All in all, more than 16,000 of you voted on where the Obama family should get their dog after the election is over. Three-quarters of you (73%) said they should adopt a dog from an animal shelter, while 15% chose a small breeder, 11% recommended a breed rescue group, and fewer than 1 percent suggested a pet store or Internet seller. You can see the final survey results here.

I also received a great deal of feedback from blog readers on the poll. Many of you loved the idea of raising awareness about the plight of rescued dogs. Others pointed out that “hypoallergenic” breeds might be best for the Obama daughters since the girls reportedly have allergies. And some of you felt it was way too much poking one’s nose into somebody else’s business, to paraphrase my friend John Woestendiek of The Baltimore Sun.

The HSLF poll was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and it was a reaction to the American Kennel Club poll which, frankly, was barking up the wrong tree. I had confidence that when presented with numerous options, the readers of the blog would make the right recommendations, and I’ve reprinted a selection of your comments below, pro and con.

As an American, and a pet owner (or caretaker), I think the most American pet a politician—or ANYONE—can own is a pet from an animal shelter. People come to this country for a second chance, every day. Animals should be given that same second chance, too! Shelters—and also breed rescue groups—have plenty of great dogs and cats who need good homes. That should be everyone’s first choice when selecting a companion animal! —Linda Z.

As a supporter of the Humane Society Legislative Fund and other animal advocacy groups, I think this is a ridiculous question. The options shouldn’t include breeders or pet stores. More importantly if one of our presidential candidates is considering acquiring a dog, it might be more beneficial to educate them about these practices. There are so many wonderful dogs available for adoption through animal shelters and foster programs, that this should be the only choice…I don't see the value in a poll like this. —Kelly S.

I love your work. I support you. I think it’s everyone’s inalienable right to decide where to get his own dog. I think we’re getting on dangerous ground when the masses try to control everything that goes on. Maybe they have a friend who is expecting puppies. I would be livid if anyone tried to tell me where to get my dog. —Karen (Judy) S.

I voted in the poll from the email I received from your list, because I think the issue is very important and I’m glad you’re seeking feedback to help bring the puppy mill concern to the public. But I wish it had been like the customizable form letters that your emails about animal issues usually take, because I was troubled by a couple of things: One is that you can only vote for one choice, while more than one option were good ones. Also, I would have liked to have been able to customize my communication explaining that I realize that the choice of a pet is a very personal decision and that although I normally believe in avoiding telling people in the public eye what they should do in their private lives and that I respect their need to choose a pet that is right for their children, it would be a better choice for their family as well as the important matter of bringing the concerns in the blog to the public, to get a pet that is more likely to be healthy and socialized than one from a pet store that may be getting their dogs from puppy mills. But thank you for helping bring this extremely important information to the public this way. —Loren R.

As long as Mr. Obama acquires his pet from a reputable source, it is none of your business. The decision should be a family decision, not a political one. When I state reputable breeder I am not advocating puppy mills. I investigated my breeder and visited her home. —Paula W.

I just participated in your Obama poll to tell them where they should get a dog. I voted for “breed rescue group” instead of animal shelter. I’d just like to point out, so that the Obamas are not too harshly criticized, that their daughters are both allergic to dogs (I heard Michelle Obama say this in an interview). So that is the reason why they are considering more hypoallergenic breeds like poodle, wheaten terrier, etc. Normally I would have voted that they rescue from a shelter, but in their special case a breed-specific rescue might be the only way they can find a purebred dog that meets their requirements. You might want to point this out to your members so that no undue scrutiny is placed on the Obamas. The breeds aren’t always easy to come by in a rescue environment. Please keep up all the great work that you do!! —Melanie M.

I sent this to friends and just folks I know, what a great little project this is. If the president obtains a pet from a shelter many more will. Thanks. —Talya R.

