Missouri Black Bears

By: Adam Miller

Hunting bears is currently off limits. The population of black bears in Missouri isn’t large enough so they are still protected, but a new study might be changing that.

“So far, researchers have trapped 14 bears and put collars with GPS trackers on eight of them. The cooperative study between the conservation department and Missouri State University will continue into 2011 and will play a role in considering a hunting season for an animal that is currently off-limits, department spokesman Jim Low said.”

One thing to consider before hunting bears is when to do it. Around half the states in the US allow bear hunting but only a few allow a spring hunting season. Hunting in the spring can leave cubs to fend for themselves. While bears can survive, they will not have their mothers to teach them where to feed. If the bears don’t know their natural feeding grounds they may be urged to roam into populated areas to find easier food, such as garbage. Wandering bears would be contradicting the reason for the hunting in the first place. Bear hunting is done for the same reasons as other hunting, populations need to be controlled. Too many bears in one area can be detrimental to other species in the ecosystem, and if too many bears occupy the same territory they will again be forced to roam into populated areas to find food.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101003/NEWS01/10030350/State-tracking-black-bears

Service Animals

By: Dana Willis

What is a service animal?

According to the Americans with disabilities Act (ADA) a “service animal” is any animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability.

Now, the rules have changed, and this will affect many with disabilities!

The new rule as of September 15, 2010, states that a “service animal” is now defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. The rule states that other animals, whether wild or domestic, do not qualify as service animals.

There are many people with disabilities that use other animals rather than dogs as a service animal. This knocks out the use of helping hands monkeys, ponies, parrots, and many other animals.

One person that this will affect immensely is Ann Edie. She has a seeing eye pony named Panda that has helped her for many years. Tabitha will no longer be able to use her. She will now have to retrain and bond with a service dog, even tough ponies have a longer life span and are known to be smarter then dogs.

One other example would be Sandie, the African grey parrot, who helps Jim Eggers. Egger suffers from a bipolar disorder. His parrot Sandie, helps calm him down and helps him be able to go out in public place. Whenever Eggers starts to feel anxious or uncomfortable, Sandie talks to him and tells him it is going to be alright.

These are just a few examples and now that the rules have changed, these individuals will have to make big changes in their life. The changes will not be for the better and it will cause major tension on them and their once called service animals. They will have to go through a long process on finding a new animal, training it, and bonding with it. This is going to cause a major stress in their life and may cause them to not even go out in public.

For more information on service animals and ADA regulations:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98958273 http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factsheets/title2_factsheet.html

http://premierinc.com/informatics/tools-services/safety/topics/guidelines/downloads/20_animal-soar_00.pdf

Caged Egg Production

                                        By Derek Hedges

          The recall of over 550 million eggs for salmonella contamination recently from Wright county egg and Hallandale farms gave the humane society another chance to exhibit their biased views on modern agricultural production methods.  They used this incident to try and further their agenda of trying to do away with confinement animal production methods regardless of the cost or the true facts.  These methods have already been successful in getting California and Michigan to pass laws to begin phasing out caged egg production and other states are considering this.

        The humane society had two videos on their website, “High Risk Eggs.”  And “Animal Abuse at down egg factory.”   After watching these videos of supposedly normal cage egg production facilities I have a few thoughts that I would like to share.  I find the portrayed of these operations as to being very deceitful.  I have had the privilege to tour MO ARK’s egg production facilities in Neosho MO and found them to be just the opposite of what is portrayed in the videos.  The hens were healthy, fully feathered and well cared for.  Plenty food and water were always available for them.  Yes hens do sometimes die in the cage but hens raised free also die and any dead bird is quickly removed.  The human society want you to believe that the operation in the videos are normal, profitable one while anyone with knowledge of animal production knows that a healthy comfortable animal is much more profitable than a sick, uncomfortable one. 

                There also was no way to verify where these videos were shot.  It is apparent that they were probably shot at night due to how the lighting looks.  This would make one believe that these videos were probably shot without the knowledge or consent of the owners which means they probably shot without the knowledge or consent of the owners which means they probably trespassed to obtain the videos.  With the conditions in these videos so unlike the normal conditions of caged birds which are usually inspected on has to question whether these videos were even shot in the United States and the Humane Society should be pressed to provide proof of the location of these facilities.  This has the potential of causing problems for them the videos are identified as to location and they did not have permission to film on the property. 

References:

www.aeb.org/foodservice../egg.../facts-about-egg-production

http://www.uepcertified.com/media/pdf/UFP-brochure.pdf

http://www.helium.com/items/1934732-eggrecall-2010-samonella-found-iu-feed-ou-egg-farms-investigation-ongoing

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confiuement-farm/%22--------/vidieo/

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press-releases/2010/08/egg-recall

To B or not to B....

