Blog Home


584 posts from Actions to Help Animals


November 06, 2014

Black Rhinos and African Lions in the Crosshairs

Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published notice that it has received import permit applications for two individuals who want to shoot critically endangered black rhinos in Namibia and then import the trophies into the United States. One of the permits was auctioned for $350,000 at a Dallas Safari Club event and went to Corey Knowlton, who is trophy hunting consultant and TV personality. Michael Luzich, a certified member of NRA’s “golden ring of freedom” which requires a minimum donation of $1 million, also filed an import permit application.

It’s one thing to hunt for food, but a different matter just to shoot an animal for his head. It’s an even more significant moral problem to shoot a survivor among a very small population of a critically endangered species. No matter how the trophy hunting crowd dresses it up, the greatest need of these animals is to stay alive. This means securing additional protections for them, including space to live and protections from poachers. For that reason, we’ll be opposing the granting of these permit applications.

But we will be supporting the effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has responded to our petition for listing, to establish federal Endangered Species Act protection for the African lion. There were about 75,000 African lions in 1980, according to the best estimates of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Now there are between 32,000 and 33,000, most concentrated in 10 areas in eastern and southern Africa, and they are subject to killing by poachers, ranchers, trophy hunters, and other traffickers in wildlife parts, in a part of the world that is seeing significant human population growth. That’s why it’s critical to limit human-caused killing of the lions, including for trophies and parts.

After a 90-day comment period, if the Service takes action, the African lion would be the last big cat to be added to the list of protected species. Our team has been working on this issue for nearly four years, and I vividly remember the 60 Minutes piece where ranchers were poisoning lions in their range in extraordinary numbers. With so many threats, the last thing the lions need, just as with rhinos, are wealthy Americans going over to kill them just for bragging rights and the heads.

Aren’t we beyond this, especially when it comes to some of the rarest and most charismatic species on the planet?

 

November 05, 2014

Staying the Course, No Matter the Obstacles

National, state, and local elections are obvious pivot points in the task of governing, with changes that voters usher in signaling small or large course corrections. With the Republicans’ second wave election in four years – interrupted by the reelection of a Democratic president two years ago – we are likely to see more suspicion about attempts to place limits on the mistreatment of animals. The HSUS and its political affiliate, the Humane Society Legislative Fund, enjoy broad bipartisan support for our values with the broad swath of American voters. But we generally meet with more skepticism from Republican lawmakers, who are critical of some forms of regulatory oversight and in a number of cases are closely allied with our political adversaries at the NRA, the Farm Bureau, and other animal-use industries. Indeed, in the last few years, we’ve seen vigorous efforts to pass so-called “ag-gag” bills and even measures to limit citizen initiative rights, among other forms of obstructionism.

We are big believers in making representative government work, and The HSUS and the Humane Society Legislative Fund have helped pass more than 1,000 new laws in the last decade to help animals at the state level. But it was our frustration with both obstinate lawmakers and general gridlock, on some of the tougher reforms that led The HSUS to pursue ballot measures in a vigorous way about a quarter century ago. When legislatures failed to adopt popular reforms, we turned to the initiative and referendum process as a safety valve. Since then, we’ve passed a wide range of measures, outlawing cockfighting, extreme confinement of animals on factory farms, inhumane and unsporting hunting and trapping methods, and other harmful practices in the two dozen or so states that allow reforms through direct democracy.

BK526C_148041
Michigan voters soundly rejected the two laws enacted by the legislature proposing hunting season on wolves.

Yesterday, we saw major ballot measure battles on wildlife issues come to a vote in two states. The citizens of Michigan voted by wide margins last night to reject two laws enacted by the legislature proposing a hunting season on wolves. Both measures were expected to be close, but in the end voters soundly rejected Proposal 1 by a vote of 55 to 45 percent, and Proposal 2 by 64 to 36 percent. This means voters not only repealed a wolf hunting statute, but also repealed a measure that transfers authority to the Natural Resources Commission to declare hunting seasons on just about any protected species.