I sent an email to the AKC—I mentioned the millions of dogs in shelters and I asked them to use mixed breed or shelter dog as one of their choices. —Tracy

I volunteer at an animal shelter and it is such a great feeling helping these beautiful, loving dogs. It’s such a shame and so mind-boggling that there are so many people out there who can just give away these beautiful dogs and for such selfish reasons as I have been told. If Obama were to adopt a dog from a shelter, that could send a positive message to the public, and if he doesn’t, that too will send a negative message for the shelters out there. —Dale

I definitely think they should get a dog at the animal shelter. These innocent animals need a home. Anyone can buy from a breeder; the people who are really making a difference in the world are the ones who rescue and adopt from shelters. We have always adopted from shelters and have never regretted it. The feeling you have when you give a good forever home to a dog from a shelter is immeasurable! Your life and the dog’s life will be forever changed in a good way! And, when you adopt a dog, you are not only saving that dog’s life but making room for another dog to take his place, and possibly be adopted. There is nothing like an animal shelter dog. They rule! —Linda

It doesn’t matter whether the Obamas’ new pet comes from a shelter or humane society, or from a rescue group—either an all-breed rescue, or breed-specific rescue. As a dedicated rescuer, I don’t even have a problem with reputable, responsible breeders—it’s not their dogs that end up in my rescue program. But NOBODY, presidential candidate or regular Joe, should EVER purchase a dog or cat from a pet store or Internet seller! Doing so merely perpetuates unbelievable animal abuse. —Nancy

I have two standard poodles, one purchased four years ago from a questionable breeder (not a puppy mill but not respected by other area breeders) and one acquired last year from a very reputable and concerned breeder (I have learned so much). We love both but have since learned more about breed rescue and shelters. Since the Obamas are in a position of leadership (win or lose) it would set a wonderful example if they would choose to rescue their new “addition” from a breed rescue or animal shelter. I am sure there are many other dog lovers who have learned about breed rescue and the wonderful dogs at the local shelter too late. I would love the Obamas to support either. Thank you for the opportunity to speak out!!!! —Marianne R.

Leona Helmsley famously left $12 million of her estate to care for her beloved Maltese dog, Trouble. While the size of the gift was indeed rare, the desire of pet owners to make sure their companion animals receive lifetime care was not at all unique. More and more people are preparing for their pets’ future by including instructions as part of estate planning. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that recognize pet trusts, which are funds specifically set aside to pay for your pet’s care after you are gone.

California’s previous pet trust law had no teeth, and there was no way for courts to ensure that the wishes of the deceased would be honored and the money would actually be used for the pet’s care. Thanks to S.B. 685, introduced by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), pet trusts will now be enforceable, and Californians can have the peace of mind that their dogs and cats will not be left out in the cold.

California also had one of the nation’s first laws prohibiting the abuse of downed animals—those who are too sick or injured to stand and walk on their own, and are often prodded and dragged to slaughter with electricity and heavy machinery. But after The Humane Society of the United States’ investigation earlier this year at a Chino slaughter plant, it was clear that the laws needed to be strengthened.

Thanks to A.B. 2098, introduced by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank), the state law has received a major upgrade. The new law prohibits a slaughterhouse, stockyard, or auction from selling meat or products from downed animals for human consumption. It also requires immediate action to either humanely euthanize a downed animal or provide immediate veterinary treatment. It’s another positive policy outcome resulting from the fallout of this year’s downer scandal, and another step forward to protect food safety and animal welfare.

“I am committed to ensuring California’s food supply is safe and secure,” said Governor Schwarzenegger after signing the bill. “With today’s action, we are strengthening California’s food safety laws and sending a message that violating these laws will not be tolerated.”

While California is leading the way, we are hopeful for further action in the U.S. Congress to strengthen the federal laws on these very same issues, by passing the Charitable Remainder Pet Trust Act and the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act. In the meantime, we are grateful to Governor Schwarzenegger for signing these two bills and for toughening California’s animal protection laws—just as he has previously supported a wide range of legislation to protect pets from being left in hot cars or chained for long hours, to crack down on animal fighting, to protect California condors from toxic lead shot poisoning, to strengthen the veterinary requirements for rodeos, and to include animals in disaster planning and domestic violence orders.

