Statute calls for public wildlife management benefiting all Nevadans and to protect and perpetuate wildlife for future generations.
Ignoring these obligations has become routine for the Nevada Wildlife Commission and its supplicant staff at the Nevada Department of Wildlife. The department seeks to sell more killing, and providing more opportunities is its desired approach. No consideration is ever given toward animal suffering and sacrifice, or ripping apart animal families because of indiscriminate killing.
The protracted May 3-4 Reno Wildlife Commission meeting spent most of its time setting killing parameters for various species. They and their hunters approach the subject with the zeal of middle-schoolers single-mindedly playing video games.
One result was to increase the prospective death toll of black bears based on specious statistics and questionable mathematical modeling.
The nascent moose population will be new carnage to give hunters the opportunity to kill more wildlife for personal aggrandizement.
They even went so far as to rip bighorn sheep from Nevada’s wilderness and their families, then deposit them in unfamiliar terrain so Utah hunters have more to kill.
Nevada needs a new paradigm beyond the private hunting ranch that public lands have become. We have seen recent, excess brutality from a Wyoming rancher-hunter who ran down a wolf with a snowmobile, then extensively tortured it. Also, the South Dakota governor killing a hapless dog and goat. Nevada can and must do better.
The Yomiuri Shimbun Participants hold mock guns in Nemuro, Hokkaido, on Friday.
The Yomiuri Shimbun
17:42 JST, May 12, 2024
NEMURO, Hokkaido — To address the frequent appearances of brown bears in Nemuro, Hokkaido, the city government held a seminar on Friday to train new hunters. Although the seminar had a capacity of 20 participants, it drew in 24 people, indicating high interest in hunting among locals.
On April 28, a small pickup truck was attacked on a mountain road by a brown bear while the driver was out to collect wild plants. Footage from a dashcam, released by the Hokkaido prefectural police, showed the violent scene, including the bear charging at the vehicle and cracking the windshield. The city government organized Friday’s seminar out of awareness that training hunters is an urgent need due to the potential for human injuries caused by bears and other wildlife.
At the seminar, Masayuki Saito, the 68-year-old acting branch head of a local hunting association, promoted the charms of hunting, saying, “It’s a game of tactics with the prey, and you can obtain the finest food for cooking,” while also explaining the difficult realities: “It requires effort and money. There are risks and responsibilities involved as well.”
Local authorities explained support systems for hunters and the procedures for obtaining a hunting license to the participants.
Mock rifles and traps were also present at the seminar, allowing participants to learn how to handle them from experienced hunters.
“Handling rifles might be heavy and challenging for me, but I think my son can help me with it,” said Kyoko Takanuma, a 54-year-old local resident.
By Margaret Hartmann, senior editor for Intelligencer who has worked at New York since 2012
Photo: John Lamparski/Getty Images
For the past two weeks, Kristi Noem has been trying to recover from an epic act of self-sabotage, including a 1,600-word anecdote about killing her dog, Cricket (as well as a goat), in her new memoir, No Going Back. The South Dakota governor and Trump VP prospect’s primary defense strategy has been to blame the “fake news.” While the reasons the media is at fault for talking about stuff Noem wrote in her own book keep shifting, the governor initially accused journalists of leaving out key facts and encouraged people to read the book for themselves.
“You know how the fake news works. They leave out some or most of the facts of a story, they put the worst spin on it, and that’s what happened in this case,” Noem said in a May 1 Hannity interview. “I hope people really do buy this book and they find out the truth of this story.”
It was hard to see how Noem’s tale about fatally shooting her puppy in a gravel pit, which The Guardianrelayed days before the book’s release, would be more sympathetic in context. But in the interest of fairness, I obtained a copy of No Going Back.
Somehow, the unedited version of the story is actually worse.
While The Guardian capably conveyed the gist of the story, Noem’s full account is even more unsettling. Here are some details that the “fake news” omitted — probably to Noem’s benefit.
Noem took an insufficiently trained dog on a stressful hunt.