Unfortunately, Question 1 in Maine, which sought to ban the cruel and unsporting practices of bear hounding, baiting, and trapping, suffered a narrow defeat at the polls, by a vote of 52 to 48 percent. It was very difficult to overcome the active involvement and spending by the state Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, which caused so much confusion about the alleged necessity of hunting methods already forbidden in a wide range of bear hunting states. It was an unprecedented infusion of state resources into a political campaign, and that involvement was grounded in fear and scare tactics. Frankly, it was deeply disconcerting to see the hand of government intrude in an election, and something you’d much more likely see in a corrupt, developing nation than in our democracy.

While it’s easy to plot a course of action when you win, it’s tougher to rebound from a loss. Several people have asked me today, what’s next in Maine?

I tell people all the time, that winning is exciting and energizing and it comes with great frequency here at The HSUS. But losing is inevitable and frankly necessary given that effective advocacy requires risk-taking for animal protection. We don’t just take on the easy fights. We take on the toughest challenges, and that means staying the course and never relenting.

There’s almost nothing in our work that comes easily, and very few things come quickly. My colleague Heidi Prescott has been laboring for 25 years to ban live pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania. She and The HSUS got within a whisker of prevailing this year. But the pigeon-shooting crowd and every lawmaker must know by now, that we will continue until we succeed. Heidi has my full support in her quest to end live pigeon shoots.

That’s my attitude about trophy hunting of wolves, hounding and trapping of bears, extreme confinement of animals on factory farms, horse slaughter, and every other indignity and form of cruelty that animals endure. If we don’t persist, what future do these animals have?  We are the biggest force for reform, and it’s our duty not only to take risks but to show unusual determination and resolve.

So wave elections come and go, the major parties hand off power to one another, lawmakers try to help at times and at other times, to stand in the way. We are still here, and growing stronger through it all. When you support The HSUS, or take us on, you get effective action, but you are also getting unwavering resolve. No one in any state, after we face a setback, should ever expect us to go away. Join us in these fights, especially when the going is toughest.

October 24, 2014

Maine State Agency Pushes Ideology, Not Biology, In Quest to Defend Reckless Bear Killing Practices

We don’t expect everyone to agree with us in our fight to pass Question 1 in Maine to stop the cruel and unsporting practices of bear baiting, hounding and trapping. But we do expect a fair election and a government that respects the will of the people, rather than one that attempts impose its will on the people. The ballot initiative process was established as a constitutional right in half the states to be used precisely when obdurate state lawmakers and a governor’s state agencies failed to heed the will of the people.  It’s a safety valve, and it has driven essential reforms in our society, including on animal protection – where we’ve seen gains to outlaw cockfighting, extreme confinement of farm animals, and captive hunts.  And, of course, baiting, hounding, and trapping. 

What’s happening in Maine is a vivid case example of an overreaching, unethical involvement by the state in elections. Specifically, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) is engaged in full-throated electioneering against Question 1, and new documents that we’ve obtained reveal an agency that’s used the full range of its assets to influence the election. For months, the agency has been publicly proffering the notion that it’s only providing the indisputable conclusions of sound wildlife management, as if the answers are as clear as a scientist offering details about gravity or the speed of light. In fact, they’ve confused their ideology with biology, and are trying to pull a fast one on the public.

The emails that a Maine court forced the IF&W to release this week reveal that over a year ago the agency made a political decision to oppose Question 1, possibly after meeting with hunting lobbyists and the state’s governor. Since then, the agency has used the public’s money to wage a covert and deceptive political campaign against the ballot initiative. The emails show:

  • IF&W made a “major commitment” to defeating Question 1, spending countless hours of paid staff time on campaigning and even setting aside “a few staff people dedicated to working on” it.

  • The agency spent tens of thousands of dollars of public money on campaign materials and outside consultants.

  • Agency staff made public and private campaign appearances across the state on work time, including hand-in-hand collaboration with the official opposition campaign and key lobbyists representing hunting and trapping interests.
Bears
The IF&W is using state resources to campaign against Question 1, a citizen initiative to ban the extreme practices of bear baiting, hounding and trapping. Photo: Alamy

Indeed, IF&W has apparently also cracked down on dissenting viewpoints within its own staff cohort. In one email, IF&W wildlife division leader Judy Camuso cautions, “All staff need to know what our position is, where we are coming from, and everyone needs to be on the same page.” Dissenting biologists are apparently not allowed to let science stand in the way of IF&W’s zeal to defeat Question 1. In 2003, an IF&W biologist was demoted after he issued a scientific report critical of the cruelty in coyote trapping practices allowed by the agency.