I think we can speak for Spunky, Sarge, and Gustav—the governor’s yellow Lab, cockapoo, and chocolate Lab—in saying thank you as well.

Advocates and leaders from across the world were inspired to take action for animals in their communities, and learned about strategies such as lobbying, outreach, campaign planning, corporate reforms, and litigation for animals. Some of the speakers and experts in the field included political consultant Joe Trippi, Skinny Bitch author Rory Freedman, Advocacy Guru Stephanie Vance, Farm Sanctuary president and co-founder Gene Baur, and HSUS president and CEO Wayne Pacelle.

Jarrod Cooper, safety for the Oakland Raiders, told a touching story about how his life turned around when he got involved in the animal protection cause. The young NFL player was a model of bad behavior involved in off-the-field arrests, but now is a role model for young people as he rescues dogs, volunteers at the Oakland animal shelter, and advocates for animal protection legislation such as Proposition 2 in his home state of California.

The banquet dinner featured entertainment by comedian Carol Leifer and satire troupe The Capitol Steps. U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) gave a passionate keynote address as he spoke of the connectivity between animal protection and other social concerns. Other lawmakers who attended the event and networked with animal advocates included U.S. Congressman Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Arizona state Rep. Nancy Young Wright (D-Tucson), and Congresswoman Sandra Ceballos Arévalo all the way from Bogota, Columbia.

Visitors to the sold-out exhibit hall learned about dozens of animal protection groups and businesses who distributed their information and products. Several authors signed books in the exhibit hall, Sticky Fingers Bakery was on hand with free cupcakes, and chef Lex Townes of Veg Advantage even provided a cooking demonstration and food tasting.

On Monday, hundreds of advocates put their training into action as they descended on Capitol Hill to meet with their congressional offices on animal protection bills dealing with puppy mills, fur labeling, downed animals, and horse slaughter. Advocates braved the heat in Upper Senate Park to rally against puppy mills, led by A Rare Breed of Love author Jana Kohl and her rescued dog, Baby, a three-legged puppy mill survivor.

Thank you to everyone who attended Taking Action for Animals 2008, and who is part of a trained corps of advocates making a difference for animals in their communities. The cause of animals is strengthened as a consequence. Those who attended went home with sharper skills, more energy, new friends, expanded alliances, fresh ideas, different angles of sight, and a greater sense of brother- and sisterhood—the kinds of things that make a real difference in the nitty-gritty of field work.

And if you didn't make it this year, make it part of your plans for advocacy next summer! Save the date for Taking Action for Animals 2009, which will be held July 25-27, once again in the nation's capital.

The political group organized to pass Question 3, the Committee to Protect Dogs, filed an amicus brief in the case, and was represented pro bono by the law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Question 3 is backed by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Rescue League of Boston, GREY2K USA, The Humane Society of the United States, dozens of state lawmakers, and hundreds of community leaders.

In 2000, a similar measure went down by the narrowest of margins, 51 to 49 percent of the vote. And in 2006, voters were denied the chance to have their say when a lawsuit knocked the measure off the ballot at the last minute. Animal advocates are hopeful that the third time is a charm, and that dogs will finally get the protections they deserve this November.

Dog racing is a dying industry, and it’s cruel and inhumane. Thousands of Massachusetts greyhounds endure lives of confinement, kept for 20 or more hours each day in cages barely large enough to stand up or turn around in. Just as with Proposition 2 in California, which would phase out the cruel confinement of animals in industrial factory farms, the cruel confinement of dogs by the racing industry is just plain wrong.

According to state records more than 800 Massachusetts racing greyhounds have been injured since 2002, including dogs who suffered broken legs, paralysis and even death from cardiac arrest. Massachusetts greyhounds have even died recently from a mysterious illness and tested positive for cocaine, an illegal stimulant.

Enough is enough. Would you treat your dog this way? Dogs are important in our lives and deserve protection. Massachusetts voters should vote Yes on Question 3, and visit the Committee to Protect Dogs to find out how you can help. 

Pets are part of our lives and culture like never before, and Americans spend $43 billion annually on pet care—more than we spend on movies, recorded music, and video games combined. So it’s no surprise that pets are in the mainstream media; but the more controversial animal issues are breaking through as well. The New York Times also ran a series of commentaries, in Sunday’s Week in Review section by Donald G. McNeil, Jr. and in Monday’s Opinion section by Adam Cohen, about the issue of legal rights for animals. The Spanish Parliament recently passed a resolution granting some legal rights to great apes, which has sparked philosophical discussion about the status of nonhuman creatures.

The discussion has largely been an academic one, focusing on whether certain species should be granted legal rights, whether they should no longer be consider human property under the law, and which species would qualify for such a radical change in status. But as The Humane Society of the United States' chief of animal protection litigation has argued in the Animal Law Review, the debate seems to be more about form than substance, and the solutions for animals can be much simpler.

For example, the Great Ape Protection Act, currently being considered by the U.S. Congress, seeks to provide many of the protections for chimps the Spanish resolution does, but without engaging (or attempting to resolve) the controversial and polarizing issue of granting legal rights to animals. The legislation would end invasive research on chimps and retire those who are federally owned to permanent sanctuary—not because our closest living relatives have “rights” but because they simply should not be confined for decades in steel cages at taxpayer expense and used in harmful experiments that don’t yield advances in human health.

And it’s not lost on reporters that progress is already being made for animals in the law—even farm animals—without the “rights” nomenclature. McNeil’s article includes mention of the federal Humane Slaughter Act requiring that livestock must be rendered insensible to pain before they are killed, and Cohen reports on the big factory farming interests opposing Proposition 2 on California’s ballot, which would phase out tiny crates and cages and give animals the space to turn around and stretch their limbs.

Congress has passed dozens of laws in recent years to provide more decent and humane treatment of pets, farm animals, wildlife, and animals in research. This year alone, there are already 70 new animal protection laws in the states, and with a number of legislatures still in session and with several ballot measures to be voted upon, we may yet break last year's record of 86 new state laws to help animals. Lawmakers recognize that stopping cruelty to animals is a universal social value, and they are passing common-sense, rational reforms not only to address individual acts of cruelty but also to curb the worst abuses in institutional settings—such as factory farms, puppy mills, the fur trade, or research labs.

We need not wait for the resolution of the big-picture theoretical debates, because change for animals is happening now. There is no question that we have power over animals—we can exercise that power through deliberate cruelty and indifference to their suffering, or through kindness, mercy, and good stewardship for their care.

The real debate is over how we choose to treat the powerless on this planet, and it says more about us than about them. It’s not a question of animal rights, but of human responsibility.

Animal advocates don’t have to travel to Washington, D.C. every weekend, but they should make the journey once a year. Next weekend (July 19-21) is the fourth annual Taking Action for Animals conference, and it’s the largest and most important event in this field. Last year, 1,000 advocates from all over the United States gathered for the meeting, and this year’s turnout is expected to be even bigger. I hope you will register for the conference and join me there.

Over the weekend, you’ll hear about animal protection issues and strategies from more than 75 renowned speakers and experts in the field, including U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, Oakland Raiders safety Jarrod Cooper, Skinny Bitch author Rory Freedman, political consultant Joe Trippi, and many others. More than 50 nonprofit organizations and animal-related businesses will fill the exhibit hall. A vegan banquet dinner will be hosted by comedian Carol Leifer and feature entertainment by the comedy satire troupe The Capitol Steps.

Then on Monday, hundreds of advocates will descend on the U.S. Capitol to lobby their own representatives and senators on critical animal protection legislation—from horse slaughter to fur labeling to chimpanzees in research. You can also take part in a rally at the Capitol to stop puppy mills, led by author Jana Kohl and her rescued poodle, Baby, who survived nearly a decade as a breeding dog in a puppy mill and had her leg amputated after the misery she endured.

