribusiness interests a significantly greater voice in determining policy on the treatment of animals used for food by requiring any change in law to go through a board that is heavily weighted on the side of agricultural—not animal—interests.

Issue 2 would set up a new Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board with the governor and legislature appointing members, including members of statewide farm organizations, family farmers, veterinarians, a food-safety expert, the dean of an Ohio agriculture college and two consumers. While one representative of a local humane society is also included, that individual may not be an expert on humane farming issues and would certainly be a lone voice on behalf of animals in a panel [comprising] individuals whose primary concern is their business interests. This board would have far-reaching powers to set standards for livestock and poultry care, food safety, supply and availability, disease prevention, farm management, and animal well-being. It would have minimal legislative oversight and legislative efforts to institute more humane farming practices will first have to go through review by this Board.

If you live in Ohio, be sure to go to the polls next Tuesday to vote NO for Issue 2.

For a weekly update on legal news stories, go to Animallaw.com.

When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this year removed wolves from the protections of the Endangered Species Act, it paved the way for the same reckless sport hunting and persecution that put these animals on the endangered species list in the first place. And now we’ve learned that the first sport hunting season on wolves to occur in the lower 48 states since the 1980s has claimed the lives of some of Yellowstone National Park’s most celebrated wolves and has shattered years of critical research by wolf biologists.

Just weeks after Montana’s wolf hunt began, about half the members of Yellowstone’s famed Cottonwood wolf pack—including two radio-collared females known as Wolf 527 and her daughter, Wolf 716—were killed by hunters outside the park. Yellowstone’s wolves are famous to the world thanks to television documentaries on National Geographic, PBS, and the BBC. As one of the very few unexploited wolf populations in North America, their behavior, life history, travels, and genealogy have been carefully studied by scientists since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995.

But not anymore. Kim Murphy reported in the Los Angeles Times on the impact the wolf hunt has had on scientific research:

“Whether the pack exists anymore or not, to us the pack is gone,” said Doug Smith, the biologist in charge of the Yellowstone reintroduction program that helped bring wolves back from the brink of extinction in the Northern Rockies. Cottonwood “was a key pack on the northern range,” he said, giving researchers a window into the existence of animals that had little or no interaction with humans.

We knew the de-listing of wolves would have tragic consequences. But even Montana state officials were shocked by the ease with which wolves were gunned down by hunters, and they suspended the hunt along a section of Montana’s backcountry near the northern border of Yellowstone.

Wolf hunting advocates in Montana and Idaho argued that the hunts were needed to control predation on livestock, and they trotted out their usual bromides about scientific wildlife management. But what they’ve done instead is roll back years of science, and target wolves who weren’t any threat to livestock at all—wolves who were feeding on elk and were part of Yellowstone’s natural ecosystem. In fact, Montana’s wolf hunting season overlapped with its elk season, and it seems the Cottonwood wolves were attracted to the gut piles left by elk hunters just outside the park’s borders.

More than anything, it demonstrates that the decision to take wolves off the endangered species list was unscientific and premature. Federal courts have rejected the government’s de-listing proposals six times, but it wasn’t enough to save Wolf 527 or Wolf 716. While it’s open season in Montana and Idaho, a lawsuit by The Humane Society of the United States has provided a stay of execution for wolves in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Many environmentalists and animal advocates around the country voted for President Obama because they just couldn’t stomach Sarah Palin’s retrograde policies on wolves—now they’ve been saddened and let down by the Administration’s de-listing decision. It’s time to call off the wolf killing before it sets wolf conservation back any further and destroys more of their close-knit families.

—Michael Markarian