Given this manifest disregard for good government and democratic principles, it should come as no surprise that one employee even stated that he “would like to do away with all referendums.”

The emails also cast doubt on the sincerity of IF&W’s own messages. For months, the opposition has been running an ad featuring uniformed IF&W staff calling Question One “a serious threat to public safety.” Yet even IF&W chief bear biologist Randy Cross – himself a bear baiter and trapper -- notes in one email, “Since there has not been an unprovoked bear attack in the history of white settlement in Maine, it is not a realistic threat.”

At the federal level, the Hatch Act prohibits government agencies from spending the public’s money telling the public how to vote – as do mini-Hatch acts in many states. The New York Supreme Court has explained why: “It would be establishing a dangerous and untenable precedent to permit the government, or any agency thereof, to use public funds to disseminate propaganda in favor of or against any issue or candidate. This may be done by totalitarian, dictatorial or autocratic governments but cannot be tolerated, directly or indirectly, in these democratic United States of America.”

Maine law is less clear on the point, although that doesn’t change the principle. Imagine if, when Congress had been considering Wall Street reforms, financial regulators had run a covert campaign to undermine the regulations on behalf of big banks. Or imagine, for that matter, if IF&W had decided to campaign for Governor LePage directly, rather than just campaigning on his behalf against Question One.

IF&W’s electioneering against a citizen’s initiative is wrong – just like the three cruel practices it defends. We’ll be campaigning hard through Election Day to end these abusive practices in Maine. The fate of bears and good government hangs in the balance.

Paid for with regulated funds by the committee of Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, PO Box 15367, Portland, ME 04112.

 

October 21, 2014

An Epidemic of Unprovoked Human Attacks on Wolves

If you want to understand why The HSUS and HSLF are working so hard to prevent the trophy hunting, commercial trapping, and hounding of wolves in Michigan, look no farther than the other states in the Great Lakes region and in the Northern Rockies that recently instituted seasons on wolves. Trophy hunters and trappers and hound hunters are taking a big toll, killing a third of the wolves in a single year in some of these states. If this is what “recovery” means, then I am sure the wolves don’t want any of it. Here are the numbers for the 2012 and 2013 alone:
 

  • Idaho: Of the 606 wolves killed in Idaho, 37 percent were trapped, 63 percent hunted – leaving an estimated current  population of 659
  • Minnesota: Of the 650 wolves killed in Minnesota, 54 percent were trapped, 46 percent hunted – leaving an estimated current  population of 2400
  • Montana: Of the 453 wolves killed in Montana, 40 percent were trapped, 60 percent hunted – leaving an estimated current  population of 627
  • Wisconsin: Of the 374 wolves killed in Wisconsin, 64 percent were trapped, 26 percent hunted and 9 percent hounded– leaving an estimated current  population of 658
  • Wyoming: Of the 133 wolves killed in Wyoming, 19 percent were trapped, 81 percent hunted – leaving an estimated current  population of 306

This is an extraordinary and ugly body count. The total number of wolves killed by sport hunters and trappers for these states is 2217 – for a species just taken off the endangered list!  
Right now, Wisconsin trophy hunters are in the woods for the third year in a row to harass and kill wolves with traps, bait, hounds, and electronic calls. Less than one week into the hunt, four of the six zones are already closed, with half of those zones over their quota (in one zone, hunters killed nearly twice the number of wolves allowed). Gray Wolf Snow Alamy
 
Hunters and trappers would be pounding away at wolves in Wyoming right now, but for a lawsuit that The HSUS and a number of environmental organizations brought to stop the killing. That suit, decided just weeks ago, resulted in a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to put wolves back on the endangered list, forbidding sport hunting and trapping of the wolves.

With these states consistently overreaching, and demonizing wolves, should we expect Michigan decision-makers to act any differently? Remember, leaders in the state legislature have passed three measures to kill wolves, and in the process, they are trying to trample the rights of voters to conduct the referendum process. Farmers, hunters, and the state Department of Natural Resources trumped up charges against wolves, with one farmer baiting wolves onto his land with cattle carcasses and then complaining that the wolves were there.