The Cricket anecdote begins with Noem, whose family ran a hunting lodge on their farm, explaining that trying to manage hunting season and harvest season simultaneously is “insane.” During “one particularly stressful year,” Noem hosted a group of regular guests, whom she was determined to show a good time:
“I wanted these guys to have an amazing amount of success on their final morning of hunting before they went back home. It promised to be a fantastic day of bagging pheasant—our state bird.”
So this was already a high-stress situation. And for some reason, Noem decided to bring along Cricket, a 14-month-old dog whose previous owners had “struggled with her aggressive personality.” Noem writes: “I was sure she’d learn a lot going out with our older dogs that day.” But Cricket didn’t learn anything from this on-the-job training, she just scampered around like the excited puppy that she was:
“Within an hour of walking the first field, Cricket had blown past the group, gotten too far ahead, and flushed up birds out of range. She was out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life. The only problem was there were no hunters nearby to shoot the birds she scared up.
I called her back to no avail. I hit her electronic collar to give her a quick tone to remind her to listen. I then hit the button to give her a warning vibration that told her to come back to me. No response.”
Noem recalls they all watched “helplessly” as dozens of pheasants flew away. “The hunt was ruined. I was livid,” she says.
Noem did not secure Cricket in her vehicle.
Somehow, after the disastrous hunt, Noem did not have enough kennels to transport the dogs home. So she decided to leave the one “dangerous” dog that didn’t follow directions loose in the back of her truck:
“After the hunters left for the airport, I started to load kennels in my pickup in order to haul all the dogs back to the ranch. As I loaded the dogs and supplies, I realized I was one kennel short. No matter. I would just let Cricket ride loose in the back end of the truck on the way home. If she was dumb enough to jump out, then good riddance. After what she had pulled that day, I didn’t care.”
Noem stopped to visit some neighbors on the way home, failing to anticipate that her unruly and unrestrained dog might not stay in her vehicle when she saw chickens in the yard. “I caught a glimpse of Cricket launching herself out of the back end of the pickup truck and racing across the yard,” she writes.
Noem says she was angry and rough with the dog.
Maybe Americans could accept a story about a farmer struggling with their guilt and sadness as they were left no choice but to put down a vicious animal. But Noem makes it clear that she was furious at Cricket and blamed the dog for things that weren’t totally her fault.
Noem remarks that she was “livid” after Cricket’s antics during the hunt, and she didn’t care if she wound up abandoned on the side of the road. While describing Cricket attacking the neighbor’s chickens, Noem laments, “She was a trained assassin.” But it seems Noem wanted Cricket to be a bird assassin, and her lack of training was the issue. Noem writes that after the attack, she “threw” Cricket in the car:
“Eventually I got my hand on her collar, and she whipped around to bite me. Shocked, I dragged her back to my pickup and threw her inside the cab. I took my checkbook out, grabbed a pen, slammed the door, and faced the music.
… When I got back into my truck, Cricket was sitting in the passenger seat, looking like she just won the lottery. The picture of pure joy.
I hated that dog.”
Maybe Noem did not literally throw the dog. But her emotions toward Cricket, who doesn’t seem to understand she did anything wrong, seem pretty extreme.
Noem let a goat terrorize her kids for years.
In her Hannity interview, Noem said she killed Cricket and then her goat because she is a responsible mom who had to protect her children. “At the time, I had small children and a lot of small kiddos who worked around our business and people, and I wanted to make sure that they were safe,” she said.
But the book’s full description of Noem’s nightmare goat raises questions about why she let the “nasty” and “filthy” animal chase her kids around for so long:
“This goat had been a problem for years. He was nasty and mean, as most male goats are that are left uncastrated. Male goats urinate on their own heads and beards while in rut, hoping to attract females with their putrid smell. It’s the most disgusting, musky, rancid smell you can imagine.