Proposition B:  Missouri 2010

By Kerre Clark

                While strolling casually around this past weekend’s annual Fall Farm Fest in Springfield, one could have gotten a taste of many things going on in the industry.   One of these “things” that is buzzing around now is talk about Proposition B, which is about regulating dog breeders.  On the Missouri Secretary of State’s (SOS) webpage is the proposed statute in detail.  First, it states that it shall be known as the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”  It goes on to state that the purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills by requiring large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, adequate space to turn around and stretch his or her limbs, and regular exercise (SOS, 2010).  The statute goes on the list and define in detail the meanings of the things that need to be provided and what all falls under the proposed statute.   It would also only allow breeders to have no more than 50 breeding dogs at a time.  These regulations are only truly necessary for those breeders or producers who do not take care of their animals.  The people that care about their animals are already meeting these requirements willingly.  So why the big fuss over Proposition B?  Well, there are always two sides to a story that need to be heard. 

                On the side for voting YES on Proposition B are animal rights groups such as The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and many others.  They are using this as part of their agenda of getting rid of animal agriculture and hunting animals for trophy or sport.  Although, the organization is viewed as people rescuing dogs and cats, they have been found to only spend one half of a percent of every dollar they make to actually help the animals (MFB, 2010).  In a news article on the HSUS website, they describe a TV Ad that was recently released supporting Proposition B and tells the audience that, “There are an estimated 3,000 puppy mills in Missouri which is 30 percent of all puppy mills in the nation.  Proposition B will stop puppy mill abuses by enacting common-sense standards for the well being of the dogs.”  They go on to say that puppy mills force dogs into small and dirty cages and are not taken care of properly (HSUS, 2010).  These groups and fellow citizens want to put an end to animal cruelty and stop it at the source.

                On the side for voting NO on Proposition B are animal breeders, producers which include farmers and ranchers, organizations such as Missouri Farm Bureau and many more.  They see Proposition B as just a way for there to be more government regulation.  Farmers and Ranchers see it as a way for in the future for their cattle, goats, sheep, horses, chickens, pigs and other animal numbers to be regulated.  They fear that if this is allowed to pass that not only responsible and respectable dog breeders will be forced out of business, but that they will not be able to raise their animals because costs would be too high and fewer animals could be produced.  They also see that if this statute is passed then hunting would become more regulated as well (MFB, 2010).  These people are also against animal cruelty and want it stopped.

                In an article found in the Missouri Farm Bureau Show Me Magazine, Jon Hagler the Director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture says that a large majority of the animal welfare problems are actually coming from a small group of people who are not part of the typical agricultural setting.  Unfortunately, Mr. Hagler goes on to state, this Proposition is aimed right at the core of agriculture (MFB, 2010).  It is the illegal and irresponsible breeders that have given Missouri dog breeders a bad reputation and also have people criticizing other parts of the agricultural industry as well for their animal care.  This is where people need to step back and make sure that they understand what they are standing up for whether they are for or against this proposition laid out before us.  We need to make sure that we are educated on the subject from all angles and tell people around us the truth. 

References:

(MFB), M. F. (2010). Missourians for Animal Care Coalition Opposes. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB): http://www.mofb.org/Home/Article6

Jon Hagler, Director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture. (2010, January). Director Hagler says Operation Bark Alert will do more for animal welfare. Missouri Farm Bureau Show Me Magazine .

Missouri Secretary of State (SOS). (2010). 2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri-Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders , 1. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from Missouri Secretary of State (SOS): www.sos.mo.gov

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). (2010, October 4). First TV Ad Launched Urging Voters to Protect Dogs by Voting YES! on Prop B. (J. P. Paid for by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs / YES! on Prop B, Producer) Retrieved October 4, 2010, from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS): http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010

Abusive Illusions

By Emily Grady

If a picture’s worth a thousand words then what’s a video worth? In the age of you-tube, videos are all around us. With the click of a button we can be watching videos on a million different subjects from a million different people. But how do we know if what we’re watching is the actual truth? This was a problem recently faced by a Jury in Union County, Ohio.

On May 27, 2010 a video was released by the animal right’s group Mercy For Animals (MFA) that depicted horrific animal cruelty at Conklin Dairy Farms (MFA, 2010). Most of the video was of one of the hired farm workers, Billy Joe Gregg. However, there was about a 5 second clip halfway through the 3 minute and 43 second video, which showed the farm owner Gary Conklin kicking a downed cow. After the release of the video Mr. Gregg was immediately fired from the farm and both him and Mr. Conklin were charged with animal abuse.