This is why it’s so critical to defeat Proposals 1 and 2 in Michigan two weeks from today. Voters there will have the first-ever opportunity to make their views known in a statewide election on the wolf hunting and trapping issue. If we can win, it will send a signal to politicians in all of these states that the people don’t like this needless and premature killing of wolves. Nobody eats wolves, and there are already allowances to control problem wolves. This is trophy hunting and commercial trapping in its purest form.
 
Please spread the word to friends in Michigan and underscore that it’s critical to get out and vote and to vote “no” on Proposal 1 and “no” on Proposal 2. And support all of our critical work to aid and protect wolves throughout the United States.

Paid for with regulated funds by the committee to Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, 5859 W. Saginaw Hwy. #273, Lansing, MI 48917

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 20, 2014

Bill Maher, Danny DeVito Tell Chris Christie That Pigs Matter

Comedian Bill Maher made a special appeal to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie – asking him, on the opinion pages of Saturday’s New York Times, to sign a bill banning gestation crates. Noting that polling shows that a rather astonishing 93 percent of New Jersey voters want him to sign the anti-confinement measure, Maher said Christie should make the Garden State the 10th in our country to establish rules that treat pigs better.

GestationcrateOn October 16th, the day S. 998 cleared the legislature, actor Danny DeVito, also urged Christie to do the right thing.  “Chris, please sign the ban on gestation crates –cages used to confine breeding pigs!,” wrote the fellow New Jersey native. “Man, that sounds like something we should do right away….You sign this ban and I think you go straight to heaven. Not for a long while of course, but, no question this kind of thing opens the gate!"

Christie has a total of 45 days to act on the bill -- championed by state Senator Raymond Lesniak with bipartisan supermajorities in the Senate and Assembly. The HSUS is leading a grassroots campaign in the state right now to urge residents there to let their governor know just how much they hope he’ll sign this anti-cruelty legislation.

Christie vetoed a similar bill last year, saying the state Department of Agriculture should play a lead role in shaping rules for the treatment of farm animals. This year’s bill takes that criticism into account, handing off to the department the task of promulgating the rules that stipulate that pigs have enough space to turn around and extend their limbs.

Many observers suggested that the governor’s veto last year had more to do with presidential politics given that Iowa—the nation’s biggest pork production state—hosts the Republican caucuses come 2016. However, a new Mason-Dixon poll of Iowa GOP caucus-goers shows that they’d think more highly, not less, of Christie if he signs this bill. A full 37 percent say they’d view Christie more favorably if he protects pigs, while only 2 percent said they’d view him less favorably.

In another context, Governor Christie stated, “I don't compromise my principles for politics.” Well, this is a case where he doesn’t have to test that principle. The politics and good policy are aligned in New Jersey (9 leading papers support the ban on gestation crates) and Iowa (where the state’s leading paper urged Iowa politicians to get on board with the campaign to ban barren battery cages).

If you live in New Jersey, please take a moment to contact the governor yourself and politely ask him to do the right thing. If you live in another state, join our growing efforts to end gestation crates across the country, and sign the change.org petition to support the efforts in New Jersey.

October 14, 2014

Victory: India Becomes a Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Nation

India will ban the import of cosmetics that have been tested on animals anywhere in the world after November 13th. Coming just months after India heeded our call to ban domestic animal testing for cosmetics, this latest move assures that cosmetics sold in the country will no longer be associated with animal suffering. With the European Union enacting a similar ban, two giant economic markets have adopted sweeping policies to usher in a new era in cosmetics testing.

Rat
India is now the first cruelty-free cosmetics zone in South Asia. Photo: iStockphoto

Humane Society International's Be Cruelty-Free campaigners played a decisive role in securing this victory. They worked closely with government agencies and, in June, met with India’s minister of health and family welfare to present a petition of more than 70,000 signatures from citizens supporting an import ban. Our campaigners also helped secure the support of more than 30 legislators for the ban with the help of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi, a longtime animal advocate, government minister, and founder of India's largest animal protection organization, People for Animals.