With the awareness raised by Oprah Winfrey’s show on puppy mills, the Michael Vick dogfighting case, and the nation’s largest beef recall, animal issues are part of the political agenda like never before. And with the upcoming elections, so much is at stake for animals—from factory farming in California to greyhound racing in Massachusetts, and all the candidate races in between.

It’s more important than ever that animal advocates get involved and take action, and this is the best opportunity this year for seasoned activists to sharpen their skills, for new advocates to learn more about the issues, and for all of us to unite and share information and resources. It’s not too late—click here to register, and I look forward to taking action with you next weekend.

Now, some of these pollsters have even surveyed people with pets. A new AP-Yahoo News survey indicates that pet owners favor John McCain over Barack Obama 42 percent to 37 percent, with dog owners particularly in McCain’s corner. It may be because more pet owners are found in demographic groups that skew toward McCain—more whites have pets than African-Americans, and more married couples have pets than single people. Or it may be because the McCains have 24 of their own critters, including four dogs, and the Obamas don’t currently have any pets.

Barack and Michelle Obama plan to change that after the election, win or lose, and have promised their daughters, Malia and Sasha, they can get a dog. So now we have a poll from the American Kennel Club asking readers to help choose a type of dog for the Obama family. The public can select from five breeds—the bichon frise, Chinese crested, miniature schnauzer, poodle, and soft-coated wheaten terrier—and the contest is open until August 19.

But animal advocates know the choice is not that simple. As Wayne Pacelle wrote, the more important question is where the dog comes from. Dogs purchased from pet stores and over the Internet come from factory-style puppy mills, where breeding adult dogs live their entire lives in filthy, wire cages. They are treated like a cash crop and receive no socialization or human interaction, making them sick, diseased and crazed with loneliness. Wonderful dogs in need of loving homes can be found at animal shelters and rescue groups—whether they are mutts or pure-bred. 

Nearly every president in recent times has had pets, and I’ve written about them here and here. Our nation’s leader can set an example as a responsible caregiver, when it comes to spaying and neutering, veterinary care, adoption, and related issues. But candidates can set a positive example as well, and can advocate for the rescue of animals in need of homes rather than adding to the problem of unwanted dogs and cats euthanized in our shelters. Barack Obama, for example, appears in a new book by Jana Kohl, “A Rare Breed of Love,” lending his voice to the fight to stop puppy mills.

So the Humane Society Legislative Fund has created our own poll. We want you to weigh in on where the Obamas should get their dog after the election—from an animal shelter, a breed rescue group, a pet store, a small breeder, or an Internet seller—and we will forward the results of our survey to the Obama campaign. Vote below to tell us what you think, and don't forget to forward the survey to your friends and family.

The cause is especially taking root in the conservative and evangelical movements, with the resurgence of historical figures such as William Wilberforce, who helped to start the first SPCA in 1824. In more modern times, Matthew Scully, formerly a special assistant and speechwriter for President George W. Bush, raised animal protection as a moral issue for conservatives in his 2002 book, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. Scully’s work led to a cover story on factory farming in The American Conservative magazine, and a column by George F. Will in Newsweek. Other conservative commentators such as Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Ben Stein have regularly advocated for animal protection.

The idea that animals deserve moral consideration, in fact, is moving from brainstorming to barnstorming. A conservative group called South Carolinians for Responsible Government recently took Sen. Jake Knotts (R-Lexington County) to task because the state lawmaker blocked legislation to crack down on cockfighting. The group sent a mailer to Knotts’ constituents, which you can see here, and it reads in part:

Dog fighting and cockfighting are brutal forms of animal cruelty. Recent arrests of illegal cockfighting rings show this violent activity is also associated with illegal drugs and weapons.