The issue with this video is not the nature of the footage but the nature in which it was presented. Dr. Bernard Rollin, Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, stated: "This is probably the most gratuitous, sustained, sadistic animal abuse I have ever seen. The video depicts calculated, deliberate cruelty, based not on momentary rage but on taking pleasure through causing pain to cows and calves who are defenseless (MFA, 2010)." The video showed graphic and horrific abuse, but was all of the footage of abuse or was some of it taken out of context? The video showed less than four minutes of footage that was taken over a four-week period. That’s only a minute of footage per week that the filming took place.

The five-second clip that showed the owner, Mr. Conklin, kicking the downed cow can easily be misconstrued as abuse with the context of the video. However, what he was doing was actually not abuse. To people who have never been around large animals it may seem very cruel to be kicking a cow, but in some cases it is justified. According to Ohio State University Veterinarian Doc Sanders, “After calving, a cow that is downed may sometimes develop a metabolic disease that causes her to not want to get up. The cow can be treated for the metabolic disease, however, if she is not up within 12 hours of calving she can develop muscle cramping which will eventually cause her to never be able to get up. Motivational speeches don’t work on cattle so they need stronger encouragement to get up. The hide of a cow is about as thick as the sole of a shoe so a love tap isn’t going to get the point across. In order to get the cow up it is best to start by kneeing the cow gently in the side and progressing from there to kicking it with the toe of a boot in the rear and occasionally using a small electric shot from a cattle prod. It is essential to get the cow up or she may die (OFBF, 2010).” After learning this is what Mr. Conklin was doing the footage seems much more logical and humane. This is why assumptions made based on a small amount of evidence can be very dangerous.

This is not the first example of an animal rights group seemingly misconstruing video evidence or otherwise. In March 2008 a similar event occurred when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released a video of supposed animal abuse at a New Mexico livestock auction (HSUS, 2008). The HSUS created such a press frenzy that by the time the New Mexico Livestock Board (NMLB) had a chance to look at the actual video taken, not the spliced version shown by the press, the public had already made up their mind despite the fact that the NMLB cleared the auction of all accusations after seeing the video, which the HSUS sent to them five weeks after they released their version.  Also, The NMLB report stated that there was at least one instance where the HSUS investigator had the opportunity to help relieve the suffering of an animal but “apparently chose not to assist, in order to take compelling, but nevertheless misleading, video footage (NMLB, 2008).”

The Conklin case is very similar to this. In the Conklin trial the MFA filmmaker openly admitted to joining in the apparent abuse and stabbing animals with a pitchfork alongside Mr. Gregg. He claimed he did this to, “maintain his cover (Kick, 2010).” The animal rights activist filmed the supposedly sickening animal abuse for a month before reporting what he saw. It seems strange that someone so motivated about protecting animals could endure a month of filming and abusing animals himself before reporting to anyone. According to Union County Processing Attorney David Phillips, “As soon as the investigator and MFA became aware of Gregg’s actions, someone should have notified law enforcement or the humane society. Had they done so, much of the abuse at the hands of Billy Joe Gregg shown on the video never would have happened, and the animals would have been spared (Kick, 2010).”   Based on the footage taken it would seem that he could have gotten the same amount of footage in a much shorter amount of time. However, the Grand Jury determined that the filmmaker would not face any criminal charges.

Another twist to what appears to be such a clear-cut case is that the Conklin Dairy Farm was regularly inspected by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. The state inspected the farm three times in the past year and found the conditions satisfactory.  The farm was inspected this often because they were recently approved as a “Grade A facility.” The milk from such a facility can be used for anything commercially. According to Tony Forshey, Ohio’s state veterinarian and a member of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, Conklin runs a quality operation and the behavior shown in the video is “not normal” for what is done on the farm. According to Forshey, “Everything on that video is just horrible. The injuries that would have been done to what appeared to be healthy animals would be broken bones, bruising of the muscles, tremendous pain, even death (Zachariah and Johnson, 2010).” Gary Conklin, the farm’s owner, was quoted as saying, “Our family takes the care of our cows and calves very seriously. The video shows animal care that is clearly inconsistent with the high standards we set for our farm and its workers, and we find the specific mistreatment shown on the video to be reprehensible and unacceptable.”