This victory is just the latest in a series of significant reforms in India. The Animal Welfare Board of India recently declared battery cages for hens inconsistent with the nation’s animal cruelty laws, and we’ve helped persuade the majority of state governments to follow suit. We’ve also worked with the Ministry of Environment and Forests to crack down on the trade in shark fins and other illegal wildlife products. India is fast joining the EU as a global leader in animal welfare.

HSI's Be Cruelty-Free campaign also helped convince Chinese authorities to drop animal testing requirements for some products sold there. Now our campaign is working with partner groups in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea, and Taiwan to secure bans on the sale of all cosmetics tested on animals. You can join our campaign and sign the global pledge to be cruelty free here.

It’s long past time for the United States to get with the program. Cruel tests for cosmetics are sadly still happening in America, even though cruelty-free alternatives exist. The HSUS and the Humane Society Legislative Fund are leading the fight for the passage of the Humane Cosmetics Act in Congress, which would bring an end to animal testing for all cosmetics made or sold in America. Let your legislator know that you support it.

In the meantime, you are in a position to make a cruelty-free decision every time you shop for cosmetics. You can use the Leaping Bunny guide to find brands that don’t test on animals. Or you can shop at cruelty-free stores like LUSH and The Body Shop. You can also join the conversation on Twitter using #BeCrueltyFree.

It is a major moment when the world’s second most populous country gets on board with positive animal welfare reforms.  Now it’s time to redouble our efforts in other parts of the world to achieve a global ban on cosmetic testing on animals.

October 08, 2014

N.C. Puppy Mill Rescue Highlights Deception, Dangers of Internet Sales of Dogs, Cats

As our animal rescue team entered a trash- and feces-filled house last Friday to rescue more than 50 dogs and cats from an Internet pet seller in Rutherford County, N.C., they nearly stumbled over a kitten. The tiny Himalayan was weaving her way between their legs, as if trying to make sure she wouldn’t be left behind. One of our team members who picked her up noticed that her baby blue eyes were encrusted with brownish debris and likely infected. And, like five other cats and dozens of dogs in that puppy mill, she was struggling to breathe in a room that reeked of urine.

Sassafras
Sassafras is now in caring hands, but thousands of other animals are still suffering because of irresponsible breeders who supply puppies and kittens to Internet mega stores. Photo: Chris Keane/AP Images for The HSUS

Sassafras, as the rescue team named the kitten, is now in the caring hands of Brother Wolf Animal Rescue in Asheville, N.C., where many people have expressed interest in adopting her. But thousands of other animals are suffering just like she was, sight unseen, at the hands of irresponsible breeders who provide puppies and kittens to Internet mega stores.

Mills like this one are financially enabled by an unsuspecting public – people who buy pets online, often never knowing the reality behind the soft, brown noses and warm bellies of the puppies and kittens. This North Carolina puppy mill was apparently selling puppies and kittens through a number of legitimate-looking websites. The sellers are extremely slick, often posing as groups of local prescreened breeders, and offering misleading guarantees.

North Carolina in particular has become something of a hotbed for some of the worst puppy mill operators in the country, because there are no specific laws in the state to protect dogs sold directly to the public or online by commercial breeding facilities. This is, astonishingly, the 21st rescue that The HSUS has assisted with in the state since June 2011 -- this time with help from the Humane Society of Charlotte, Brother Wolf Animal Rescue, Cashiers Highlands Humane Society and Iredell County Animal Shelter. There’s something very wrong in the Tarheel state on this issue.

The HSUS has been making steady progress in fighting the puppy mill scourge across the United States. Last year, we won a major victory when the Obama administration agreed to extend federal oversight to thousands of puppy mills and kitten mills that do business online. This year we scored another victory when the administration imposed a ban on the import of puppies from abroad.

Moreover, as our 101 Puppy Mills report released earlier this year pointed out, there are approximately 10,000 puppy mills operating in the United States and many of these sell puppies online. We have a long way to go before we can ensure that animals like Sassafras are never again raised in the kind of horrific circumstances that our rescuers encountered at that North Carolina puppy mill.

You can rest assured that we’ll keep up the fight to stamp out puppy mills. We’ll continue to pass state laws to regulate puppy mills, and push the Obama administration for further regulation. We’ll also keep working to transition pet shops from selling puppies from puppy mills into adopting out rescued dogs in need of loving homes. But we need your help.

