Ordinance Changes are a Bad Idea

The changes to Tulsa's animal ordinances proposed by City Councilor Jim Mautino are step in the wrong direction. In essence, the proposal would make it harder to rescue animals, while at the same time making it easier for breeders to dump intact animals into Tulsa.

While I am not a big fan of animal protection advocates spending a lot of time and effort on rescue, we ought not be making it harder for them to do so.

On the other hand, we can, and should, make it harder for breeders to continue to pump intact animals into the system. There is no secret to creating a no-kill city, or state. There are now many examples of cities and states that have brought their companion animal populations under control and have essentially ended the practice of killing otherwise healthy animals merely because there are not enough homes for them. There is no reason we can not do this in Tulsa or Oklahoma, except that we do not currently have politicians with the political will necessary to push through the measures to make no-kill a reality.

Full fledged support of spay-neuter(including subsidized spay-neuter for low income people), spay-neuter enforcement, and clamping down on unregulated breeding are all ideas we know work to reduce the number of unwanted animals, and that save money in the animal control budget in the long run. Councilor Mautino's proposals, if enacted, are going to end up costing Tulsa taxpayers, who will foot the bill for fixing the problems caused by additional intact animals.

Again, this is a solvable problem, rescue groups need to get out of their narrow boxes and begin to devote resources to a planned and sustained campaign in the political arena if they hope to make progress towards a no-kill future.

The Only Reason to Blame Bush is Because It Is His Fault

We've all seen the movie a thousand times. A scream is heard, the hero rushes to the rescue, meanwhile the killer runs out the door. The hero runs into the room, and seeing the bloody body on the floor, bends down to see what can be done, just then the police rush in, reaching the inevitable conclusion that the hero is the killer.

It's a great plot for a movie, but unfortunately it is also the plotline for our current economic situation. When President Clinton left office, our country was in an unparalleled time of peace of prosperity, and we even had a budget surplus. After Clinton, we had a President that slashed taxes for the wealthy, for many down to zero. On top of that he started two wars, at least one of which was completely unnecessary. He also pushed through the “too big to fail” bailouts that left taxpayers holding the bag for the mistakes of billionare bankers. All of this costs a great deal of money, and is especially difficult to pay for when the most well-off in our country don't contribute their fair share.

Now President Obama has rushed into the room and is trying to revive the bloodied corpse that Bush left behind, and the media and the Republicans seem to have shown up to the picture late. Here's a clue for those of you who can't follow the plotline: Obama didn't do it. But there is no way he will get out of taking responsibility for Bush's mistakes, if you want to know why just read To Kill a Mockingbird.

Chickens Come Home to Poop

The reported problems with Oklahoma's lakes and the blue-green algae come as no surprise to those of us who have been following the events of the last few years revolving around the chicken industry and the issue of poultry litter. The current CAFO system of producing chickens that has been put in place in Oklahoma and surrounding states is completely unsustainable and has inevitably produced the serious pollution problems we are seeing now.

There was an opportunity to fix the problem when Oklahoma's former Attorney General, Drew Edmondson, decided to file suit against the poultry industry in order to hold them accountable for the pollution they are creating. Unfortunately, the judge in the case took the side of the poultry industry in almost every ruling, even after the AG presented evidence that the pollution could be a threat to human health.

Now we are faced with a situation where recreation facilities that belong to all of us in Oklahoma are becoming unusable. Add to this the economic devastation that is being caused to the businesses that depend on the lakes to attract their customers. In essence, the poultry companies have been permitted to engage in a theft worth hundreds-of-millions, if not billions, of dollars.

The people of Oklahoma should be angry, the poultry industry has taken the rivers and lakes that are the property of the people of Oklahoma and turned them into their own personal chicken toilets. How long will we let this continue before we decide that cheap chicken isn't worth the price?

Not Eggzactly Good News

I'm skeptical that today's news regarding the agreement of industry group United Egg Producers and HSUS is really the great step forward that it is claimed to be.

First, there is no phase out of battery cages, merely a phase in of larger space requirements. And the phase in time is fifteen years? Most of us know how acquiescent Congress is in delaying the implementation of new laws for industry. Mark my words, if this law goes into effect, the industry will go back to Congress time and again to complain how they can not keep up with timeline and get delays put into the legislation. It will be the next century before the size regulations actually take effect.

And second, I am suspicious of the coded language being used in regard to Supremacy Clause issues. Is there anyone who can state clearly whether or not this will prevent states from enacting more stringent requirements? As animal activists we should be cynical and push this issue. Almost all previous advancement in the area of farmed animal treatment has been due to ballot initiatives for a reason. While most citizens will vote for a ballot initiative that increases regulations, will the same person vote out a congressman because of a vote on an animal bill? Unlikely. In Oklahoma we had state legislators who were pro-cockfighting every step of the way. When the issue was put on the ballot, even districts that supported the anti-cockfighting initiative by large margins re-elected the pro-cockfighting legislators. When confronted with cruelty directly, voters will vote to support humane regulations, but these issues are not important enough to most people to vote out a congressman they otherwise would support. On puppy mills in Oklahoma much the same thing has happened, with legislation so weak that it is almost laughable, and yet most Oklahomans would support far stronger regulation. Are we setting ourselves up to compete in an arena where we are outmatched? The truth is, an industry with billions of dollars will be more than happy to move the fight into their lobbying/PAC/ influence peddling wheelhouse.

My last question is, how is this going to look to consumers? Are eggs, which are produced by first killing the baby male chicks (useless), then debeaking the female baby chicks, feeding them unnatural, usually drugged, food, depriving the birds of veterinary care until they are broken-down, worn-out useless animals useful for only McNuggets and soup, are these eggs going to carry an HSUS seal of approval?

Here is my thought, this industry wouldn't make this agreement unless they had to. They are running scared because the public now has access to a number of videos which show the truth about the egg industry. The score here is industry 1 (they get to move the debate to a forum they are experts at controlling) HSUS 1/2 (they get to take credit for a “the most important agreement in the history of animal activism, even if it effectually does nothing) Animals 0 (but of course they always lose.)