Tougher laws are needed in South Carolina to make cockfighting a thing of the past. But when tougher cockfighting laws were presented in the Legislature, Jake Knotts made sure that cockfighting interests were protected and that the laws were weakened.

Jake Knotts is wrong on cockfighting.

Knotts, who has served eight years in the South Carolina House of Representatives and six in the Senate, has come under fire from his own party and probably faced the toughest reelection of his career. He barely came out ahead in a three-way Republican primary, and was forced into a runoff against former Lexington County GOP Chairwoman Katrina Shealy because neither candidate won 50 percent of the vote. The incumbent squeaked by, but there’s no doubt he was shaken.

It’s not the first time that the cockfighting issue has played a role in elections. In 2004, Democratic Congressman Chris John sought the U.S. Senate seat left open by the retirement of Sen. John Breaux in Louisiana. Cockfighting was still legal in the state, and Chris John had been the cockfighters’ point man in Congress. Animal advocates ran a statewide campaign against Chris John, and exit polls showed that 32 percent of white Democratic women voted for the Republican candidate, Congressman David Vitter, in part because they couldn’t stomach Chris John’s support for cockfighting. Vitter, an opponent of cockfighting, won by just 19,000 votes and now serves in the U.S. Senate.

Cockfighting had once been treated with a wink and a nod in many parts of the South, but tacit approval for staged animal fights is no longer a viable political position in Louisiana, South Carolina, or anywhere else. Conservatives and liberals might not agree on much, but they do agree that forcing animals to tear each other to pieces for amusement and gambling is a matter of right and wrong. In red states and blue states, lawmakers who serve the interests of animal abusers are going to feel the heat.

The fallout from last week’s revelations that further abuses occurred at a livestock auction in Portales, N.M., has been no different. Here is a summary of what leaders are saying about the latest investigation:

• Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), chairwoman of the House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, issued a statement saying, “The repeated revelations of cattle abuse occurring at livestock auction sites and slaughterhouses are extremely troublesome. Not only are we again witnessing the inhumane treatment of cows and the illegal slaughtering of downed cows for the food supply, but also the distribution of potentially contaminated meat into the school lunch program.” DeLauro included a provision in the Agriculture Appropriations bill being considered now for 2009 pressing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to expedite its rule on barring the slaughter of downed cattle for food.


• Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Majority Whip, also called on the agency to push forward on this issue. He said in a statement, “The footage released today is not the first time we’ve seen cruel treatment of downed livestock at auction. It’s also not the first time we’ve seen the USDA fail to take effective action in response…The USDA has been working on changing the procedures regarding downer cattle for nearly a year. Despite ongoing reports of downers being mistreated and mishandled, the agency has been unwilling or unable to complete the process. The USDA needs to do its job. Now.”


• Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the co-author of the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act, asked the following: “How can this sort of thing continue to occur? After Westland, the livestock industry went on record saying that the industry needs to clean up its act, but that Westland was an isolated incident. Now, it’s clear that neither thing is true: the industry hasn’t cleaned up its act, and Westland wasn’t an isolated incident.” DeFazio’s bill would require that meat producers who supply federal programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, meet a basic set of animal welfare standards, including veterinary treatment or immediate euthanasia of any injured animal.


• The Democratic Party of New Mexico also took the opportunity to point out the contrast between U.S. Senate candidates in the state where the latest abuses were uncovered. “We all remember 2003, when a downer cow tested positive for mad cow disease,” said Josh Geise, the party’s executive director. “It shouldn’t take a tragedy for government to do what’s right and Congressman Udall is cosponsoring important legislation to stop the processing of downed cattle so no one in America will be infected with the deadly mad cow disease. We hope Steve Pearce will step up and stop the dangerous act of auctioning downed cows.”

Our continued thanks are extended to lawmakers and campaigners for keeping the spotlight on this serious threat to animal welfare and food safety. It’s clear that protecting animals from being tormented at every step of the food production process from farm to slaughter, and protecting our food supply from potentially contaminated meat, is not only good policy, but also good politics.