With the approaching winter holidays – the busiest puppy-buying season of the year—business is about to pick up for Internet pet sellers. If you are looking to add a new, four-legged family member, make sure you visit the breeder in person to see how and where the animal was born and raised, or better yet, adopt from a shelter or rescue group. You and other highly attuned members of the public are the greatest bulwark against the mills and the Internet sellers that do business with them.

October 01, 2014

NIH Terminates Funding for Research Using Randomly Sourced Dogs

Many readers know that the issue of random source “Class B” dog and cat dealers is one that our founders confronted in the earliest days of The HSUS. We’ve consistently worked through the years to put an end to the practice of dealers rounding up dogs and cats from random sources – whether flea markets, animal shelters, auctions, animal thieves or even pet owners -- and selling them to research laboratories. It’s been a long, frustrating and difficult slog to stop this mischief and abuse.

DOG (1)
In the 1960s as many as two million animals languished in the random source pipeline. Today, we are down to three random source Class B dog and cat dealers, and one is under investigation by the USDA. Photo: The HSUS

But as with so many issues we deal with, persistence pays dividends, and today marks a major milestone. As of October 1, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, will no longer fund research that involves dogs from random source Class B dealers. A similar policy regarding cats was adopted in 2012. We thank NIH for its work to institute this policy and we welcome this step forward. We also thank the many other organizations who devoted their energies to achieving this important milestone, including Last Chance for Animals and the Animal Welfare Institute.

The NIH decision followed a 2009 report released by the National Academy of Sciences that determined that Class B dealers are unnecessary for federally-funded research and that the regulations for these dealers simply can’t ensure that people’s pets won’t end up in labs.  It was work by animal advocates, the introduction of federal legislation on the subject, and a request from Congress that led to the formal study of this issue – as also happened with the finding by the Institute of Medicine that chimpanzees were no longer necessary for biomedical research. That finding also led to a dramatic shift in NIH policy. 

There was a time in the 1960s when as many as two million animals languished in the random source pipeline. Then, after passage of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966, there were more than 200 registered Class B dealers in the 1970s and 1980s. But careful scientists don’t associate with these dealers, and the campaigning and exposes led by animal advocates weakened the dealers and shut off some of their sales routes. I am very pleased to share that we recently learned that the number of random source Class B dog and cat dealers currently in the United States has dropped to three, one of whom is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The drop in numbers came because these Class B dealers again and again were demonstrated to be a disreputable, dishonest group of operators, peddling animals that would not be reliable subjects for scientific experiments. I am amazed that some universities continue to deal with these unscrupulous animal dealers, including, as of last year, Georgia Regents University. The HSUS uncovered that fact during an investigation, and GRU soon terminated its relationship with any random source Class B dealers. GRU must still end its deeply troubling dental experiments on dogs, and it is time that all other universities adopt a policy against doing business with these Class B dealers. But for today—let’s take time to celebrate this victory for the animals.

September 23, 2014

Kohl’s Caught Selling Real Fur as ‘Faux’ – Again

RACOON_DOG
Raccoon dog fur is often falsely advertised or mislabeled as faux. Photo: Alamy

Once again, The HSUS has identified a major American retailer saying one thing and doing another. Kohl’s department store has been telling customers it has its act together when it comes to distinguishing between real and fake fur, but, according to our latest investigation, it’s violating a federal law by selling real raccoon dog fur advertised as “faux.” If you have been following our work to expose fraud in the fur industry, you will remember that this is the second violation by Kohl’s within a year’s time.

Last year, we uncovered Kohl’s selling rabbit fur handbags as “faux.”  When our supporters called the company to urge a fur-free policy, Kohl’s chose instead to play games by changing its customer relations phone number and taking down its customer service webpage, making it nearly impossible for people to voice their opinion.

This time, a men’s parka that we bought and tested from Kohls.com—advertised as having a “faux” fur trim – turned out to have real raccoon dog fur. So today, we are issuing another consumer warning to Kohl’s shoppers to alert them.  In general, selling animal fur as “faux fur” is a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in commerce. And  because the fur is on a piece of apparel, Kohl’s is also in violation of the FTC’s Fur Products Labeling Act because it failed to give the name of the animal killed, and in which country, in the online advertisement.