Not only was this goat constantly covered in his own muck, but he also loved to chase the kids. He would knock them down and butt them. The wretched smell was impossible to get out of their clothes, and we had to burn too many shirts and jeans. Needless to say, the children were terrified of this animal. I would often find them on a fence or piece of equipment, held hostage by the demon goat. So, while taking care of unpleasant business, I decided now was as good a time as any to dispose of this problem, too.”
Noem says the witnesses were scared of her.
Noem has suggested that anyone who questions her story just doesn’t understand how things work in real America. “We love animals, but tough decisions like this happen all the time on a farm,” she posted on X hours after the story broke.
But in No Going Back, Noem reveals that her own uncle and the construction workers who witnessed the killing of Cricket and the unnamed goat were disturbed by her behavior:
“Later that evening, my uncle, who was the general contractor building our house, called me and said, ‘What got into you today?’
‘Nothing,’ I responded. ‘Why?’
‘Well, the guys said you came barreling into the yard with your truck, slammed the door, and took a gun and a dog over the hill, out of sight. They heard one shot and you came back without the dog. Then you grabbed the goat and headed back up over the hill. They heard another shot, you came back, slammed the pickup door, went back. Then they heard another shot and then you came back without the goat. They said they hurried back to work before you decided they were next!’”
So, it turns out it’s not just the “fake news” and “unreal” Americans who find Noem’s folksy tale of puppy murder weird and frightening.
photo supplied Elizabeth Gray, Tri-City Photography Club
BC Conservation officers freed a black bear from a leg-hold trap in Coquitlam, and now an environmental group is offering a $1,000 reward to help catch whoever set it.
Just before 1 p.m. on April 30, the BC Conservation Officer Service (COS) received a report of a bear with its paw trapped in the pressure-activated snare set near the Pitt River Boat Club.
COS said its officers called in police to close the nearby trail before tranquilizing the bear to remove the trap and examine the animal for injuries.
Local news that matters to you
No one covers the Tri-Cities like we do. But we need your help to keep our community journalism sustainable.SUPPORT TRI-CITIES DISPATCH
The bear was determined to be in good health, and quickly relocated to a wilderness area outside the city, according to COS.
COS launched an investigation into the incident.
North Vancouver charity the Fur-Bearers has offered a $1,000 reward for information leading to the identification and conviction of the person responsible.
“Trapping has serious consequences, including the inarguable harm to non-target species and costs associated as seen last week,” says Lesley Fox, executive director of The Fur-Bearers. “This reward shows that we – and the people of British Columbia – take illegal trapping seriously and will not accept it in 2024.”
Although leg-hold traps are banned in many countries around the world, and several U.S. states, the immobilizing traps are still legal across Canada. Only leg-hold traps with metal teeth have been prohibited.
Municipalities, on the other hand, have an ability to ban their use within their jurisdiction, and Coquitlam did so with a bylaw back in 1979.
The bylaw cited animal cruelty when it banned all people, firms and corporations from setting these types of traps. Convictions result in a $500 fine.
Exemptions are only made for city employees or agents of the British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch in the course of their duties.
The Fur Bearers are warning anyone in the area to be on the lookout for traps, specifically warning dog walkers, families, bird watchers, and cyclists.
“This disturbing incident is a sign of the need for reforms to trapping and how traps are purchased in Canada,” the Fur Bearers’ website states.
The Fur Bearers advocate for an outright ban on leg-hold traps. They are joined by the American Veterinary Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association, the National Animal Control Association, and the Sierra Club.
The traps typically target foxes, coyotes, raccoons, wolves, lynx, and bobcats, and are placed in areas where animals frequently pass.
The Fur Bearers say that once an animal is trapped, they often become so desperate they resort to chewing or wringing off the caught limb.
“Animals endure a painful and panic-filled period until they either die from exhaustion, blood loss, predation, dehydration, hypothermia, or are clubbed, choked, or stomped to death by the trapper (so as not to damage the pelt),” the Fur Bearers’ website states.
In response to the torture and killing of a wolf in Daniel, a hunter from Dubois says Wyomingites need to reform hunting and animal cruelty statutes themselves instead of waiting for outside groups and the federal government to force change.
A pack of wolves in Yellowstone National Park. (Photo by Larry Lamsa via Flickr)
The eyes of the world have been on Wyoming since a wolf was tortured and killed in Daniel, but if reform is to come from the incident, it should be Wyoming’s business, not the world’s, an avid hunter from Dubois said.
“I think that here in Wyoming, we recognize that we have our own solutions to our problems. We don’t need outside organizations pressuring the federal government to come in and change things for us,” Jim Laybourn told Cowboy State Daily.
Along with conservationists, landowners and others, Laybourn is forming the Wyoming Wildlife Coalition and pushing for change in Wyoming’s predator hunting and animal cruelty statutes.
“We just want to give law enforcement the right tools to punish bad actors for extreme acts of torture, like the case in Daniel, Wyoming,” he said.
Laybourn said he and others plan to lobby the Wyoming Legislature for reform on two specific points: outlawing the use of motorized vehicles to chase down and run over predators, and changing animal cruelty statutes to include wildlife.
Another of the coalition’s members, Wyoming Wildlife Advocates Executive Director Kristin Combs, previously told Cowboy State Daily that her group will be among those pushing those same points before the Legislature during its 2025 session.
Whether any such legislative reform can succeed is a tough question, state Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, told Cowboy State Daily.
He said animal cruelty measures have come up before during his tenure in the Legislature. They’re tough, controversial bills to work.
“You have to figure out, what’s the level of penalty, how narrowly will the bill be crafted and what would the unintended consequences be?” Hicks said.
Prompted By Wolf Torture
The coalition’s efforts are in direct response to a Feb. 29 incident involving Cody Roberts, 42, of Daniel.
According to accounts of events, Roberts ran a wolf down with his snowmobile and captured the injured animal, taping its muzzle shut. He later took it to his residence, and then to the Green River Bar to show it off before taking out behind the bar and killing it.
There was national and global outrage when court records indicated that Roberts was cited by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department for illegal possession of a warm-blooded animal, and forfeited a $250 bond.
Many felt that there should have been stiffer penalties in the case.
Laybourn said if Wyoming policy can be reformed from within, it will help prevent such outrageous acts in the future, as well as demonstrating that Wyoming is capable of solving its own shortcomings.
“My goal is to reach out to people in Wyoming who want to see reform,” he said. “We want this to be a Wyoming-based solution.”
Giving Up Hunting, At Least For Now
May is usually busy for Wyoming hunters – the end of the month is the deadline to apply for hunting tags.
Laybourn is sitting it out this year.
During a recent meeting of Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, he told the commissioners and Cowboy State Daily that he would refuse to buy any more hunting tags until some of Wyoming’s predator hunting and animal cruelty statutes are reformed.
On Thursday, he said he’s sticking by his statements and hasn’t applied for any hunting tags.
“It’s hard for me, because I love to hunt,” he said. “It’s some of the strongest, most powerful experiences you can have, being out hunting in the backcountry.”
But by giving up hunting, at least for now, Laybourn said he hopes to inspire others. And he hopes it helps protect hunters’ reputation among the general public.
“I’m trying to make a stand for other hunters. It’s a sacrifice I’m trying to make for other hunters,” he said. “So that the public feels better about hunters. So that they understand that hunters are being ethical.”
Jim Laybourn of Dubois loves hunting in Wyoming’s backcountry. But this year, he’s not applying for any hunting tags, in response to a wolf being tortured and killed in Daniel. He’s also helping to form a coalition to lobby the Wyoming Legislature to reform predator hunting and animal cruelty statutes. (Courtesy Jim Laybourn)
‘This Isn’t About Wolf Hunting’
Laybourn isn’t a predator hunter, but he doesn’t take issue with predator hunting in general.
“Personally, my own standard is, I only kill what I eat. But I realize a lot of people need to use predator control to protect their livelihood,” he said.
“This isn’t about wolf hunting, or Wyoming wolf management. This is just about the brutal act of running an animal down with a snowmobile and then torturing it,” he added. “I would have been just as upset if somebody would have brought a wounded deer into a bar, or a wounded coyote or any other animal.”
A Tough Case To Make
Hicks said he expects a bill of some sort to be brought before the Legislature because of the case in Daniel.
But to gain traction, it will require extensive research.
“Is there something similar out there in another state? Look at the court cases related to it, the disposition of them. Go look at the lawsuits that might have resulted,” he said.
An animal cruelty statute that’s too broadly written could be open to abuses related to trapping, poorly placed hunting shots or even roadkill, he said.
“What if you hit a prairie dog and somebody catches it on their dashcam, and then tries to claim that you deliberately swerved to hit that prairie dog?” he said.
Regarding legislation aimed at forbidding running animals down with vehicles, it would have wording that clearly defined deliberate, malicious intent as opposed to hitting an animal by accident, Hicks added.
He’s also not particularly concerned about federal intervention because it’s outside of the federal government’s authority to dictate a state’s animal cruelty statutes. Any changes on the federal level would have to go through Congress and apply to all 50 states.
“If somebody wants to bring it (legislation), we’ll take a look at it. It will be given a fair hearing,” he said. “I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m saying it’s going to have to be narrowly crafted.”
On Feb. 29, Cody Roberts of Daniel, Wyoming intentionally ran over a young wolf with his snowmobile. He then taped its snout, to a bar where he displayed this injured wolf for photos and laughs, all the while ignoring its suffering, pain, and fear. He tortured this wolf for his own pleasure; for social media attention, for some sick, perverse hate-fueled self-serving purpose. He finally ended its misery behind the bar by shooting it. Unfortunately, this is not a one-off incident. His actions exemplify the failure by wildlife agencies, government and the community at large to address the utterly reprehensible act of chasing down predators; primarily wolves and coyotes, by snowmobiles. It also represents the degree to which predators are vilified and disregarded; not as predators with a purpose or as sentient wild animals that are part of a balance of our ecosystems.
Would New Hampshire Fish and Game Department tolerate this behavior and cruelty here? There is no protection for coyotes even under the Cruelty to Animals Act. New Hampshire allows trapping of predators and hounding and killing of coyotes year-round, even during denning time with pups. The New Hampshire Wildlife Coalition (NHWC) condemns running down wildlife with snowmobiles. We urge you to join us and condemn these actions. You can be a voice for the voiceless!
Nicolas Patnode, 19, of Kalkaska poses with an illegal 9-point deer he killed in 2022. Patnode and Zander Garrett face a combined 14-charges after torturing a porcupine and illegally hunting throughout the county during October-November 2022. Both Kalkaska men are due back in court on May 20. (DNR)
2
KALKASKA COUNTY, Mich. (WPBN/WGTU) — Two men are accused of multiple wildlife violations including torturing animals across Kalkaska County.
Nicholas Patnode, 19, and Zander Garrett, 20, were arraigned Monday in Kalkaska County District Court.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources conservation officers began their investigation in 2022 after receiving a tip through the DNR Report All Poaching hotline.
Investigators said Patnode and Garrett illegally killed at least six deer, including a 9-point buck shot from the window of a truck. They are also accused of inhumanely killing a porcupine.
“When there’s this many violations, including torturing animals, education only goes so far. These crimes need to be addressed,” said Jason Haines, chief of the DNR’s Law Enforcement Division. “Prosecution of these acts will hopefully deter not only these individuals but others from committing similar crimes in the future.”
“Our officers conducted a very thorough investigation to piece together many pieces of evidence from throughout the county,” Haines added.
Patnode’s 11 charges, include:
Two counts of killing, torturing animals, a third-degree felony punishable by up to four years in jail and/or $5,000 in fines.
Six counts of wildlife conservation violation – general violations. Each is a misdemeanor punishable of up to 90 days in jail per count and/or $500 each.
One count of hunting and fishing license violation – using another’s license, a misdemeanor that carries a punishment of up to 90 days in jail and/or up to $250 in fines.
One count of wildlife conservation violation – taking game from a vehicle; a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or up to $500 in fines.
One count of wildlife conservation violation – possessing a bow or crossbow in a vehicle operated on public land or roads. The offense is a misdemeanor carrying a sentence of up to 90 days in jail and/or up to $500 in fines.
Garrett’s charges include:
One count of killing, torturing animals.
One count of wildlife conservation violation – taking game from a vehicle.
One count of wildlife conservation violation – possessing bow or crossbow in a vehicle operated on public land or roads.
Garrett and Patnode were arrested April 12 on felony charges; their bond was paid, and they were released the next day. They are due back in court on May 20.
A third man, who the DNR is not naming because of his age at the time the crime was committed, processed a plea agreement through the county’s juvenile court.
Anyone who witnesses a natural resource violation should call or text the Report All Poaching Hotline at 800-292-7800.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION (2)
Information can be left anonymously. Monetary rewards may be offered for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of violators.
Gov. Kristi Noem talks controversy surrounding new book on FOX Business
Disney heiress, Abigail Disney, evoked the classic Disney movie, Old Yeller, in a recent play to call on voters to oppose the Republican Party after South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s recent book detailed her shooting her ranch dog.
“My great-uncle Walt Disney knew the magic place animals have in the hearts of families everywhere,” Disney wrote in an email released by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and obtained exclusively by the Guardian.
Disney, the grandniece of Walt Disney, said that Noem’s anecdote of killing her dog in her new book, “No Going Back,” “shocked” her.
“When he released Old Yeller, the heart-wrenching story stayed with people because no one takes the killing of a family pet lightly,” Disney said. “At least that’s what I thought until I read about potential Trump VP Kristi Noem shooting her family’s puppy – a story that has shocked so many of us.”
Disney said that Noem’s description of killing her ranch dog was part of “the larger story of the 2024 election.”
“Walt Disney also understood story telling. Together, we must make sure all voters see how this sad Kristi Noem episode is part of the larger story of the 2024 election: America could vote into the White House extremists that glorify cruelty and lack basic empathy and compassion,” she told the PCCC.
“This was a vicious, dangerous dog. That was a working dog. And I had to make a choice between the safety of my children and an animal that was killing livestock and attacking people,” Noem told Varney. “So it’s included because a lot of politicians have run from the truth. They want to try to hide from tough decisions.”
“I’m proud of this book,” Noem said. “I know that a lot of people are using attacks to try to take me down because they’re scared of me. I have so much support and all I’ve done is won.”
Disney said that unlike the compassionate shooting of Old Yeller, Noem shot the dog because it was “too hard to teach.”
“In Old Yeller, the family comes to see the lovable stray dog as an indispensable member of the family. The film’s climactic moment is a heartbreaking one, when the father has no choice but to shoot Old Yeller when the dog contracts rabies because of the inevitable threat to their lives – and, out of compassion, to end the suffering the dog would have to endure,” Disney said in the letter to the PCCC.
“Noem shot her family’s 14-month-old puppy after a hunting trip, in her own account, because she was too hard to teach,” Disney said. “‘I hated that dog,’ she wrote, framing the killing of a puppy as an example of strength.”
“Kristi Noem is not strong. Like Trump, she is cruel and selfish,” she said.
“If Kristi Noem was actually strong, she would stand up to the January 6 insurrectionists instead of celebrating them,” she said. “Or she would make billionaires pay their fair share of taxes instead of lining up for their campaign donations.”
“If she had real courage, she might even criticize the Supreme Court for abolishing abortion rights or making it easier to flood our streets and schools with guns,” Disney said.
In her book “No Going Back,” Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) discloses a shocking incident from two decades ago, when she killed her family’s 14-month-old puppy with a shotgun after the dog exhibited normal but rambunctious behavior on a hunting trip. This troubling revelation is more than just a personal moral failing on Noem’s part. Her decision to recount this story with pride represents a profound abdication of her responsibilities as a leader and elected official.
The public backlash to this troubling revelation has been encouraging. People across the political spectrum have expressed their horror and condemnation of Noem’s actions, underscoring a fundamental truth: Compassion for animals is not a partisan issue, but a core human value that unites us all.
But while it’s heartening to see such widespread empathy for a puppy, we must also recognize that our circle of compassion is often too narrow. Dogs, cats and a select few other species are frequently granted a level of moral consideration that we fail to extend to countless other sentient creatures. Pigs, cows, chickens and fish, for example, are routinely subjected to immense cruelty and suffering in our factory farming system, yet their plight rarely elicits the same public outcry.
If we are to truly live up to our values of compassion and respect for life, we must expand our sphere of concern to encompass all creatures capable of suffering. The fact that an animal is not cute, cuddly or familiar to us does not make its pain any less real or its life any less valuable.
Noem’s pride in her cruel actions towards her puppy is particularly offensive given the multitude of humane options available to her at the time. Professional training, behavior modification and responsible rehoming were all viable alternatives that any conscientious caretaker would have pursued. Her choice to resort to lethal violence instead was a disturbing reflection of a mindset that views animals as disposable and unworthy of moral consideration.
Tragically, this mindset is not limited to Noem. It is pervasive in our society, and it enables the systematic mistreatment of billions of animals each year. When leaders like Noem normalize and even boast about such cruelty, they contribute to a culture that devalues animal life and undermines our collective humanity.
As a society, we must do better. We must recognize that compassion is not a finite resource to be hoarded and selectively applied, but a boundless wellspring that grows the more we exercise it. By extending our empathy to all sentient beings, we not only alleviate an immense amount of suffering, but we also cultivate the best in ourselves.
Noem would do well to take note of the raft of worthy animal protection bills in Congress supported by a bipartisan majorities. Animal welfare is at the very heart of congressional debate over the Farm Bill. There are two measures concerning companion animals, animals in puppy mills and other animals in need, and they deserve to be included in the Farm Bill and passed into law.
The Better Collaboration, Accountability and Regulatory Enforcement (CARE) for Animals Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), would give the Department of Justice more tools to strengthen enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and provide meaningful deterrents to acts of cruelty.
The Puppy Protection Act — sponsored by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), Rep. Reschenthaler, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Cali.) — would address serious gaps in welfare standards for tens of thousands of dogs and puppies at large-scale breeding operations licensed by the USDA.
More urgently, a few House Agriculture Committee Republicans are attempting to gut states’ rights and animal welfare by including language to invalidate more than a dozen state laws addressing intensive confinement cruelty to animals raised for food, along with hundreds of laws relating to states’ rights to protect puppies and regulate products within their borders. That’s wrong, not least because nearly 80 percent of American voters, including nearly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, support enactment of laws designed to protect farm animals.
It would be a shame if House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.) and his colleagues missed the moral opportunity revealed by Noem’s terrible misjudgment. Americans want their elected representatives to do right by animals and take action to spare them from callous and unnecessary cruelty. They’re making their preferences for humane treatment clear in the marketplace and in the court of public opinion — and Congress should follow their lead.
The public condemnation of Noem’s actions is a heartening sign that our society’s moral compass is pointing in the right direction. But we must not stop at dogs and cats. Expanding our circle of compassion to include all creatures capable of suffering will lead towards a more just and humane world.
The link between animal cruelty and human violence only underscores the urgency of this imperative. By fostering a culture of respect for all life, we not only improve the lives of animals, but we create a society that is safer and more peaceful for humans as well.
Gov. Noem had an opportunity to demonstrate empathy, responsibility and kindness in the face of difficult challenges. By instead boasting about callous violence, she betrayed the public trust and the principles of decency that bind us together. Let us learn from this shameful episode and recommit ourselves to building a better world — for the sake of animals and humans alike.
Kitty Block is the president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. Sara Amundson serves as the president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
FOX News
Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting Blog 