Another interesting turn of events is that this video had very interesting timing. The Ohio agriculture industry was in a heated debate over animal care issues. The Humane Society of the United States was campaigning to put a constitutional amendment on the fall ballot in Ohio that would require certain reforms within the agriculture industry including changes to animal confinement standards. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board was charged with reviewing the possible changes.  It is curious that MFA would release a video of graphic animal abuse on an Ohio dairy farm at a critical time in Ohio’s political campaigning. Also, it seems quite ironic that an undercover animal right’s activist was hired by Conklin Dairy just a few months after Billy Joe Gregg. Finally, this was a regularly inspected facility and they passed their last inspection with no problems. The abuse that took place in the video clearly would have left very obvious signs of it on the animals. It could all be coincidental, but when too many coincidences show up it gets one thinking.

When Mark Twain observed that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its boots on, he was ahead of his time.  Lies are everywhere these days, the hard part is distinguishing them from the truth. Today there is more gray area than ever and it seems the agriculture industry is coming under fire more than ever. Animal right’s activists are on the offensive against agriculture throughout the country, it’s about time we put our boots on and stopped this nonsense. We must all be careful about the things we read, hear and see because there is almost always another viewpoint on the issue.  Policy and decisions are made on sound information; we can make the best policies and decisions if we choose to double check the facts, otherwise, we are the blind leading the blind through a twisted and convoluted arena of choices.  If we are to truly stop animal cruelty, we must together, choose to see all the angles and possibilities before attacking what may be a truly innocent and life saving practice for the animal. 

Link to the video:

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy/

References:

HSUS. 2008. The HSUS Exposes More Appalling Abuses of Dairy Cows at Livestock

Auction in New Undercover Investigation. Humane Society of the United

States Factory Farming Campaign. http://www.hsus.org/farm/news

/ournews/dairy_cow_abuses_new_mexico_auction_062508.html

Kick, Chris. 2010. Animal abuser, animal rights activist fooled dairy farmer with

seemingly good backgrounds. Farm and Dairy Magazine.

http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/animal-abuser-animal-rights-activist-

fooled-dairy-farmer-with-seemingly-good-backgrounds/15300.html

MFA. 2010. Ohio Dairy Farm Brutality. Mercy For Animals Special Investigation.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/ohdairy/

NMLB. 2008. Investigative Review Portales Livestock Auction. New Mexico

Livestock Board.

http://www.nmlbonline.com/documents/080814InvRev.pdf

OFBF. 2010. Is kicking a cow cruel? Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Radio News

Service. http://ofbf.org/media-and-publications/listen/6/464/

Zachariah, H., A. Johnson. 2010. Dairy-farm worker fired, arrested for video. The

Columbus Dispatch. http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news

/stories/2010/05/27/dairy-farm-worker-fired-arrested-over-video.html

Dog Fighting: Instinct or Training?

By: Stephanie Lacy

Dog fighting is believed to have begun in ancient Rome, though initially, rather than pitting the dogs against each other they were used to bait animals such as bulls and bears (Gibson, 2005). In 1835, however, the use of dogs for bait was banned, following this, dog fighting as it is today began. Dog fighting has been known to occur in North America, South America and Europe. (ASPCA, 1997). Initially, dog fighting was accepted and endorsed by such organizations as the United Kennel Club. However, as the “sport” progressed it became more and more unacceptable in society, and shortly thereafter the United Kennel Club withdrew their support. Dog fighting was outlawed in all states by 1976, though until recently there was very little law enforcement.

Some breeds of dog have been bred expressly for fighting purposes. Initially, bulldogs were used in the baiting events, after these events were outlawed and dog fighting was introduced the bulldog was crossed with a terrier to create fighting breeds. Dog breeds created and bred for fighting include: the American pit bull, the American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, and bull terriers (Gibson, 2005).

Fighting dogs, while bred to fight, are also put through rigorous training before being placed in the fighting ring. Dogs begin their training as puppies; this training is used to promote “gameness” or the willingness of the dog to fight and to continue to fight after being injured. While no dog fighter uses an exact protocol, there are many aspects of the dogs training that are used by many. One such exercise is the use of a treadmill to increase the dogs’ endurance and fitness. The dogs are run on treadmills for undetermined amounts of time. Another exercise uses a device similar to a horse exerciser; the dog is chained to one of the beams while a small animal is chained to or hung from another of the beams. The dog chases the bait for exercise, and when the training session is over the dog is normally rewarded with the bait. Spring apparatus’s are also used to stimulate the dogs, this method involves using some form of bait, usually an animal hide of some sort and placing it to where the dog has to jump to reach it and then hangs from it. Spring apparatus’s are used to strengthen the jaw muscles and the rear leg muscles. Flirtploles are another device used in training; these poles are used by attaching some form of bait to the end of the string and dragging it along the ground to tease the dog. Chains and weights are placed around the neck and used to promote neck and upper body strength. Bait itself is used by tethering the bait and allowing the dogs to maul it or by releasing both the dogs and the bait into a small pen and allowing the dogs to maul the bait. Drugs, vitamins, and supplements are also used for conditioning or provoking the dogs to fight (Gibson, 2005).

Dog fighting takes place everywhere, be it rural areas or a big city. During the actual fight the dogs are placed into a small “pit,” they are held by their handlers behind the scratch line until the referee gives the order for them to be released. The dogs are then turned loose and allowed to maul one another. In the event that one of the dogs turns away from the other they are fleetingly divided and the dog that turned away is released again at the referees command. On the condition that the dog returns to the ring and goes after his rival the rival is released and the fight resumes. The fight is ended when a dog either refuses to go back into the ring or the death of one of the competitors occurs. A lot is at stake in these dog fights, the loser usually loses a good amount of money and also tends to lose the respect of his peers. To regain this respect the losing handler will, under the best of circumstances, shoot his dog if it wasn’t killed in the ring. However, losing handlers have also been known to torture their dog to death. (Gibson, 2005).

To some it may seem that dog fighting is not really abuse or torture, but rather the handler allowing the dog to do what it chooses. However, while it is true that all dogs fight and all dogs have a hierarchy it is not normal for them to fight to kill. In an ordinary dog fight the dogs will fight but it only lasts a few seconds and the dominant dog accepts the lower dogs’ submissiveness. Dog fighting has been designed by people to engage in as a spectator sport, and a fight that lasts less than a minute is not what the crowd wants to see. Therefore, these dogs are mistreated in various ways to improve their fighting ability so that the fights last longer and are more crowd pleasing (ASPCA, 1997).

                                                                                        

Works Cited

ASPCA. 1997. History of Dog Fighting. http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/history-of-dog-fighting.htm. October 2010.

Gibson, Hanna. Animal Legal and Historical Center. 2005. Dog Fighting Detailed Discussion. http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusdogfighting.htm#s2. October 2010.

Animal Experimentation

Jayme Morrison

Animal Experimentation

            A very difficult topic as arose with various animal welfare groups over the past few years. This contrivoursel topic is animal testing also known as animal experimentation. Today, animal testing is widely used all over the world to help with the development of new medicines, cosmetics, vaccines for animals, as well as we use animal experimentation for the testing of the safety of various products. Why animal testing is such a contrivousal topic is because the welfare of the animal is questionable, along with the morals that go along with animal experimentation. For example, many people wonder if it is morally acceptable for an animal to experience any discomfort if the overall outcome of the experiment is for the human good.

            When using animals for experimentation there are guidelines that scientists are asked to follow. These guidelines according to the Animal Ethics are called the 3R’s. First R is reduction: the overall outcome of all experiments is to reduce the total number of animals used in experiments. According to the BBC Animal ethics it is explained to help reduction, scientists can improve their techniques used in the experiments, as well as the improvement of the data analysis. Also, scientists can share what data they have collected with other researchers to help prevent multiple experiments of the same exact test occurring. (bbc.co.uk) The second R stands for refinement meaning refine the way these animals are cared for. This will also reduce the amount of suffering these animals might receive during experimentation. The third R stands for replacement meaning replacing animal testing with other methods of experimentation. (bbc.co.uk)

            Another positive to animal experimentation is not just humans are benefiting from the animal testing. For example, according to the buzzle.com website heart worm medication came from research from animals and with the positive outcome of the research today the medication helps save lives of many dogs. (buzzle.com)

            There are many negative feelings about the topic of animal testing. First, according to the source watch website, animals are often subject to addictive drugs, burning, blinding, as well as radiation. (sourcewatch.org)

            The next negative point of animal testing is statistics from a article off of Stop Animal Exploitation Now (S.A.E.N.) claims that 1,416,643 animals were experimented on for the fiscal year of 2000 according to the United States Department of Agriculture annual Animal Welfare Enforcement Report, out of those animals 104,202 animals had either stressful or even painful experimentation and did not receive anesthesia. (All-creatures.org/saen/)

            Also, in the United Kingdom statistics 1999 there were a total of 2.66 million animals used in animal experimentation and as source watch claims these animals were subject to “likely to cause pain, suffering, distress, or lasting pain.”(sourcewatch.org)

            In conclusion, there are many benefits to humanity that have come from animal testing over the past years. With the benefits there are various negative effects on these animals that are involved with the experiments. I believe that the United States should continue animal testing as long as these animals are being treated in a caring and humane way. If humans are not the only ones that are benefiting from animal testing I do not see a problem with the use of animals for experimentation.

Works Cited

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?titleAnimal_testing

www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals

www.worldanimal.net

www.all-creatures.org./saen/articles-anexp.html

www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testingpros.html