Kohl's-mens-jacket
Men's jacket from Kohls.com with real fur trim advertised as faux. 

Retailers selling fur continue to play fast and loose with raccoon dogs, and it’s not just Kohl’s. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. government agency charged with protecting consumers from deception, decided it would continue to use a bogus fur trade name – Asiatic raccoon – for raccoon dogs, a step that exacerbated consumer confusion and deception in the marketplace.

Every year, millions of animals are killed for the cruel fur trade, using methods such as electrocution and drowning. Some animals are even skinned alive.  But with so many quality alternatives to fur available, there is no reason to wear animal fur and no reason for Kohl’s to sell it. We have made numerous attempts to reach out to Kohl’s, and the corporation is aware of our concerns over its fur policies. Officials there have had plenty of time to correct the situation, do the right thing, and follow the law.Please join The HSUS in urging Kohl’s to adopt a fur-free policy.This is an easy fix, and the company shouldn’t delay any longer in getting on board.

Ask Kohl's to adopt a fur-free policy »

September 22, 2014

Undercover Investigation Reveals Primate Injuries, Death at Texas Biomed

Today, I announce news of an HSUS investigation into a primate research facility. The investigation occurred last year, and at that time we provided findings to federal authorities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken action and cited the lab for violations of the Animal Welfare Act based on our investigation, and now it’s time to share some of this information with our supporters and the public.

Primates at Texas Biomed
An HSUS investigator documented a pattern of mistreatment of primates at Texas Biomed, a taxpayer-funded institution. Photo: The HSUS

Specifically, an HSUS investigator went undercover as an animal caretaker at Texas Biomedical Research Institute, a taxpayer-funded research institution in San Antonio that houses more than 3,000 primates for laboratory use. Over five weeks, the investigator documented a pattern of mistreatment of the animals, including primates who suffered unnecessary injuries and even death. The institution’s standards of care frequently fell short of the federal Animal Welfare Act, with primates living in overcrowded and barren conditions, mothers and infants separated, and injured and sick animals not receiving timely medical care.

A USDA inspection report has cited the facility for two cases uncovered through the HSUS investigation, including the death of an emaciated baboon from septicemia as a result of trauma, and repeated injuries to a female rhesus monkey that required her tail to be amputated.

Numerous other problems were documented by the HSUS investigator, including: 

  • Primates were plucking out their own hair and over-grooming—both indicators of extreme stress. Our investigator, on film, documented dozens of macaque monkeys, including infants, with substantial bald patches as a result of these behaviors.
  • Repetitive behaviors like pacing, spinning and flipping and severe aggression, resulting in serious injuries.
  • Young infants separated from their mothers and housed nearby, resulting in constant cries from the infants and significant stress to the mothers. Lack of special consideration for the well-being of infants and juveniles is directly in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.
  • Staff handling animals improperly, including hand-catching animals by their tail.
  • Poor sanitation practices and lack of veterinary attention. Some animals were injured, one was severely dehydrated, but laboratory staff did not notice or report the problems.
  • Laboratory staff showed the HSUS investigator an X-ray of a baboon with a stomach full of rocks. It is clear that the baboons at Texas Biomed are not getting proper animal care – stressed and underfed, they resort to consuming large quantities of rocks and feces.
  • Extensive fighting within groups, resulting in wounds and other injuries to the animals.

Texas Biomed has a history of problematic animal care, including the self-strangulation of a baboon and two macaques by door cables, a poor design that the facility failed to correct.

The dismal life of primates in research is a topic we have frequently turned the spotlight on here at The HSUS, including last Friday’s blog about maternal deprivation experiments at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Primates suffer immensely when confined in research labs, and exacerbating those problems through neglect and mistreatment is simply wrong. It is time for our nation to move beyond using these highly intelligent, social animals for these purposes. 

Please join us in urging the agency to take strong enforcement action. We are also asking that the government retire the 22 federally-owned chimpanzees currently at Texas Biomed to sanctuary as soon as possible. 

Watch b-roll footage of the investigation below: