Nicole Paquette is vice president of wildlife protection at The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

As global outrage continues to grow over the death of Cecil, a beloved lion who was mercilessly killed outside Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, conversations have begun about the broader issue of trophy hunting and the role Americans play in it.

Thousands of African lions are slaughtered every year, and the United States is the world's largest importer of lion parts from hunting trophies. Although almost every major media outlet has covered Cecil's tragic death, only a few have touched on the even darker side of Africa's pay-to-play hunting industry: canned hunting, where tame lions and other wildlife are bred for the bullet and released into fenced enclosures to be shot for easy trophies.

Captive breeding of lions is a big business in South Africa, where opportunities for visitors to interact with adorable lion cubs abound. However, well-meaning tourists who pose for photos with the cubs have no idea of the damaging industry their funds are supporting. Akin to factory farming, lionesses are overbred, and their cubs are taken away right after birth. 

When the cubs have outgrown their value to be used as photo props, they're sold to canned hunts for wealthy clients to shoot. A new documentary that premiered this month, "Blood Lions," takes a hard look at the industry and exposes the sham of South African cub-petting facilities and their connection to canned hunts.

Shockingly, this horrific practice is not unique to South Africa — in fact, it's estimated that there are thousands of canned, or "captive," hunting facilities throughout the United States, with approximately half of them in Texas. Although canned hunts in the United States don't offer lion on their lists of wildlife available to shoot, there are plenty of other animals to choose from, as long as the customer is willing to dish out the hefty fee. Price tags can range from a couple thousand dollars to kill an exotic sheep to an astonishing $50,000 for a cape buffalo at the 777 Ranch in Texas. Animals offered at these types of facilities typically come from private breeders and animal dealers. Like Cecil, who had grown accustomed to tourists, animals on canned hunts often spend their entire lives around people and have lost their natural fear of humans, making them even easier targets.

Although Cecil was not killed in a canned hunt, the methods his killers used lack the same principles of sportsmanship. Cecil's killers used the carcass of another dead animal to bait the famous lion, and used a spotlight at night to set up an easy shot — two practices frequently exposed for lacking the critical element of fair chase. [Cecil the Lion: Do Paid Hunting Permits Help Save Wildlife?]

Our investigation on captive hunting revealed animals so tame that investigators were able to walk up and pet them. One ranch operator was able to hand-feed a kangaroo that he declared had "a bounty on his head," and even admitted to drugging his animals.

The fight over captive hunts in the United States has been ongoing for decades, and approximately half of the states currently have a full or partial ban on the practice. Despite strong opposition to the practice from both animal-protection and ethical-hunting groups, those who profit from this shameful activity continue to lobby lawmakers to expand their industry.

The good news is that there's much that can be done to fight this egregious practice — both in the United States and abroad. If captive hunting is legal in your state, contact your elected state lawmakers and ask them to introduce or support legislation prohibiting this activity. If it's not allowed, urge them to fight against any attempts to legalize it. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing lions as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Please urge the agency to finalize this rule and afford much-needed protections to this vulnerable species. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Karen Lange is senior content creator at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

For 15 years, researcher Audrey Delsink has observed the elephants in South Africa’s Greater Private Makalali Game Reserve. As she's watched them, recording the effects of a contraceptive vaccine called PZP, she's seen something that's beyond the scope of her research: evidence of awareness.

She's observed it in the way individual members of breeding herds communicate — in low-frequency sounds human ears cannot pick up — and the way they cooperate.

"You'll see elephants walking and then suddenly stop, and that's because a member of the herd has issued a silent warning, or a silent rumble that says, 'Hang on and let's just hear what's going on and assess the situation,'" Delsink says." And then when it's all over, they walk off in unison. The communication is incredible. They clearly are sentient beings ."

Yet not so long ago, the creatures in whom Delsink senses understanding were killed by the hundreds to keep their numbers below a certain threshold. Unlike elsewhere on the continent, elephants in South Africa have long been confined to fenced parks and reserves with man-made water sources. Under favorable conditions, their populations can double within 15 years. Denser concentrations of elephants, who feed by uprooting trees or tearing off branches, can transform landscapes, especially around waterholes. 

Before contraception and other nonlethal means of slowing population growth were developed, culling was thought necessary to protect the plants and habitats elephants and other species depend on.

From the 1960s into the 1990s, sharpshooters in Kruger National Park — which holds South Africa's largest elephant population — flew in helicopters over herds and fired bullets into the animals' brains. The shooters wiped out entire families — mothers, aunts, brothers, sisters — because survivors would have been traumatized, and could have become dangerous. A program to spare calves and relocate them was abandoned after male orphans entering adolescence gored rhinos to death in other protected areas because there were no adult bulls to teach the young elephants how to behave.

Delsink has been doing immuno-contraception research at Greater Makalali so that those killings, suspended in 1994 and allowed now only as a last resort, need never happen again. (Read more about this issue in "End of Culling?" in All Animals magazine.) She and a team of scientists supported by Humane Society International (HSI) have treated elephant cows at Greater Makalali since 2000 with PZP, delivering the vaccine by dart to elephant cows, twice in the first year and then once each year after. The drug — also used on deer, wild horses and other mammal species for population control — causes females to produce antibodies that bind to the surfaces of their eggs, blocking sperm from fertilizing them.

At Greater Makalali, a fenced reserve of just 90 square miles, PZP has cut the rate of increase of the elephant population in half. The number of animals has grown from around 50 in 2,000 to 83 today. Without contraception, it was projected that the population would have increased to 159 animals today, and by 2025 would have soared to 238. 

While elsewhere in Africa, poaching has caused elephant populations to drop, threatening the survival of the species, in South Africa, poaching of elephants remains rare and their numbers are rising within the limited spaces left for them. Kruger once relocated elephants to other protected areas, but now all those have as many as they want and the smaller reserves that accepted elephants are wondering how to limit their numbers.

The success of PZP at Greater Makalali in regulating elephant population growth has led other fenced protected areas in South Africa to adopt it. The contraceptive vaccine is now being used in 20 parks and reserves, including nine of the 25 with the largest populations of elephants. Within the last two years alone, it has been adopted by three provincial parks and one national park. 

Delsink is hoping that South African researchers can soon take a new longer-lasting form of PZP developed in the United States for wild horses and create a similar form for elephants, reducing the number of times the vaccine must be administered and persuading even more protected areas to adopt it. [Elephant Images: The Biggest Beasts on Land ]

PZP has not yet been adopted by Kruger, South Africa's largest park, where wildlife managers are using other experimental means to slow the growth of elephant numbers and change the way the animals use the landscape. Wildlife managers in Kruger have removed fences, allowing elephants to migrate into a neighboring park in Mozambique to find food (though few have), and the number of man-made water holes has been reduced, which forces elephants to walk farther to eat and drink, mimicking more natural situations in which a greater number of calves die, especially during droughts. For now, this has been enough to stabilize population growth. 

Without PZP, culls might take place again, at least in smaller parks that cannot remove fences to give elephants more room to move, so that their feeding doesn’t have such an impact on the landscape. 

On the day she went into labor, one of the elephants Delsink has observed for so long showed up at her house. Though he's a favorite of hers, the big bull, named "Riffraff," had never visited before. Delsink was touched by the presence of this "gentle soul."

"He just came and stood there for a really long time at the gate looking at me with his trunk up," she says. "And we had an exchange."

With PZP, the necessity of putting bullets in the brains of creatures like Riffraff will vanish. And friendships like those between Delsink and the big bull elephant — glimpses from the eyes of one species into the heart of another — can continue to occur. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Dr. Melissa Li is a pathologist who specializes in gastrointestinal and autopsy pathology at Providence St. Vincent Medical Center in Portland, Ore. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

In mid-February, a committee of top U.S. government scientists and nutritionists presented recommendations for the latest U.S. Dietary Guidelines. They concluded that a diet "higher in plant-based foods … and lower in animal-based foods is more health-promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact." 

While those findings aren't news to many working in medicine and nutrition, the report represents a shift in what the government may recommend to the American public in the soon-to-be revised U.S. Dietary Guidelines. And that's a good thing. 

There is no controversy: Diet and health are linked

As a pathologist, I see disease daily in biopsies, resections and autopsies. When patients provide me with medical histories, it saddens me to see a litany of illnesses — heart disease , cancer, diabetes, obesity and stroke — that are largely preventable through diet. Simply reducing the amount of meat, eggs and dairy we eat has a profound effect on health, yet, instead, patients take a laundry list of drugs to battle their chronic diseases. As a nation, we pour billions of dollars into treating the symptoms of disease and far less into preventing them.

Eating more plant-based meals and less meat has helped prevent and reverse heart disease, and reduce the risk of diabetes, some cancers and obesity. Those findings were supported just weeks ago, at a meeting of the American Heart Association,^, when researchers released results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, which started in 1992. The lead researcher, Camille Lassale of Imperial College London, concluded, "A pro-vegetarian diet that emphasizes a higher proportion of plant-based foods compared to animal-based foods may help lower the risks of dying from heart disease and stroke by up to 20 percent."

Recommending a more plant-based diet is something that the government has shied away from. This is partly because the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which co-authors the guidelines with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for managing and promoting agriculture, including animal agriculture. To put it more simply, the USDA is tasked with promoting animal-based products like meat, dairy, and eggs. So while the agency knows what is in the best interest of Americans (eating more plant-based foods), it is torn between giving sound advice (eating more of said plant-based meals and less meat) and protecting one of the largest industries it is tasked to represent.

Diet beyond health

The benefits of a more plant-based diet are far-reaching, and not just for impacting public health. Such diets lead to fewer animals bred and confined on factory farms, as well as a lighter footprint on the environment, with subsequently decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Moving to a more plant-based diet also helps conserve precious natural resources like water and oil. And it helps reduce pollution, as waste from factory farms has contributed to a number of environmental disasters. 

The good news is plant-based eating is becoming more and more mainstream, with well-known public health organizations like the American Heart Association, Defeat Diabetes Foundation, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and hospitals — like the one where I work, Providence St. Vincent — recommending people eat a more plant-based diet.  

I am seeing that physicians with whom I collaborate on autopsies are now following this advice. For example, my colleagues in neurology who treat patients with neurodegenerative disorders are advocating plant based diets to prevent Alzheimer's disease.

One way we support those recommendations at our hospital is by easing patients into eating more plant-based meals with Meatless Monday. That approach is gaining in popularity at thousands of hospitals, as well as at some of the largest school districts in the country (including in Los Angeles, Detroit and Houston), and at universities like Portland State, Oregon State University, Western Oregon University, and many more. It can be as simple as swapping out chicken nuggets with a bean burrito or a veggie burger instead of a hamburger.

As a doctor, I'm proud to work at a hospital that embraces health care, not only for treatment but also for prevention. And as a citizen, I'm cautiously optimistic that in the final guidelines, due to be released later this year, our government will come out in support of a diet that's better for our nation's health, animals and the environment. The committee of health experts' report has laid the foundation from which the USDA and HHS can easily build.

The USDA will be accepting public comments through May 8, and anyone can voice their opinion on how the 2015 version of our dietary guidelines should direct us in eating. I too will be submitting comments in support of the report's recommendations.

Heart disease is the number one killer of Americans . According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), someone in America dies from cardiovascular disease every minute, the equivalent of a tragedy half the scale of 9/11 repeating itself every 24 hours, 365 days a year. It doesn't have to be this way: We can protect ourselves — and our planet and animals — by eating more plant-based meals. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Nicole Paquette is the vice president of wildlife protection at The Humane Society of the United States. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Threatened with extinction in the wild, tigers are struggling to survive and regain their once-thriving populations against pressures caused by habitat loss, poaching and conflicts with an ever-increasing human population. Their numbers are estimated to be in the low thousands.

On the other hand, tigers in captivity face a different set of problems. They are bred repeatedly and forced to produce litter after litter — so many litters that there are now far too many tigers in the United States, and not enough responsible and experienced facilities to care for them.

Tiger overpopulation?

One of the main causes of tiger overpopulation in the United States is some facilities use tiger cubs for public handling. For a fee, members of the public can play with, bottle-feed, swim with or have their photo taken holding a tiger cub. Tiger cubs are typically handled by the public until they are only three to four months old, then they are discarded and a new batch of tiger cubs are brought in for the next few months of public handling and the cycle of breeding and dumping continues. [Sumatran Tiger Cub Born at Sacramento Zoo ]

The HSUS has documented facilities that offer photo ops with tiger, lion or bear cubs sending the older, unwanted animals to roadside zoos with histories of violating the federal Animal Welfare Act, and, in the case of African lions and bears, sending them to facilities where they are slaughtered for their meat. 

No one knows where all these unwanted tigers end up because they are not tracked by the federal government. A good many end up warehoused in substandard roadside zoos. And some are portrayed as "rescued" animals by phony sanctuaries in order to convince caring people to give them money. Those pseudo-sanctuaries are not accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries and lack the knowledge, facilities, and resources to provide long-term humane, safe, and appropriate care for complex species, such as tigers.

Tigers are not pets

Other tigers end up in the pet trade. Some tiger cub operators actually place "free to a good home" classified ads for their older, unwanted tiger cubs. Some tigers may be killed illegally and their body parts sold on the black market. Investigators with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service uncovered a group of individuals and small business owners in the Midwest that bought and killed tigers and other exotic animal species with the intention of selling the meat, skins, bones and organs into the lucrative trade in animal parts. A total of 17 defendants in seven states were charged and convicted as a result of the investigation. A tiger is actually worth more dead than alive. [Boas, Chimps or Tigers: Wild Animals Are Not Pets (Op-Ed )]

Very few of the beautiful and majestic big cats will be lucky enough to end up at reputable, properly run sanctuaries.

Besides causing a "homeless tiger" problem in the United States, facilities that offer photo ops with tiger cubs cause a great deal of harm to the cubs, as well as their mothers. Like puppy mills, tigers are bred more often than they should be. Undercover investigations and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) documents confirm that during or shortly after birth, tiger cubs at most unaccredited zoos are taken from their mother to be hand-raised, which is very upsetting to the fiercely-protective mother and deprives the cubs of maternal care that is vital to their long-term health and development. 

Professionals with zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums recommend that mother tigers be allowed to raise their cubs because the mothers will do a better job and parent-reared cubs are usually better adjusted behaviorally. Additionally, the USDA's big cat specialist has found that privately-owned, hand-reared tigers appear to have the highest incidence of metabolic bone disease which is the result of cubs being fed a nutritionally-deficient diet.

Investigating "photo ops"

The HSUS recently conducted investigations at two facilities that offer photo ops with tiger cubs. Public handling began at about three weeks of age, when it was unsafe for the cubs, and lasted until it was unsafe for the public, when the cubs were more than 17 weeks old and weighed about 50 pounds.

Of great concern was the constant stress that public handling caused the tiger cubs. Their schedules revolved around photo ops, so they were denied proper food and rest, as well as adequate veterinary care. Cubs who were sick, exhausted or screaming from hunger were still required to sit still for a parade of customers wanting a photo op with a tiger cub.

A petition filed by a coalition of organizations, including The HSUS, to put an end to this practice is pending with the USDA. In the meantime, steer clear of any place that advertises photos with tiger cubs. Not only are these places not helping wild tigers, they are causing great harm to those in captivity by denying them maternal care, exposing them to stressful public handling, and contributing to the problem of surplus tigers.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Jonathan Balcombe is director of animal sentience at the Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy. He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

On Saturday mornings I drive 15 miles to a sanctuary in rural Maryland where I join a small team of volunteers tending to farm animals rescued from neglect or abuse. Some of these animals will never fully trust a human. Others want to interact.

As a biologist with a special interest in animal happiness, I've figured out where they like to be scratched and rubbed. Goats, such as Trudy or Malcolm, walk over to me and lean gently against my leg. I scratch between their horns, caress their faces and vigorously swipe my hand down their backs and flanks. They become noticeably more relaxed. Their eyelids droop and they stand completely still. One of the older sheep, a ram named Adam, wags his tail in approval when he is petted. Another sheep, Clover, once scraped her hoof across my boot repeatedly when I briefly stopped massaging her back — a sheep's way of asking for more. At the pig barn, 700-pound adults lying blissfully on soft hay will assist the effort to give them a belly-rub by shimmying further onto their sides and raising their legs. And when the chicken barn door opens, about 20 birds come surging out into the sunlit garden. They spend the next few hours foraging. They nibble at seeds and vegetation, and search for invertebrates by pawing backwards at the earth with their strong feet then stooping down to peer and peck at any moving morsel they've uncovered. They do this with devotion, taking breaks to sunbathe by reclining on their sides, fluffing out their feathers, and stretching a wing to maximize the surface area available to the sun's warm rays.

Animals and sentience

Watching these animals pursue their wants and needs reminds me that they are individuals with intentions and preferences. Their lives matter to them. Their desire for rewards is part of sentience — the capacity to feel. Sentience encompasses a universe of positive and negative physical and emotional experiences.

Today, most scientists agree that all vertebrate animals — mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish — are, to varying degrees, sentient. A rich and varied collection of research has made the evidence impossible to dismiss.

But this perspective wasn't always popular.

Historically, for example, sea-life rarely made it into humanity's realm of concern when it came to the ability to suffer. But meticulous experiments performed on trout a decade ago essentially have laid to rest the common view that a fish cannot feel pain. There now is also scientific support for sentience in at least some invertebrates. In research by Canadian biologist Jennifer Mather and colleagues, octopuses show curiosity, play and personality. And in a study led by Robert Elwood at Queens University Belfast, prawns spent more time grooming and rubbing a pinched antenna, unless they received a follow-up application of local anesthetic.

Once deemed inscrutable, animal emotions are now also considered a legitimate source of inquiry. Although humans cannot know for certain what an animal is feeling (indeed, we cannot know for certain what another human is feeling), we can observe changes in behavior and physiology and infer emotions. The evidence is even more compelling when we find that these changes echo changes in our bodies when we are exposed to similar stimuli.

What dogs are teaching about animal cognition

Because they are so expressive and responsive to us, domestic dogs have lately become the darlings of research on animal cognition and emotion.

During a recent visit to the Clever Dog Lab at the University of Vienna, I watched a dog select symbols on a computer screen by touching it with his nose. In another room, dogs placed their heads on a chin-rest to watch images projected on a computer screen. These are not purpose-bred "lab dogs," but happy pets recruited for the studies. The chin-rest apparatus has been used to show that dogs, like us, glance first to the left side of a human face, where our bilateral brains display more emotion. Thus, dogs get a quick read of our moods and intentions. This all happens in a fraction of a second, and like us, dogs probably are unaware they are doing it. Neither they nor we regard a dog's face this way, which makes sense because dogs' emotions are expressed uniformly on their faces. The wag of a dog's tail also contains subtle cues to their moods. Led by Giorgio Vallortigara of the University of Trento, Italian researchers found that dogs remained relaxed when they saw films of dogs whose tails were wagging predominantly to the right, but they became anxious if the tail wagged more to the left. [Dog Kisses are More Than Just Slobber (Op-Ed )]

At Emory University, scientists are using positive reinforcement to train pet dogs to remain motionless inside an fMRI machine, allowing scientists to monitor brain activity while the dogs react to visual stimuli. Preliminary studies show brain reward centers light up when dogs see a hand signal that is normally followed by something good (a food treat), but not for a neutral hand signal. Similarly, when presented with five scents (self, familiar human, strange human, familiar dog, strange dog), dogs' brains registered the strongest delight in response to the familiar human. It appears the notion that the dog is "man's best friend" cuts both ways.

Animals and complex emotion

It is well established that when people feel depressed, we are more likely to take a pessimistic view of life. It seems we are not alone in that tendency. In a study led by Melissa Bateson of England's Newcastle University , European starlings were housed for ten days in either socially enriched enclosures with branches and water baths, or alone in smaller, barren cages.

Both sets of birds learned to forage by plucking lids from dishes, each containing a worm. The birds soon learned that dishes with white lids contained tasty worms, whereas dishes with dark gray lids harbored unpalatable (quinine-flavored) worms. Birds from both groups soon stopped flipping the dark gray lids. But when the experimenters began presenting the starlings with ambiguous dishes — lidded with lighter shades of gray — they found that "enriched" birds were more likely than emotionally impoverished birds to flip these new lids and sample the worm inside. Moreover, enriched birds became markedly pessimistic — shunning the ambiguous lids — if they were switched from enriched to impoverished lodgings. The researchers concluded that enriched starlings are more optimistic than impoverished, and presumably less happy, ones.

In a range of studies, rats, pigs, goats, and intriguingly, honey-bees all have shown the same optimism/pessimism response (scientists call it "cognitive bias") to uncertain outcomes. It seems that life for an animal can go well or ill, and that an individual's inner state has an ambient dimension beyond the fleeting emotions of a given moment.

Perhaps more predictably, baboons also have lasting emotional states. Following the death of an infant, baboon mothers show physiological and behavioral responses that mirror those of bereft women. Glucocorticoid hormones — associated with grief in humans — rise and take a month to subside again, and the bereaved mother monkey seeks therapy by expanding her social network through increased grooming interactions with other baboons.

Body temperature provides yet another window into feelings. Human body temperatures rise when we are nervous or anxious about an approaching event, such as an exam or a competition. A rat, handled by an unfamiliar person, gets warmer by 1° Celsius or more. If the same person returns to handle the rat over successive days, the rat's thermal response declines, and by about day five, her body temperature stops rising altogether. If, however, a new handler shows up on the sixth day, the rat's body temperature rises again, indicating that her temperature changes are psychologically based. This so-called emotional fever has also been documented in turtles and lizards. So much for "cold-blooded" reptiles.

The bonds between fish

Scientists have not yet shown emotional fever in fish, although I'm aware of only one study that has explored this. Does this mean that fish cannot feel emotions? Not likely. Emotions are very useful , and fish are highly evolved. They behave emotionally, showing fear, excitement, anger, pleasure and anxiety. Their brains produce the same compounds that accompany emotions in mammals. It takes 48 hours for fish hormone levels to return to normal after rough handling, such as being caught by anglers and put into small buckets.

On coral reefs, the interactions between cleaner-fish and their clients are rich with awareness and emotion. Cleaners flaunt their bright colors to advertise that they are open for business. Client fish of varied species queue up for their turn for an inspection from the cleaners, who work individually or in pairs, plucking off parasites, algae and other undesirables. Both parties benefit: the cleaners get food, and the clients get a spa treatment. This is not a willy-nilly arrangement. Clients have their favorite cleaners to whom they return repeatedly. Other client fish observe those interactions, keeping accounts of who cleans well and who does a shoddy job. There are good reasons for this so-called "image-scoring" behavior: Some cleaners may nip at the precious mucus that forms a protective shield over the client's scales. This causes the client fish to jolt, and to sometimes angrily chase the cleaner. Other "cleaners" are scheming impostors, sharp-toothed mimics that look almost identical to cleaners, then nip off a chunk of fin and flee to safety. [If Sharks Feel Pain, Why Are They Not Better Protected? (Op-Ed )]

Careful studies by Swiss researchers led by Redouan Bshary have documented that cleaners cause fewer jolts when potential clients are watching. The cleaners also pamper their patrons by gently caressing them with their fins. Just as touch is therapeutic for humans, so too with fish. In a study from the Marta Soares and colleagues at the University of Lisbon, captive surgeonfish had lower levels of stress hormone when they could sidle up to a mechanical wand that delivered gentle strokes.

Which brings me to Larry. He's a Bahamian grouper befriended by Florida-based journalist and author Cathy Unruh. When Unruh scuba-dives in Larry's domain, Larry recognizes her and comes over to greet her. Like those reef client fish lining up for their turn to be plucked over by hungry cleaner-fish, or the goats and sheep I coddle at the animal sanctuary, Larry enjoys being gently stroked and petted.

What does it all mean? Most of us who have lived with dogs and cats need little convincing that these beloved beings are unique individuals with feelings. But we generally have a cloudier view of wild animals, or those destined for the dinner plate.

Today, scientists are asking questions about animals' inner lives like never before, and their toolkit for probing such questions is growing more sophisticated. As their findings emerge, we gain a more enlightened perspective of the diverse expression of animal emotions. It gives me optimism that the neglectful and abusive expressions of the human-animal relationship will evolve through understanding towards compassion.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch in Murchison, Texas, contributed these images to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Animal sanctuaries around the world take in wildlife, abandoned farm animals, animals that have been abused, and all sorts of other hard-luck cases from the animal kingdom. While sanctuaries hope that someday they will no longer be needed, they currently stay quite busy. The following are some of the animals currently in the care of the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch in Murchison, Texas, operated by The Fund for Animals, an affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). [Why We Need Animal Sanctuaries (Op-Ed)]

Loving home

In January 2012, following an undercover investigation, HSUS helped rescue 11 exotic animals, including three tigers, from a roadside zoo in Mississippi. The tigers were taken to the Black Beauty Ranch, and their personalities began to emerge with daily enrichment, such as play time with oversize Boomer balls and "art" experiences rubbing non-toxic children's paint across a canvas with their face and paws. In August, sisters Natalia and Anastasia were the first to step into the facility’s new 5-acre big-cat habitat. In this image, in the new habitat, Natalia (left) rubs against Anastasia in a typical headbutt greeting. (Credit: (C) Meredith Lee; The Humane Society of the United States)

Safe and saved

Sahara, a resident of Black Beauty Ranch. (Credit: (C) Holly Stamps; The Humane Society of the United States)

gibbons_by_jp_bonnelly

A white-handed gibbon swings in its enclosure at Black Beauty Ranch. (Credit: (C) JP Bonnelly; The Humane Society of the United States)

From farm to ranch

Penelope, one of many former farm animals in rehabilitation at Black Beauty Ranch. (Credit: (C) JP Bonnelly; The Humane Society of the United States)

A safe haven

A former research chimp enjoys a snack at Black Beauty Ranch. (Credit: (C) Michelle Riley; The Humane Society of the United States)

Safe at last

An ostrich at Black Beauty Ranch. (Credit: (C) Sharon Benningfield; The Humane Society of the United States)

Eland

An eland, an antelope from the plains of Africa, now at Black Beauty Ranch. (Credit: (C) Sharon Benningfield; The Humane Society of the United States)

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Ben Callison, director of Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

In an ideal world, my job would not exist. As the director of Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, one of the largest and most diverse animal sanctuaries in the United States, I long for the day when animal sanctuaries are no longer needed. 

Unfortunately, they are needed now more than ever. We continue to get the calls every day: A family needs to find a home for their "pet" monkey that has become aggressive; endangered antelope bred for captive hunts will be killed by the highest bidder; chimpanzees from laboratories need placement, since they have failed as reliable test subjects for human disease; horses and donkeys are destined for slaughter; tigers living in a roadside zoo's deplorable conditions need immediate rescue and shelter. These stories are a mere glimpse of what is asked of just one sanctuary in a given week. [Abandoned, Even Wild Animals Can Find Sanctuary (Gallery)]

Why sanctuary

Many animal sanctuaries, like our Black Beauty Ranch in eastern Texas or Duchess Sanctuary in southwestern Oregon, exist to provide formerly neglected animals a safe haven where they can live the remainder of their lives in peace and safety. 

Wildlife rescued from circuses, roadside zoos and backyards reside in sanctuaries. Outside of managed Species Survival Plans — programs for managing specific, and typically threatened or endangered, species populations within accredited zoos and aquariums, and their partners — all captive-bred wild animals, including big cats and primates, are unable to be responsibly returned to the wild. The reasons for this are both biological — irresponsible breeding practices have compromised the animals' "wild" genetic code — and psychological, as the animals have become dependent on humans for survival. [Boas, Chimps or Tigers: Wild Animals Are Not Pets (Op-Ed )]

Even domesticated animals, such as donkeys, horses and other farm animals, end up in abusive and dangerous situations. While these domestic animals pose less of a public safety threat than wild animals do, they often require special attention due to ongoing medical or behavioral conditions. 

Where animals get a second chance

Each year, thousands of animals come to The Humane Society of the United States in desperate need of healing and care. The HSUS and its five affiliated animal care centers, four of which are operated by The Fund for Animals, provide rescue and rehabilitative care for all types of animals. With highly skilled staff and volunteers, each center provides a second chance at life for all animals that enter. 

Our sanctuaries, like many others, are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), meaning we meet or exceed the highest level of objective and peer-reviewed standards of care and governance set for sanctuaries. There are many pseudo-sanctuaries and commercial operations that call themselves "rescues," but many of them overbreed animals, truck them around to shopping malls for photo ops and engage in other reckless practices. GFAS helps to lift the entire field of animal sanctuaries, and helps donors and the general public distinguish legitimate sanctuaries from substandard ones. 

With the exception of some horses that are given to new homes, every animal that enters our sanctuaries will remain there for life, and each will receive specialized enrichment and care for the most natural existence possible in a sanctuary setting. Our mission is embodied by the final words of Anna Sewell's "Black Beauty:" "I have nothing to fear, and here my story ends. My troubles are all over, and I am at home" — a quote that is proudly engraved on our gate entering the sanctuary. 

Preserving sanctuary land

Along with operating animal care centers throughout the United States, The HSUS has helped create more than 100 permanent wildlife sanctuaries around the world and has protected millions of acres of wildlife habitat through The Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust (HSWLT). The Trust was established in 1993 to protect the homes of all species, not just those that are already endangered, threatened or rare. 

The HSWLT allows landowners to conserve their property and prohibit hunting and trapping, all while protecting wildlife naturally living within the sanctuary. Undeveloped land is becoming increasingly scarce as urban sprawl stretches across the United States, leaving wildlife with limited space to remain untouched by the masses. These wildlife sanctuaries provide animals and humans with open space to enjoy, and visitors can learn about the environment and conservation. 

As long as humans continue to mishandle and exploit the animals of our planet, sanctuaries will be needed. It is essential that we educate those around us about the importance of the animals with whom we co-exist. 

The most effective way to help sanctuaries is to become an advocate for the animals sanctuaries can't reach — those in the exotic wildlife trade, those languishing in laboratories and those facing unspeakable cruelty and neglect. Thousands of animals rely on the protection sanctuaries provide worldwide, and thousands more await rescue and sanctuary of their own.

To get involved with animal welfare legislation in your state, visit humanesociety.org/action. To support the critical work of sanctuaries, consider adopting one of our rescued animals through The Fund for Animals. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Dr. Michael Blackwell is the senior director of Veterinary Policy for The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Blackwell contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

As the Ebola virus continues to wreak havoc, especially in West Africa, many are concerned about the role animals, especially pets, may have in human infections. At this time, there is no alarming evidence concerning pets transmitting the Ebola virus to humans. However, we must continue to be watchful for any evidence of transmission.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 75 percent of infectious diseases affecting humans also occur in animals. These are referred to as zoonotic diseases. The means of disease transmission between animals to humans can vary depending on the infection and usually involves a vector such as mosquitoes, or direct contact with a contaminated object, an infected person or with a contagious animal. [2014 Ebola Outbreak (Infographic )]

For national security planning, the CDC established three categories of diseases. Five of the six diseases in the highest risk category are zoonotic. Hemorrhagic fevers characteristic of the Ebola virus are included in that category.

How fragile is Ebola outside your body?

Disease-causing microbes have fairly predictable ways of surviving, and the Ebola virus is no exception. The Ebola virus can only be transmitted through direct contact with blood, secretions, organs or other bodily fluids from a sick individual. 

Doctors also know that the Ebola virus is somewhat fragile. Like many other viruses, Ebola cannot survive for very long periods outside of the body. It also can be killed by exposure to ultraviolet radiation or by common household chemicals, such as chlorine bleach.

Since the disease's initial discovery nearly 40 years ago, the Ebola virus has been found to symptomatically affect mostly humans and other primates. According to the World Health Organization, fruit bats appear to be the primary natural reservoir for the virus. Other animals prone to infection include the forest antelope, chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys and porcupines. Contact with these infected animals can lead to transmission and illness.

Test results examining the effect of the Ebola virus on dogs showed a positive correlation between infected dogs and the distances to the Ebola virus-epidemic area. According to a CDC study, during the 2001-2002 outbreak in Gabon, blood testing was done on dogs highly exposed to the virus — they had been eating infected dead animals. Blood serum tests showed approximately a 32-percent infection rate among dogs from villages with infected animal carcasses and people. The dogs tested in villages with human cases and infected carcasses appeared to yield a much higher infection rate compared to dogs from villages with human cases, but no identified infected carcasses. In villages where there were no identified infected carcasses, the infection rate was approximately 15 percent. 

Though this study suggests dogs may become infected with the virus, it also appears that dogs are asymptomatic and may not shed the virus where they can transmit the infection to humans or other animals. 

Two recent examples where dogs were exposed to humans infected with the Ebola virus were handled in very different ways. In Spain, Ebola patient Teresa Romero Ramos's dog Excalibur was euthanized. In contrast, Bentley, Nina Pham's dog in Dallas, Texas, was placed in quarantine for the obligatory 21 days, which ends on November 1. Bentley has tested negative three times for the virus and is reportedly doing fine. The Dallas officials took the proper course in their handling of Bentley. 

While we still have much to learn about the natural course of Ebola virus in animals, let's not forget that its spread is controllable and that dogs living with ill people can be managed without euthanasia. In Texas, officials were sensible in their decision pay attention to the facts gathered on Ebola transmission, and to respond quickly, but not irrationally based unfounded fears. Let's work to help animals not become victims of over-reaction and hysteria.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Sherry Ramsey is the director of animal cruelty prosecutions for The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

A recent decision by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) means animal cruelty crimes will soon be included within the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) - National Incident Based Reporting System — an action that will most certainly advance how law enforcement officials understand and act to prevent these often violent crimes. Equally important, these cases may serve as an early warning to alert the criminal justice system to individuals who pose a future danger to the community. 

When this change goes into effect in 2015, federal law will regard animal cruelty as a crime against society and a Group A offense, a category that includes crimes of a serious nature, including arson, burglary, kidnapping and homicide. [Why Global Food Companies Are Dumping Animal Cruelty (Op-Ed)]

There will be four categories under the new animal classification: Simple/gross neglect; intentional abuse and torture; organized abuse; and animal sexual abuse. These crimes will soon be reported to the FBI UCR program as a separate, distinct category, along with other major offenses like murder and assault.

The UCR is considered the most comprehensive source of crime statistics in the United States. The program was originally conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to help provide reliable uniform crime statistics within the country. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing and archiving those statistics to make them more consistently available for analysis. This new designation of animal cruelty crimes as a separate category will send an important message, as well as provide for meaningful research and analysis.

This is a significant departure from the current system, which places animal cruelty crimes under a general "all other offense" category. There, the crimes often attract less interest from law enforcement officials and provide limited ability for research and study. 

One of the reasons for this change may stem from the numerous studies which suggest animal cruelty is a red flag for future violent crimes against humans. The FBI has been aware of this link for decades. 

FBI Special Agent Alan Brantley stated that when the agency conducted interviews with 36 serial murderers and asked them about their histories of animal cruelty, many described killing and torturing animals as children. Forty-six percent admitted they had harmed animals in adolescence. 

A number of organizations and animal advocates led the push to get animal crimes included in the UCR, including the National Sheriff's Association and its president and interim executive director, John Thompson. This push is expected to eventually advance the understanding of such crimes.

"The National Sheriffs' Association is committed to providing law enforcement officers with information about the realities of animal abuse and its close link to other crimes," said Thompson. "We are gratified by the FBI's response and [FBI] Director Comey's commitment to improve public safety."

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wanda Merling is the senior manager of the disaster services program for the Animal Rescue Team at The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Last month was Disaster Preparedness Month — but even if you are prepared for a disaster, are your pets? 

The best way to keep yourself and your family — both people and pets — safe during a hurricane, tornado, wildfire or any other disaster is to have a good emergency plan and kit prepared. If you are in the path of a storm, keep pets indoors, and if asked or ordered to evacuate in the face of a potentially destructive event, always bring your animals with you. If it's not safe for you, it's not safe for your pets.  

Getting prepared

While the paths and strengths of tornadoes, hurricanes and tropical storms are often uncertain, we have a checklist of things pet owners can do in preparation for a potential evacuation. For starters:

• Put a collar with visible identification on your pet, even if he or she is indoor-only; 
• Keep pictures of your pets on-hand for identification purposes. Ideally, you should also be in the photo;
• Talk to your neighbors about how they can help your pets if you are not at home when disaster strikes;
• Create a list of hotels and boarding facilities that allow pets — plan on evacuating about 100 miles inland for hurricanes and tropical storms;
• Discuss bringing pets with you if you leave to stay with family members.

One of the most important things you can do is create a pet emergency plan and kit that is available for you to quickly grab and go, and it should include all of the following:

• Three-or-more-day supply of food in an airtight, waterproof container — and don't forget drinking water. Be sure to include a can opener if including canned food. You can purchase emergency food and water for your pets (from ER Pet, for example) that will last up to 5 years;
• Bowls for food and water;
• Current photos and physical descriptions of your pets, including details on markings;
• Medications, vaccination records and pet first-aid supplies;
• Comfort items such as a toy and blanket;
• Small garbage bags;
• Paper towels and sanitation wipes;
• For dogs include: leash, harness and a sturdy carrier large enough to use as a sleeping area;
• For cats include: litter and litter box and a sturdy carrier large enough for transport;

Each disaster provides its own unique circumstances, and based on your geographic location, it's important to identify the type of occurrences for which you are most prone. A good first step is preparing the disaster kit and then customizing it to fit the needs of your entire family. Always remember, if it is not safe for you it is not safe for your pet.  

Extreme temperature hazards

Now is also a good time to begin considering winter weather emergencies. If faced with power outages, be sure to include additional blankets, safe heating sources and flashlights for your disaster kits. 

Keep a small kit in your vehicle if your pets travel with you to ensure that you have provisions for them, as well, should you become stranded. This would include booties to protect paws from frost bite. If you become stranded and your pets are at home, be sure to ask your neighbors or a friend check in on them while you're gone. 

During a tornado, put your pet in a carrier or secure him with a leash, and take him with you to a safe area. A hard sturdy carrier is best to protect a pet from any falling debris or if he gets trapped during the storm. Include food and water in the carrier in case you become trapped and need to wait for help to arrive.  

When dealing with extreme heat, just like with winter, power outages or air conditioning outages may occur. Prepare your home with plenty of water and fans to keep your pet comfortable. If your home is unbearable, have a list of local hotels that will accept your pets or boarding facilities that can accept pets with limited notice.  

When disaster strikes, the same rules that apply to people apply to pets — preparation makes all the difference. Checking your emergency kits on a regular basis is essential. A good rule of thumb is to examine your kits twice a year when daylight savings time begins and ends. Check expiration dates and revisit your checklist. Join The Humane Society of the United States and thousands of pet owners across the country and pledge to take your pets with you when disaster strikes. 

For more information on how to prepare for disasters, please visit humanesociety.org/prepare.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Josh Balk is food policy director at The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Consumers today are increasingly demanding food that does not originate from animals that have experienced cruelty. An American Farm Bureau poll found 95 percent of consumers say they want farm animals to be treated well, but the reality is most animals raised for food today grow up inside crowded factories, not farms, and most are victims of inhumane agricultural practices.

But dietary concepts that adhere to higher animal welfare standards, like the Three Rs ("reducing" or "replacing" consumption of animal products, while "refining" our diets by switching to products from humane sources) are here to stay. And in response to those concerns, dozens of top food companies are putting policies in place that address animal cruelty — several emerging this summer.

In August, Nestlé announced an industry-leading animal welfare program that will eliminate several controversial, yet currently standard, practices within its global supply system. The eliminated practices will include: 

• drugging and breeding chickens to grow so heavy, so fast, that they suffer crippling injuries;
• performing operations on animals by cutting their tails, horns and testicles off without pain relief; and
• locking egg-laying hens, veal calves and mother pigs in tiny cages for their entire lives.

Just a few weeks after Nestlé's groundbreaking announcement, Heinz announced that it is committed to switching 20 percent of the eggs it uses to cage-free. The announcement aligns with that company's promise to work with suppliers globally to reduce the use of battery cages — tiny cages used to confine egg-laying chickens.

And earlier this month, Unilever announced it's going to work with the global egg industry to eliminate the killing of male chicks at hatcheries. Since only female birds lay eggs, the industry has no use for male chicks. Their solution? Shortly after the chicks are born, hatcheries throw them into grinders alive or suffocate them in plastic bags. But now, with new technology, the sex of the embryo can be determined within the egg and eggs that would've hatched male chicks can be destroyed before the embryos develop.

The announcements from Nestlé, Unilever and Heinz — among others including Burger King, Safeway and Costco — signify that the days are coming to an end when the largest companies within the egg, meat and dairy industries could shrug off the suffering and pain inflicted by their production methods. [This Holiday Season, Consumers Demand Humanely Raised Food (Op-Ed)]

The message from food manufacturers to the factory farming industries is loud and clear: Customers find abuses to animals to be unacceptable, and such practices will no longer be tolerated.

Balk's most recent Op-Ed was "Why Does Less Meat Mean Less Heat?" Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed was adapted from one that appeared on the HSUS blog ;A Humane Nation. Pacelle contributed this Op-Ed to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

In true Hollywood style, the success of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" has produced plenty of hype about turtles and tortoises. But unlike the reptilian heroes Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo and Donatello, real-life turtles and tortoises move at a slower pace and are not quite so aggressive. While these wild creatures do not have to face antagonists like Shredder, they do face enormous challenges, including real-life enemies who intentionally drive over them on roadways or, out-of-site-out-of-mind, bury them under housing development projects.

There are many threats faced by turtles and tortoises in America's ponds, rivers, oceans, beaches, deserts and other habitats today, such as:

• There are still snapping turtle capture and killing contests in the United States offering prizes for the most turtles and the largest turtle. Events often end with turtle soup.
• It is still legal in most U.S. states to capture and eat an unlimited number of snapping, soft-shelled and other freshwater turtle species. Millions of North American turtles are also raised for food and shipped live internationally.
• There is an unsustainable and inhumane American "turtle farm" industry that captures wild turtles and breeds them to supply pet stores and Internet sales. Millions of water turtles are confined and their hatchlings are "sanitized," often by dipping into a water and bleach solution, and shipped in boxes containing several hundred babies piled on top of each other.
• Pet turtles are too often forced to live in dimly lit, deficient, tiny tanks and denied adequate nutrition. This treatment results in malformed shells, salmonella-laced sludge in their tanks, and vitamin/mineral deficiencies. Pet turtles often are released into public waterways or abandoned at zoos and wildlife centers when people get tired of them. For instance, red eared slider turtles are native to only about 13 U.S. states but are now found in the wild in more than 40 states, because of pets being released into the wild. Many, unable to adjust to local temperatures and find food, die slow, miserable deaths. When they survive, they can carry pathogens into the ecosystems in which they were released. 
• Rapid habitat loss due to development, road projects, drought, pollution, global warming and disease (for example, ranavirus, which is regarded as a contributing factor in the decline of amphibians) threaten the viability of turtle populations. Turtles also face threats from fishing nets and hooks that drown them. In 1987, the United States became the only country to require the shrimp industry to use "turtle excluder devices" that allow sea turtles to escape when caught in nets. But enforcement has been lacking on this mandate and another requirement, passed in 1989, that all shrimp imported to the United States should be caught in nets equipped with these devices. 
• Sea turtles are killed across the globe to make trinkets for tourists, and are farmed for tourism and meat in the Cayman Islands.

Here at The HSUS, we work every day to save turtles and tortoises, and to face the challenges enumerated above. Until recently, Florida allowed gopher tortoises to be killed — often buried alive — for construction projects. Gopher tortoises live in underground burrows that are four to 40 feet long and in the past developers did not have to remove the tortoises and could buy “bury permits” to continue with construction. The HSUS now works with developers who have these grandfathered permits and we give them a humane alternative to dig out the turtles and rehome them to sanctuaries. Recently, we carried out such a dig at a construction site in Apopka, Fla. [Gopher Tortoises Rescued From Construction Site | Video]

Our wildlife centers also often assist in the rescue and rehabilitation of turtles. The Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, an East Texas sanctuary run by The HSUS and its affiliate, Fund for Animals, houses more than 1,200 animals rescued from abusive or exploitative situations. On site, we have one resident alligator snapping turtle, three sulcata tortoises and one African leopard tortoise (all former pets), and hundreds of native red-eared sliders in ponds.

And earlier this month, we received the good news that Montana now prohibits the import, sale and ownership of red-eared sliders — an accomplishment is 3 years in the making and is a direct result of too many pet turtles being released into Montana waterways.

With the closing of the federal Desert Tortoise Convention Center in Nevada because of federal budget cuts, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has asked us to help re-home special-needs tortoises who cannot be released back into the wild. The HSUS is helping to find homes for 400 such tortoises that need a safe place to live for the remaining 10 to 80 years of their captive lives.

Turtles are alluring creatures , but it is important to remember that they belong in the wild. We hope that the success of "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" will not result in a mass movement to acquire turtles as novelty pets. Instead, the film should inspire more Americans to become aware of turtles' needs. We must all safeguard the habitats for these creatures that move at their own pace and whose protective shell is no match for the array of threats humans throw at them.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Are U.S. Pet Lovers Divided, Red State vs. Blue?" The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This Op-Ed was adapted from "Turtle Diaries, Tortoise Travails" on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Pacelle contributed this Op-Ed to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

If you care about the drugs that make it into the United States' food supply — or only about what happens to the animals that supply us with meat — you should care about ractopamine. Because of safety concerns, about 160 nations ban or restrict the use of this drug during pig production, including all countries in the European Union, Russia and China. But that hasn't stopped the U.S. pork industry from feeding it to an estimated 60 percent to 80 percent of American pigs to rapidly boost growth rates. If you buy pork at your local supermarket, chances are that it came from a ractopamine-treated pig.

A few days ago, McClatchy published a detailed piece on how the American pork industry — led by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) — now is demanding that European authorities allow pork from pigs fed ractopamine into their market. The European Food Safety Authority investigated ractopamine in 2009, concluding there were not enough data to show that it is safe for human consumption at any level. But the NPPC is now urging U.S. trade negotiators to override that determination in current trade talks with the European Union. The NPPC's attitude appears to be that that the pork industry's profits should trump any concerns about food safety or animal welfare from regulators, scientists or consumers.

There are serious questions about ractopamine's safety. It belongs to a class of drugs, beta-agonists, that were developed to treat asthma and only adapted for animal use when they were shown to boost growth rates. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ractopamine for use on pigs after just one human health study — an evaluation of six young, healthy men, one of whom dropped out because his heart began racing and pounding abnormally. Three years later, the FDA sent ractopamine's sponsor a 14-page letter, accusing the company of withholding information about the drug's "adverse animal drug experiences" and "safety and effectiveness." Shortly thereafter, the FDA required drug manufacturers to add this warning label: "Ractopamine may increase the number of injured and/or fatigued pigs during marketing. Not for use in breeding swine." [Memo to Congress: Protect Public Health, Not Toxic Chemicals (Op-Ed )]

The FDA has linked ractopamine to nearly a quarter-million reported adverse events in pigs (more than half of those pigs were sickened or killed) — more than any other animal drug. These pigs became lame or unable to stand, started trembling, or suffered a host of other ailments. 

In particular, ractopamine causes pigs to collapse and become "downers," that is, animals too sick or injured to walk, and then often dragged into the slaughterhouse. HSUS investigations at pig factory-farms have shown that these downer pigs are often terribly and cruelly mishandled. The pork industry vehemently fights all of our efforts to require the euthanasia of downer pigs, perhaps because it realizes that there are so many downers now that the use of ractopamine is so routine.

The dispute over ractopamine speaks to a broader illness in the nation's pork industry. The pork industry insists on using a dangerous drug and then complains when other nations and American consumers don't want their pork. They have some sort of expectation that they know best, behaving like parents insisting that their unknowing children eat whatever is on their plate.

This reminds me of the pork industry's stubborn refusal to stop using gestation crates — coffin-sized crates that confine pregnant sows so tightly that they can't even turn around. Polls show that consumers in every state oppose their continued use, while almost 60 major food corporations have committed to phasing out the crates based on their cruelty. But still the pork industry, and especially the NPPC, continues to cling to the crates — which they are now, laughably, trying to rebrand as "maternity pens." This mentality is best summed up by an NPPC spokesman who told a reporter in 2012: "So our animals can't turn around for the 2.5 years that they are in the stalls producing piglets. I don't know who asked the sow if she wanted to turn around…" [Gestation Crates Have No Place in U.S. Food Production (Op-Ed )]

Thankfully, this line of thinking now faces a major challenge from within the pork industry, with major producers splitting from the NPPC on gestation crates and ractopamine. Smithfield Foods, for example, has committed to phasing out all of its gestation crates and to reducing its use of ractopamine. And just last month, we were pleased to announce that Cargill is following suit in eliminating gestation crates. Now it's time for the pork industry's laggards to step up, and for the obstructionists at the NPPC to get out of the way. 

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Yes, You Can Get Your Cat to Behave." The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Deborah Robbins Millman is the director of Cape Wildlife Center, one of New England's largest wildlife rehabilitation centers and a leader in rehabilitating endangered and threatened New England species. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

For many, feeding birds at ponds and parks is a cherished childhood memory; one they lovingly recreate for their children and grandchildren. Yet tragically, thousands of birds die annually due to a condition overwhelmingly caused by people who don't know this beloved activity can be deadly.

"Angel wing" is a deformity commonly found in ducks, geese, swans and other waterfowl. There has been little scientific study done on the condition, yet most wildlife and waterfowl experts agree the overwhelming cause of angel wing is an unhealthily high protein and/or carbohydrate-based diets. The disorder causes the last joint in one or both wings to unnaturally twist outward, rather than lie flat against a bird's body. 

Birds with angel wing are stripped of their ability to fly, and therefore their main method of defense. Since the affected birds are unable to escape predators, they are often maimed or killed by them. Additionally, when life-threatening weather conditions develop, they are unable to fly away to safety, and instead starve, succumbing to injuries or freezing to death. 

The birds most likely to contract angel wing are those residing in parks, on ponds and in public areas where people feed them unhealthy food. Because birds grow much more rapidly than humans, each day's nutrition has a direct effect on development. Even a few days of improper eating can cause irreparable damage. Research, such as oft-referenced studies on Canada geese and nutrition for young birds, suggest feeding waterfowl an unhealthy diet can accelerate growth, causing the wing to develop too quickly for proper bone support. 

Nutritious waterfowl feed or duck pellets are inexpensive, easy to carry and can be purchased at most feed stores. Seedless grapes cut in half; shredded kale; Swiss chard or romaine lettuce; and grains, including wheat, barley and oats, are all healthy food sources that will appeal to most waterfowl. (Make sure anything you feed is bite-sized, to avoid choking hazards.) [Wild Animals Suffer on 'Junk Food' Diets ]

Cape Wildlife Center, our wildlife rehabilitation center based in Barnstable, Mass., and operated by The Fund for Animals (an affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States) treats about 2,000 animals per year, including a significant number of geese, swans and ducks suffering from angel wing. The highest incidence of admission is late fall or winter, when affected birds have grown enough for the condition to be fully and painfully apparent.

If the patients treated are very young, the condition can sometimes be minimized by splinting and repositioning the affected wing while feeding the birds a proper diet for optimal growth. Even then, a full recovery is not guaranteed. For rehabilitators, it can be emotionally taxing to see birds denied the chance for a full and productive life because people didn't know about the dangers of improperly feeding them.

Angel wing can be drastically reduced by not feeding birds "people food," including white bread, popcorn or crackers. This simple rule will literally save lives. (Angel wing chiefly affects waterfowl. Young songbirds are fed by their parents, and after they fledge, have a lot of mobility and exposure to a varied diet.)

The risk of birds developing this disease doesn't mean the enjoyable and bonding activity of feeding birds must be eliminated — you just have to identify areas where feeding waterfowl is supported. Typically, places that do not support feeding have posted signs, or are located on private property, and offer the birds the right food to sustain their health.

Feeding wild birds a proper diet preserves a treasured family tradition while teaching children the importance of making choices that strengthen, rather than undercut, the human-animal bond. In this way, we will rear generations of people recognizing the necessity for responsible stewardship and celebrate the value of compassionate co-existence with wildlife. 

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.  This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Paul Shapiro is the vice president of farm animal protection at The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

You know that feeling when you get out of a heavily chlorinated pool? Despite just having been submerged in water, you feel like you need to jump in the shower. Now imagine that sensation not on your skin, but in your mouth.

That's essentially what happens today when people eat chickens from most American factory farms. To kill fecal contamination on chicken flesh, factories typically drench bird carcasses in chlorine. It is a practice so unappetizing that the nation's trading partners, like Russia and the European Union, have restricted American poultry imports over it.

To understand why U.S. poultry companies would rather risk export markets than stop dipping birds in chlorine, it's helpful to understand how bad the fecal contamination is. A 2014 Consumer Reports exposé revealed that virtually all — 97 percent — of chicken breasts in the United States harbor dangerous pathogens like Salmonella  and E. coli, transmitted via feces, and clearly not fully eliminated by the chlorine. Moreover, even after chlorine treatment, the meat later can potentially be exposed to pathogens and contaminated. 

So why is there so much poop on our nation's poultry? 

Most producers confine chickens by the tens of thousands inside huge, dank warehouses, in which the animals have little to do but eat and sit down, mostly in their own feces. These chickens — animals who are normally quite athletic — are genetically manipulated to grow so obese, so fast, that many can't take more than a few pitiful steps before collapsing under the enormous weight of their oversized breasts. 

Animal-science expert Temple Grandin summed it up bluntly: "Today's poultry chicken has been bred to grow so rapidly that its legs can collapse under the weight of its ballooning body. It's awful." [As Superbugs Rise, New Studies Point To Factory Farms (Op-Ed )]

Awful indeed, as is the amount of time the animals spend wallowing in manure, often not only their own. When producers bring a new flock of birds into a shed, standard practice is to leave the manure-laden litter from past flocks on the ground. So every couple months, new birds are living on top of prior generations' waste.

To make matters worse, just in time for grilling season, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was proposing rules that could have further increased contamination. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the proposed speeding up poultry slaughter lines, while at the same time removing several hundred government inspectors from slaughter plants. At those slaughter plants, workers often haphazardly shackle live birds on already fast-moving lines. It's such an imprecise process that nearly a million birds are inadequately stunned and slaughtered every year, according to the USDA. Those animals end up in "defeathering tanks," essentially vats of scalding-hot water, while fully conscious. As a first order of business in those tanks, the birds let loose all their waste. It's the same water that countless other birds will then be put through, spreading feces from bird to bird like a wildfire on a dry day. 

So, faster moving lines could mean even more birds will enter the scalding tanks while conscious, resulting in more fecal contamination, and as the Washington Post described, more potential for animal suffering and food-safety problems at chicken slaughter plants. The USDA is now seemingly backing off its poultry line speed acceleration proposal, but is still aiming to cut 800 government inspectors at poultry plants, allowing further self-regulation in the chicken industry. It's clear that the chlorine is simply an attempt to put lipstick on a pig — or decontaminant on a chicken.

As Americans grapple with a long string of meat recalls, periodic episodes of food-poisoning outbreaks that sicken many (and sometimes kill), and trade restrictions due to unsafe meat, perhaps it's time to start looking at the root of the problem. We need to recognize that mistreating farm animals is bad for them — and for us. 

If this prompts more Americans to eat less meat and more plant-based meals, good. This not only will reduce the amount of suffering inflicted upon these animals, but move the country toward a more humane society — and one, hopefully, where people are more likely to encounter  chlorine in the pool than in their meals.

You can follow the author at http://twitter.com/pshapiro. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter, and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Matthew Prescott is food policy director for The Humane Society of the United States. He contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Recently, Cargill — America's largest private corporation — rocked the food world when it announced plans to eliminate gestation crates from its supply system. Gestation crates are tiny cages that confine pigs so restrictively they can barely move an inch during their entire lives. The crates, about two feet wide by seven feet long, are roughly the same dimensions as a pregnant sow’s own body, preventing her from even turning around. 

The life cycle of a confined breeding sow is as such: the animal is locked inside a gestation crate and impregnated. For the four months she is gestating, the sow lingers in the cage, essentially immobilized, day and night. As she prepares to give birth, she is transferred to a different — albeit similarly restrictive cage — called a farrowing crate. She spends a few short weeks weaning her piglets there, is re-impregnated and put back into a gestation crate. The cycle repeats for nearly four years, after which the animal is sent to slaughter.

This announcement from Cargill is the latest in a series of triumphs for animal protection advocates , veterinarians, food companies and other pork-production stakeholders who oppose enclosing animals to such an extreme degree.

"We believe it is the right thing to do for the long term future of pork production in the U.S., and our customers agree with us and support our decision," said Mike Luker, president of Cargill Pork. 

Luker is right. Putting aside for a moment the animal-welfare implications of locking animals in cages and lining them up like parked cars, the industry's trajectory is clear if it wants to remain a competitive American enterprise. In the past two years alone, dozens of global food companies — including McDonald's, Burger King, Costco, Kroger, Safeway, Oscar Mayer and about 60 others — have announced they intend to drop from their supply chains pork producers that use gestation crates.

Jeff Worstell, vice president of livestock production for Cargill Pork, put it best: "If you want to be a viable supplier, you respond to the signals your customers send." 

Temple Grandin, a well-known and highly regarded pork-industry animal welfare expert, believes the crates have "got to go." In Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach, a text book she edited, Grandin said: "Confining an animal for most of its life in a box in which it is not able to turn around does not provide a decent life." 

The latest scientific reviews of this issue support her view. For example, when the Prairie Swine Center, a prestigious pork industry research firm, compared animal housing systems that confine pigs in gestation crates with "group housing," which allows pigs greater freedom of movement, their study concluded that "better welfare can be achieved when sows are not confined throughout gestation." As the report found, “Research comparing group housed sows to those in crates found that the animals unable to exercise due to stall confinement have lower bone strength, muscle mass, and decreased physical fitness and cardiovascular health.”

After the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production — a panel including farmers, veterinarians and  former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman — studied the issue, it recommended the “phase-out, within 10 years, of all intensive confinement systems that restrict natural movement and normal behaviors, including swine gestation crates.”

Science plus consumer support have motivated some major pork producers to move toward group housing. In 2007, Smithfield Foods — the world's largest pork producer — announced that it would eliminate gestation crates from all company-owned barns; earlier this year, it extended that commitment to affect all the contractors producing piglets for the company. In 2012, Hormel Foods, the maker of SPAM, followed suit. And last January, Tyson Foods announced it had advised the farmers in its system that future sow housing should allow animals to turn around and engage in other natural behaviors that gestation-crate confinement prevents. 

As encouraging as this movement is, it still is not universal. Others in the pork industry still resist what their customers demand. 

"So our animals can’t turn around for the 2.5 years that they are in the stalls producing piglets," Dave Warner, spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, once remarked in a National Journal interview. "I don’t know who asked the sow if she wanted to turn around." 

Warner's and the Pork Council's callous statements about how animals should be treated are out of step with both what mainstream Americans want for animals, and what 21st-century science tells us animals need. 

Cargill's announcement is one more blow to the pork industry’s most extreme form of routine abuse. Now, industry holdouts like Seaboard Foods, The National Pork Producers Council and the National Pork Board have a choice: They can continue to defend outdated practices and risk turning away even more customers, or join the momentum and switch to group housing. 

Scientists, veterinarians and the world's largest food brands — not to mention several top producers like Cargill — have made it clear that gestation crates are outdated, and on their way out. Those of us in a civil society who value a healthy, sustainable food system — one that treats animals as more than factory widgets — believe that this move toward a more humane way of farming and eating is long overdue and most welcome.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

I wouldn't say my cat, Zoe, is from hell — but she is a bit of Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde. In the mornings, she is very cuddly and affectionate, and there are times that she sleeps right up against my head or neck. But usually, at about 10 p.m., her pupils dilate and she gets zany, racing and leaping around the house like a Howler monkey who just spotted a jaguar . When my wife and I try to pick her up when she's in this kind of mood, she typically responds with something between a love bite and a flesh-tearing chomp.

That's why I was excited to interview Jackson Galaxy, the host of Animal Planet's hit show, My Cat From Hell who spoke recently at the HSUS Animal Care Expo, the largest international education conference on animal care, sheltering, rescue and emergency services. I wanted to ensure Zoe doesn't have Mad Feline Disease. I spoke with Jackson about cat behaviorists, troubleshooting cat problems, community cats and the Animal Care Expo.

PACELLE: A lot of people know about the work of behaviorists or trainers who help with dog issues, but you don't hear as much about experts who work on cat problems. Am I correct in that assumption? GALAXY: You are absolutely correct. As recently as two months before the season one premiere of My Cat From Hell, I was still being asked what a cat behaviorist did. It's been part of my mission to educate people about the "teachability" and the "trainability" of cats. That may sound ridiculous, but whereas folks wouldn't think twice of calling a trainer if the dog chews up the couch, they won't even think of hiring a cat behaviorist if the cat pees on that couch. [10 Amazing Things You Didn't Know about Animals ]

Part of the reason the Jackson Galaxy Foundation is coming into existence is to help lift up cat-loving shelter and rescue workers into positions where they too, can help their organization and then reach out on their own to help the larger community.

In cases where you are called in for a cat problem, what is the most common problem you see? 

By and large, it's a pretty even split: litter box issues and aggression. In this day and age, even with the existence of My Cat From Hell, it takes a lot to push a human to call a behaviorist. It's almost as if they are swallowing their pride, admitting that they can't "handle the cat." It seems like when guardians are confronted with either of those behaviors, it brings them to that most irate, most confused, most frustrated place. Of course, part of my job is to address the needs and frustrations of the humans. Education is key, but compassionate education is king.

Given your start at the Boulder Valley Humane Society, what else can local shelters and rescues do to help troubleshoot cat problems and keep cats in their homes?

I love talking about this! To start with, one of the most important pieces of advice I can give to any shelter is to remove the word "random" from their vocabulary when it comes to assessing cat behavior. Minute changes in behavior can signal big changes to come. Encourage volunteers to have a written communication chain with each other and with shelter/rescue staff for each cat in their care. It could mean a few minutes of journaling after each visit. The added bonus, besides heading off behaviors at the pass, is that adopters then have a comprehensive story of who their new companion is. It will help facilitate adoptions and discourage returns.

Another piece of advice I would offer up to adoption counselors handling incoming surrenders: Get the most comprehensive history you can. Every shred of information is vital for people like me. Even if you think the reason for surrender is "trivial" (i.e., allergies or the birth of a baby), remember there was surely a chain of events within which the human-animal bond was damaged to the point of "getting rid of" the animal.

I know you are also passionate about protecting community (feral and stray) cats. Can you tell me a little bit about your thoughts on how society can humanely address the issue of outdoor cats?

You're right. The well-being of feral/community cats is so important to me. When I first started out, it seemed to me that there was no comprehensive game plan from a shelter or community perspective except to catch and kill. That was then. Now the letters TNR [Trap-Neuter-Return] represent a crucial link in the chain that stretches from this once-forgotten population to the shelter/rescue on a managerial level and to the public at large on an awareness level. [Here, Kitty, Kitty: 10 Facts for Cat Lovers ]

Everyone deserves a shot at life. Not every community cat is cold, starving, disease ridden. Are their life spans shorter than indoor housecats? Of course. But through managed colony care and a consistent approach to spaying and neutering, we are proudly proving that we just don't have to kill them. We as animal lovers are now demonstrating our love by committing time and resources, all to save the lives of cats, not only in the shelter and rescue system but on the streets as well. It's an exciting time to be working for Team Community Cat!

I was walking my dog about seven months ago, and found a cat on the street. She was super friendly, so she wasn't hard to scoop up. But sometimes she's a little too friendly. She wants to sleep on my head or my neck. She is constantly play-attacking, especially when I am trying to go to sleep. And she's also fond of biting me and my wife. She doesn't sink her teeth in, but she grabs your cheek, or chin, or arm, so you feel it just enough. Any thoughts on how to get her to cease that behavior?

A disclaimer — I can't diagnose your cat without meeting her and spending time with all of you. That said, it sounds like you picked up a cat who was separated from mom and siblings a little too young. She doesn't know the difference between inhibited play and actual prey, and that leads to her play aggression. One thing that you as well as every guardian out there would want to commit to is vigorous interactive playtime every day (or night, in your case) with your cat. Toys that allow you to mimic air prey and ground prey give us the gift of allowing the inner "raw cat" out to play. That's your job — unleash your cat's mojo! Your ankles, your dog … everyone else will thank you!

Author's Note: You can also watch a video of Wayne Pacelle conducting an interview after Galaxy's talk at Expo.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Halting Drone-Assisted Hunting Before It Takes Off." This article was adapted from "Jackson Galaxy and Cats From Other Universes," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Karen Lange is senior writer for All Animals, the membership magazine of The Humane Society of the United States. This article was adapted from one that appeared in All Animals. Lange contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

Meet Enid Feinberg, deer lover and protector, an activist who scans the woods around her house with surveillance cameras, looking for hunters.

And meet Anthony DeNicola, deer culler and sharpshooter, a wildlife biologist who runs a business that until recently focused on killing deer.

In the Baltimore suburbs, a new method of controlling deer populations has brought the two together: deer sterilization, or removing does’ ovaries. 

For four winters, DeNicola has visited Feinberg's 14-acre property, hired by the Maryland nonprofit she helps run, Wildlife Rescue, Inc., to prove deer sterilization works. 

By now, DeNicola is like an old friend. He arrives with laundry from another deer sterilization job and takes bags of equipment up to a rec room without Feinberg having to point the way. Then he spends days darting the does with a tranquilizer so that they can be rushed to Feinberg's garage and sterilized in a makeshift operating theater. After the 30-minute procedure, does are returned to the woods. These days, eight of 10 does spotted around Feinberg's house have already had the procedure, and will never become pregnant again.

It used to be that communities where deer eat gardens or dart in front of cars had few options but to recruit hunters or hire professionals like DeNicola to kill deer. Such culls must occur year after year for deer population reductions to last more than a period of months. Each cull removes a high percentage of the population, but surviving female deer continue to reproduce, while outside deer move in to replace those culled. [Contraception May Save Future Elephants from Culling ]

Today, after decades of research, scientists and animal advocates believe nonlethal methods to reduce the deer population are ready for widespread adoption. These include surgical sterilization and the contraceptive vaccine PZP, which causes a doe to produce antibodies that bind to her eggs' outer membranes, preventing sperm from entering. 

These techniques can cost less than $500 per animal — no more than shooting a deer, if you consider the expense of processing the meat.

In Fairfax City, Va., when a proposal to allow hunting failed to gain enough votes, the city council decided to try sterilization. This past winter, right before he visited Feinberg, DeNicola drove slowly through the parks of this Washington, D.C., suburb, darting does. Surgery took place in the police station, where DeNicola's partner, Wisconsin veterinarian Steve Timm, trained local vets eager to learn the procedure. 

On Fripp Island, S.C., a plan to cull deer foundered when a retired judge who owns a house there threatened to sue. So residents of the resort community invited The HSUS to treat the deer with PZP. Within five years, the number of deer fell by half.

The village of Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y., just north of New York City, considered hiring experts to trap deer in nets, then kill them by shooting bolts into their heads. But when the mayor imagined the backlash of people seeing panicked deer breaking legs or antlers fighting to get free, he looked for an alternative. This past winter, HSUS staff began treating deer there with PZP.

This effort is the first time the contraceptive has been tried in an open system — rather than an island or a fenced campus — making it a crucial test, says Tufts University professor Allen Rutberg, a former HSUS staffer. "If it does work there [in Hastings on Hudson]… it will work in a lot of other places," he says.

Now, animal welfare advocates are offering PZP and sterilization to communities on eastern Long Island, where, after protests, officials there abandoned a plan to hire the federal Wildlife Services agency to kill thousands of deer. 

The important thing is to have humane options, says Stephanie Boyles Griffin, HSUS senior director of Innovative Wildlife Management & Services. In Washington, D.C.'s Rock Creek Park, where Wildlife Services sharpshooters have finished a second winter of killing deer, Boyles Griffin hopes the National Park Service will switch to fertility control in the future.  “It will save a lot of lives,” she says.

This article was adapted from "Out of Season" in All Animals. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The HSUS is calling on all 50 state wildlife agencies to adopt rules to prohibit drone-assisted hunting before this method of spotting wild animals and then chasing them down becomes the rage with people who've never contemplated the notion of hunting ethics.

Drone hunting would allow hunters to use remote-controlled, camera-equipped aircraft to locate wildlife in order to shoot and kill them for sport. This shocking issue came to light in Alaska after wildlife officials there learned that a moose was killed by a hunter using a drone. That incident prompted the Alaska Board of Game to propose and unanimously pass a regulation outlawing the practice. Two other states, Colorado and Montana, also have recently outlawed the use of drones for hunting, while two other states, Idaho and Wisconsin, already have included prohibitions in existing regulations on the use of aircraft to hunt wildlife. Three more states, New Mexico, Vermont and Wyoming, have pending rule-making petitions before their respective wildlife commissions to ban the practice.

Other states should follow suit, and promptly.

We've been down this technology-gone-amok road before. In 2005, the operator of a Texas-based captive-hunting facility developed an Internet-hunting capability, where a "hunter" could go online, spot an animal with a remote-controlled camera, and then shoot the quarry with a remote-controlled firearm. It was a bizarre and frightening example of innovative technologies being used for evil purposes. I didn't think canned hunting could get any worse, until someone sought to layer Internet hunting on top of it. In that case, The HSUS — along with some of our strongest adversaries in the hunting community — worked to ban this pay-per-view killing in 40 states. (Some of those state bans, which forbid remote-assisted forms of hunting, might forbid using drones, too.)

I am not surprised by the opportunists who would use drones to make the odds even more lopsided in favor of the hunter — some hunters employ laser rangefinders, thermal night-vision cameras for hunting at dawn or dusk, motion detectors, GPS trackers for dogs, sophisticated ATVs for the toughest terrain and much more.

Americans' moral standards must reflect an awareness of technologies that turn hunting into slaughter. The use of these unsporting, high-tech products in hunting bears no resemblance to traditional hunting and violates the ideals of a "fair chase."

Already,various states have adopted important rules forbidding hunting from aircraft or motorized vehicles, restricting baiting for most species, outlawing spotlighting animals – shining a light into the forest or a field at night to locate animals for hunting -- or running down animals with snowmobiles — and there are other standards that seek to prevent slaughter and uphold "fair chase" standards. Of course, there are big gaps in the law, since about half of U.S. states still allow hunting of captive mammals behind fences in pay-to-slay schemes where the outcome is guaranteed.

Unmanned drones have some beneficial uses for wildlife — from anti-poaching surveillance to protect elephants in Africa to the study of wildlife populations. [Build a Better Drone, for Wildlife Conservation (Op-Ed)]

But using drones to spot game — or one day to spot and shoot animals — is beyond the pale. Responsible hunters and The HSUS agree that there's no place for this remote-controlled killing. In cases like this, the law must speak. There's no time to waste.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Shelter Pets Reaching Out to Touch Someone." This article was adapted from "Droning On, Droning Off," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Inga Fricke is director of Shelter and Rescue Group Services for The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Animal shelters are doing an increasingly better job finding good homes for the pets who — through no fault of their own — end up in their cages. Back in the 1970s, shelters euthanized as many as 12 to 20 million dogs and cats, each year, for lack of homes. Although one euthanized adoptable shelter pet is still one too many , today those numbers have declined by more than 75 percent.

But for certain pets, the odds of finding a new home are still stacked against them. Ask any shelter worker from Maine to California, and they will tell you that elderly pets are by far the most difficult to place. Some people simply don't appreciate or know the perks of adopting older pets.

Take Vegas, for example, a highly adoptable pet who came across my Facebook page one morning — he's a gorgeous, purebred, Birman cat (kittens sell for more than $1,000!) with beautiful tan fur and dark chocolate points on his face and ears — think long-haired Siamese). He's described as friendly, outgoing and loving. His owner, who raised him nearly from birth, died unexpectedly, leaving him all alone in the world. Who wouldn't be falling all over themselves to snag such a catch, right? [In Photos: America's Favorite Pets ]

But Vegas is 14 years old. Regardless of how beautiful and sweet he is, and despite his wonderful attributes, many people will consider his age and think only of how few years he has left, and how sad they will be to lose him so quickly — not to mention how potentially expensive his final months of care could be.

From Vegas' perspective, he spent 14 wonderful years enjoying the love and comfort of a beloved family and home — and he wants that streak to continue. There is no question he would make a fantastic pet, but it will take a very special person to see past his age.  

There are countless benefits to adopting a pet with "history." Older pets typically are more gentle, laid back and easy to care for than younger ones. They also often are housetrained and mannerly.

Many people think that bringing a puppy or a kitten into the home is ideal: They haven't been "tainted" by somebody else's poor training or bad experiences, they get to grow up with the family, and who can resist those adorable faces?

But what are you really getting? The puppy/kitten cuteness only lasts a few short months, and then you're waist deep in "teenager" craziness, potty training, teething, destruction and excitability.

Adult pets typically come pre-trained. Your rugs and furniture will be safe. The pets need only to acclimate to your schedule.

Additionally, with a puppy there's no way of knowing how big that tiny creature is going to become, let alone the true nature of his or her personality. Experts say a cat or dog's personality may not fully develop until at least six months of age, so that loving kitten may grow up into a standoffish adult, or that calm puppy may turn fearful.

With adults, what you see in the shelter is more often than not exactly what you'll get at home. Remember the old adage "you can't teach an old dog new tricks?" It's a myth. An older pet can learn anything that a younger one can; in fact, he might already come to you pre-loaded with a whole stash of tricks up his sleeve.

There are nearly 180 million cats and dogs currently living in more than 100 million American households. There are also nearly 40 or so million rabbits, hamsters and other pets who share our homes, and an estimated 30 to 40 million un-owned cats who live in our communities.

As a nation we will spend an estimated $58.51 billion on our pets this year alone, according to the American Pet Products Association. But, despite our love for our pets, six to eight million of them will find themselves homeless this year, and about 50 percent of dogs and nearly 75 percent of cats entering our shelter systems likely will not make it out alive.  

Those figures seem implausible. After all, Americans certainly support the concept of adoption and rescue. Market research for the Shelter Pet Project — a joint effort by The Humane Society of the United States, Maddie's Fund and the Ad Council to encourage Americans to adopt their next pet — found that more than 75 percent of people would consider adopting their next pet. [Shelter Pets Reaching Out to Touch Someone (Op-Ed)]

The research also found that an estimated 17 million Americans who are open to adoption, but haven't decided yet where they will get their pet, will acquire a new pet this year. So it doesn't take a math wizard to see that placing all of the adoptable pets at risk for euthanasia into new homes is eminently doable.

Sadly, animal advocates constantly fight the misperception that shelter pets are damaged somehow. Moreover, it is especially difficult when it comes to older pets. Pets like Vegas make up many of the 2.7 million healthy, adoptable pets that may be euthanized this year.

As we get closer to our goal of ending shelter-pet euthanasia, we still need people willing to open their hearts and homes to senior pets who have oodles of love to give, regardless of how many years they have left.  

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Corrin Zumwalt is a horse owner and advocate for Tennessee walking horses who lives in Somerville, Ohio. She shares the personal story of her horse, Major, with the hope that federal lawmakers will approve pending legislation to protect the breed. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Several months ago, I lost my best friend. It didn't matter that he was a horse and I was a human — we spent the past five years rarely leaving each other's company.

My days revolved around Major, and the lessons we learned from each other. My time with him during riding and training sessions was precious, and he even shared in some of my most momentous life events. I didn't walk down the aisle at my wedding, for example — I rode down the aisle on Major's back.

To be sure, I am devastated by his death. But I know his story can make a difference in the lives of other horses and their owners.

I had known since first bringing him home that his past was far from idyllic. He was fearful when anyone entered his stall, and would pace and rear if anyone tried to lead him out. It was clear that he had not received the kind of love and care earlier as he was getting from me. It broke my heart into a million pieces when I learned the details of his past: Major once had been a "big lick" horse, a Tennessee walker, ridden around a show ring in tall, heavy shoes, and with chains around his ankles.

He almost certainly spent his entire show career in constant agony. In order to perform the classic "big lick" gait, horses are abused through a practice known as soring. Major's trainers would have dabbed mustard oil, kerosene or other caustic chemicals on his pasterns (the sloping parts of a horse's foot between the hoof and fetlock) and legs, creating sensitized flesh where the chains would strike. The ensuing pain would cause him to fling his feet off of the ground to create the characteristic big lick.

His trainers also would have forced him to stand on hard blocks or bolts to bruise the tender parts of his feet so he'd step even higher. If they found him lying in his stall to get some relief from his sore feet, they would have beaten him to force him to stand again.

Major's veterinarian believes that soring shortened my friend's life. Major learned to trust me, but he couldn't overcome the damage wrought upon his body by his abusive early life.

Soon after a bad episode of colic, he developed asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, followed by an abscessed and malformed hoof. We treated his problems as they arose, but we could not safely treat both simultaneously. Last November, Major and I spent the last hour of his life together.

My sorrow is immeasurable, and I miss him every day. So I now feel compelled to speak out in support of legislation that would prevent this unspeakable abuse from happening to other horses — the Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act. This is the only bill before the U.S. Congress that can put an end to these barbaric and inhumane practices.

More than 40 years ago, Congress tried to crack down on soring with the Horse Protection Act of 1970, but the corrupt self-policing system put into place has allowed the problem to fester. The current measure, PAST Act, H.R. 1518/S. 1406, will ban the unnaturally tall shoes and chains used to exacerbate the blistering chemicals, will end the failed self-regulation in the industry, and will strengthen penalties for anyone caught torturing their horses for the sake of a high-step. [Step-by-Step Progress Protecting Tennessee Walking Horses (Op-Ed)]

Major would have been better able to fight his ailments if he hadn't been forced to endure the torture of soring during his career as a big lick horse. No horses — nor the humans who love them — should have to go through what we went through.

Major's loss should mean something. Please take what happened to him and translate it into lasting change. Tell your lawmakers in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives to speedily approve the PAST Act — both to honor my best friend, as well as to save all the Majors of the future.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Recently I visited the Maryland SPCA in Baltimore, Md., where I participated in a national satellite-radio and television media tour to publicize the launch of a new series of public service advertisements on behalf of The Shelter Pet Project campaign. The campaign is a joint project involving The Humane Society of the United States, Maddie's Fund, and the Ad Council. Maddie's Fund president Rich Avanzino and I, along with The HSUS's Betsy McFarland, did interviews in 28 media markets to trumpet the new ads and to remind millions of viewers about the importance of helping shelters and saving the lives of companion animals by choosing adoption.

In these wonderful ads, fetching dogs and cats practically reach through TV screens, imploring audiences to play with them. The new TV, outdoor and web PSAs take a playful approach to breaking down shelter-pet adoption barriers. The individual personalities of real-life adopted shelter dogs and cats are showcased, with the pets playfully licking or pawing at screens seemingly in an effort to reach pet lovers on the other side.

All of the animals featured in the ads — cats like Maui and Stetson, and dogs like Arnie, Jules, and Kuma — were adopted from shelters and rescue groups. The goal of the ads is to remind prospective pet parents that, at any one time, there are hundreds of thousands of amazing shelter pets ready to meet them in the nation's local animal shelters. Each PSA concludes with the message that, "The only way to find out how amazing shelter pets really are … is to meet one," and invites viewers to visit TheShelterPetProject.org to learn more.

Since this campaign launched in 2009, The Shelter Pet Project has worked to lift public perception of animal shelters and shelter pets and has played a part in driving down the number of pets euthanized in shelters by 12 percent. Three million to four million shelter pets get adopted each year, which means just 29 percent of dogs and 33 percent of cats in American homes were adopted from shelters or rescue groups. Still, 2.7 million healthy or treatable pets are euthanized each year in shelters, and we will not rest until that number stands at zero.

So far, The Shelter Pet Project has generated more than $167 million in free public service advertising to promote local shelters and rescue groups — and this is a way that The HSUS not only helps animals , but also the animal shelters that would not otherwise be able to afford or place this kind of advertising. More people are walking through shelter doors, more homeless pets are getting homes, and euthanasia rates are on the decline.

We hope these videos inspire animal lovers around the country to support their local animal shelters and that they encourage their friends to adopt a pet in need of a home. Take a look at the new ads, and please share them widely. You can also ask your local TV and radio stations to run the ads as a way to help animals.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Modern Family (Planning) for Animals." This article was adapted from "Shelter Pets Coming to a TV Screen Near You," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates — and become part of the discussion — on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

It's a year of milestones for The HSUS.

It's our 60th year, and my 10th as CEO. And, Feb. 25, marked the 20th anniversary of World Spay Day (started by our affiliate the Doris Day Animal League) which involved more than 600 organizers in all 50 U.S. states, and almost 50 countries hosting events. Our Pets for Life teams in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia hit the streets, transporting dozens of pets to spay/neuter appointments at our partner clinics. In all, thousands of dedicated individuals worked to limit dog and cat reproduction as a way to prevent pet homelessness and euthanasia across the globe.

It took The HSUS, more than any other group, to normalize the practice of spaying and neutering by starting that discussion decades ago. Especially over the last three decades, our movement has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in animal sterilization as a humane population-control strategy. And there's been a big pay-off — euthanasia rates that perhaps once eclipsed 15 million now hover at around 3 million. Of course, that's still 3 million too many, but the trends favor us. We now know, with an investment of additional resources in spay and neuter, promotion of pet adoption and other companion-animal protection strategies, we can drop that number even further.

Through the years, veterinarians and advocates have become extremely efficient in perfecting the spay/neuter surgery process — with more than 100 high-volume, high-quality, low-cost clinics running across the country. All the while, we're all looking for a better, faster, easier and cheaper method for sterilizing cats and dogs.

Recently, on February 17th, Ark Sciences commercially launched Zeuterin™, the only FDA-approved nonsurgical sterilant for male dogs. Veterinarians and veterinary technicians around the country have been receiving training and certification in its use, and for the first time in World Spay Day history, ten communities — from San Francisco to Orlando to Chattanooga — hosted "Zeuter-a-thons" where dogs were sterilized without surgery.

Zeuterin™ (zinc gluconate neutralized with arginine) is approved for use in male dogs between 3 to 10 months, and is administered by intratesticular injection. Unlike surgical castration, Zeuterin doesn't require anesthesia, just a light sedation if necessary — and dogs treated are alert within 15 to 20 minutes of the procedure and ready to go home.

The introduction of Zeuterin is an exciting innovation, and we hope the first of many non-surgical sterilization methods for animals. Just as "the pill " revolutionized women's health and family planning, contraceptive strategies for animals can be game-changing. Other organizations, like the Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs (ACC&D), are continuing the important work to expedite the successful introduction of such new methods for sterilization.

The HSUS has worked for years to develop a workable immunoconceptive vaccine for horses and white-tailed deer in free-roaming settings. In fact, in partnership with the Village of Hastings-On-Hudson in New York, The HSUS has launched the first-ever immunocontraception study conducted on a free-roaming deer population living in an open, suburban area in the U.S. If successful, we hope the project will serve as a model for municipalities to replicate in New York, and throughout the country.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Ellen's Oscar Tweet Turns into Huge Charity Gift." This article was adapted from "Modern Family (Planning) for Animals," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Ellen DeGeneres never ceases to amaze me, with her unparalleled wit and talent, generosity of spirit and passion for animal protection.

Samsung committed to give a dollar to her designated charity for every re-tweet of her now-famous selfie with some of the biggest stars in attendance at Sunday night's Oscars. But she really reached a new high, in my book, by directing $1.5 million of that total to The HSUS. Her picture, which she tweeted that night to her 27 million followers, became the most re-tweeted in history, with more than three million people pushing out the picture, snapped with an assist from Bradley Cooper and capturing Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence and others.

We are going to divide her donation among three of The HSUS's programs: Pets for Life, our Shelter Pet Project and our Animal Rescue Team. The Animal Rescue Team has particularly been on my mind recently week after its heroic rescue of 183 animals, living in filth and suffering from a lack of basic care, at a suspected puppy mill in Jefferson County, Ark. Tia Pope, manager of puppy mill response for The HSUS, said, "No animal should ever be forced to live in conditions like this…Now, they'll get the opportunity to live happy, healthy lives."

Indeed, that's what we try to do for all animals — provide them with happy, healthy lives. Ellen has always been on board with our strategy. She, too, cares about all animals. She's had me on her show to talk about our campaigns a half dozen times, including back in 2008 in the run-up to Proposition 2, the landmark ballot measure to ban the extreme confinement of laying hens, breeding sows and veal calves in the Golden State. That law, and a follow up law to apply Prop 2 standards for hens to eggs sold in the state, is under attack from the Missouri attorney general, so our work is never done.

We've talked about the lives of privation and misery that animals on factory farms endure , and also about defending Missouri's anti-puppy mill ballot measure from attacks in the Legislature, and about blocking ag-gag bills that try to silence our undercover investigations.

She's the leading celebrity voice for animal protection in our nation, and we are so lucky to have her on our side. And all of us at The HSUS are so honored she chose to invest in our work, given all of the other worthy charities that serve animals and people.

Her support comes at an especially significant time as we are making preparations for our first 60th Anniversary gala event in Los Angeles later this month — to raise money for our companion animal and anti-factory farming work. There, California Gov. Jerry Brown, who has signed a raft of animal-welfare legislation since becoming governor in 2011, will receive our Humane Governor award. We'll also be recognizing Gabriela Cowperthwaite, the director of "Blackfish ", and two other celebrities who have done so much to advance the cause of animal protection — James Cromwell and Paul Wesley.

Because we'll have a whole bunch of other celebrities at the event, I may go out and buy a Samsung Galaxy Note and go into the crowd and take a selfie with them. Bradley, can you help me, like you helped Ellen? We need you, man. March 29, Beverly Hilton, 6:30 p.m.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Extreme Abuse of Calves Leads to Immediate Shuttering of N.J. Slaughterhouse." This article was adapted from "The Tweet Heard Round the World," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responded quickly to shut down a New Jersey slaughterhouse plant after The HSUS asked for enforcement action and provided the federal agency with footage of our latest undercover investigation into abuses and the continuing mistreatment of downer calves — in this case, at the Catelli Bros. slaughter plant in suburban Monmouth County, N.J., Following the USDA's action, The HSUS publicly released its materials.

Our undercover investigator documented calves being forced to rise to their feet by men who wrapped the calves' tails around their hands — lifting the entire weight of the calf by this appendage. One calf with a broken leg was dragged by a chain around his neck and other calves were struck, kicked, pulled by their ears and sprayed with water. The plant manager warned workers not to take some of these actions when the USDA inspector was around — an indirect admission that he knew that workers were breaking the law on animal handling. 

You may recall the 2009 HSUS investigation of Bushway — a calf slaughter plant in Grand Isle, Vt., where we found calves too weak to walk being kicked, shocked, thrown and dragged to slaughter. That case prompted The HSUS to file a petition with the USDA asking that the agency close a loophole in the regulations that allowed these downed calves to be set aside to see if they could recover enough to walk onto the kill floor. The USDA requires euthanasia for downed adult cattle at slaughter plants, but the rule excludes calves. Where humane handling is concerned, the problems are the same — no bulls, cows, or calves should be subjected to this treatment, regardless of their age or gender.

Our investigator captured still-conscious calves trying to right themselves on the bleed line. The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) — for which The HSUS works to secure substantial funding each fiscal year — requires that animals be unconscious before they are shackled and hung upside down so their throats can be slit. Our investigation also found that some calves undergoing shechita (ritual slaughter) remained conscious for more than two minutes after their necks were opened up. Unfortunately, the HMSA doesn't specify how soon ritually-slaughtered animals should reach an unconscious state.

Bernie Rollin, distinguished professor of animal science at Colorado State University watched our video and wrote, "Of all the atrocity videos I have viewed, the current video of the slaughterhouse at Catelli Brothers must be ranked among the three worst." The treatment of the calves at Catelli outraged Rollin enough to write: "The conclusion to be drawn from this video data is self-evident. This plant should be closed down immediately."

It took an HSUS undercover investigation released in 2008 to prompt USDA, a year later, to act on our long-standing demand that downed dairy cows not be abused. That investigation at the Hallmark slaughter plant in southern California showed "spent" dairy cows being shocked, water-boarded, and in some cases, tormented by being tossed around on the sharp tines of a front-end loader.

It's been more than four years since our Bushway investigation about downer calf abuses.  Our Catelli Bros. investigation shows that similar abuses are still occurring. There is a federal law prohibiting cruelty in slaughter that has been in place for more than half a century — it was the first campaign of The HSUS at the time of its founding in 1954. 

But, in too many quarters, we see that law's basic requirements being ignored by those charged to observe and to enforce it, and in this case, we see a glaring deficiency in the law that needs to be corrected regarding the abuse of downer calves. While we applaud USDA for shutting down this plant, we should not need HSUS investigations to call out these abuses plant by plant. Stronger enforcement and more consistent legal standards on downers are what USDA should serve up.

You can watch the investigation footage here, however please know that the content is very graphic and may be upsetting to some viewers.

Update: Since the investigation and the suspension of the inspectors at the plant, the plant reopened after being closed for two weeks. However, the suspension was lifted only after the plant identified corrective and preventive measures to bring the facility into compliance with the humane handling requirements. The HSUS continues to pressure the USDA to close the loophole that allows downer calves to be slaughtered for human consumption.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Protect and Serve — Including the Animals.   This article was adapted from "HSUS Undercover Investigation Shutters NJ Slaughter Plant," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

In recent years, legislatures have been fortifying the legal framework against animal cruelty, step-by-step, with felony-level penalties adopted for dog fighting, cockfighting and other extreme acts of violence. In addition, every day there are more and more interventions against cruelty in dozens of communities nationwide, as police and sheriffs and animal control personnel raid and bust up animal fighting rings, puppy mill operations and other dens of abuse.

The changes in the law, and the more serious-minded enforcement of those laws, marks a sea change in Americans' attitudes toward animals and our recognition of human responsibility to them. Increasingly, we're seeing concern for animals institutionalized within a broader range of entities and organizations and agencies responsible for upholding and strengthening our laws and their enforcement.

One of the entities helping to lead the charge against cruelty is the National Sheriffs' Association, which recently partnered with The HSUS, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police and hundreds of local law enforcement agencies in convincing the U.S. Congress to make it a federal crime to attend or bring a child to an animal-fighting spectacle. President Obama signed that legislation, as part of the massive 2014 Farm Bill, on Feb. 7 — the fourth major upgrade of the federal animal-fighting law since 2002.

Just weeks ago, the National Sheriffs' Association — founded in 1940 and representing thousands of sheriffs, deputies, and other law enforcement — helped create the National Coalition on Violence Against Animals (NCVAA). This new group pulls together leading sheriffs and police, prosecutors, judges, mental-health specialists , domestic-violence professionals and animal-protection advocates to develop and promote policies, strategies, guidelines and programs that will reduce violence against animals and its harmful effects on children, families and society.

The association has also submitted a proposal to the FBI to add animal cruelty as a separate category to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The collection and analysis of animal cruelty offenses by the FBI will encourage law enforcement to pursue animal cruelty crimes and also provide an important tool to better target police activity and interventions.

It's now widely recognized that cruelty begets more of it, with the victims one day being animals and on other days children and other vulnerable parties. A 2001 to 2004 study by the Chicago Police Department "revealed a startling propensity for offenders charged with crimes against animals to commit other violent offenses toward human victims." Of those arrested for animal crimes, 65 percent had been arrested for battery against another person.

If we as Americans want to protect our communities, we have to prevent cruelty to animals, and when it occurs, crack down on it and arrest or treat those who perpetrate it. Cruelty is corrosive. It must be eradicated if we are to have a civil society.

The National Sheriffs' Association and so many other professional law enforcement organizations are partners in The HSUS campaign to root out cruelty in all of its forms. They are helping set the tone in our relationship with animals and the ongoing campaign to protect them. That's a remarkable development for animals and the whole of society.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Sochi Mass Killing Street Dogs in Olympics 'Cleansing'." This article was adapted from "Protect and Serve — Including the Animals," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The Olympic Games promote international competition, but also cooperation and respect among individuals and nations. As billions of people tune in to the Olympics, they typically have a swelling of patriotism for their own country and its athletes, but at the same time they experience feelings of greater tolerance and appreciation for all peoples of the world.

However, as the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Games launch, there's a back story that threatens to mar this global spectacle. A form of animal cleansing is taking place on the streets of Sochi as the games get underway.

Authorities there have undertaken the mass killing of street dogs in a horribly misguided effort to "beautify and sanitize" Sochi as they welcome athletes and visitors from all over the world to their city.

Despite promises from the Sochi government that street culling of dogs would not be part of preparations for the Olympics, it has reneged and hired a private "killing" company that is currently hunting and poisoning the dogs its spokespersons call "biological trash."

The number of dogs to be slaughtered is unknown, but according to news reports, the company was told to kill "as many as possible" before the opening ceremony.

Humane Society International has long rejected mass culling as unethical and ineffective. Instead, HSI works around the world to humanely address street dog populations and problems. For nearly two decades, we've successfully implemented spay/neuter/vaccination programs. Working with governments and communities, our initiatives incorporate mass animal sterilization, vaccination and community education.

And last year, when word about a possible cull first started to spread, we offered to conduct such a program in Sochi. While we received no response to the offer, we were heartened that authorities said they'd not go down the path of mass killing. It's really sad that they decided to do so after all.

Russia dedicated $50 billion to ensure the success of the games. If even a fraction of those funds had been allocated to addressing the street dog issue in Sochi in a humane and sustainable manner, this cruel and short-sighted scheme could have been avoided — and the nation could have engendered goodwill, not moral condemnation.

If this is to be Sochi's opening act, this year's Olympics will be tarnished. It is my sincere hope that President Vladimir Putin will hear the global pleas to stop the cull, and work with The HSUS to provide a better life for the dogs of Sochi, to ensure the safety of the city's citizens and visitors, and for Sochi to earn its place among the dozens of communities worldwide that have chosen to do their very best for animals and people alike.

Note: You can take action today and urge President Putin to stop the cull and use humane methods of managing the street dogs in Sochi and throughout Russia.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Super Bowl Ads Symbolize A Positive Cultural Shift for Animals." This article was adapted from "No Medal for Sochi When it Comes to Animals," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

For the treatment of animals, there are so many indicators of cultural, corporate and political change for the good. One is the creative, and often provocative, advertising on display not only during the Super Bowl, but in advance — where companies and ad agencies push out their creative content in traditional and social media and get a national discussion going about their brands.

Each year, it used to infuriate me to see baby or juvenile chimps dressed up and featured in commercials, because I knew what those chimpanzees would endure throughout their lives — and I also knew that the trainers would discard those chimps once they got big and leave it to the animal welfare community to pay for their care for the expected duration of their lives, sometimes as long as another half century. It costs the animal welfare movement about a million dollars per chimp, based on expected lifespan.

Happily now, instead of dressed-up chimps, we are getting much more advertising that promotes heart-warming pet adoption and the virtue, care and goodness associated with the human-animal bond. This year's Budweiser ad, featuring a puppy and a Clydesdale, extols the bonds between animals and people and even between animals and animals — and the joys we get from animals. They're further celebrating that bond by asking users to join in on their #bestbuds hashtag, posting photos of themselves with their pets to their social media channels. We've also heard reports that Budweiser has a not yet leaked ad featuring puppies from Southern Paws Rescue, an animal rescue in Illinois that will be aired in the 4th quarter. And the Audi ad takes a tongue-in-cheek look at the idea of not experimenting with something that may go wrong — like a fictional "Doberhuahua" fad breed — and instead making the right choice to adopt a one-of-a-kind, unique pet from an animal shelter.

There is change afoot on other fronts as well. Thursday we announced that pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. recently decided that it will no longer conduct or financially support biomedical research on chimpanzees for the foreseeable future and will favor alternative methods. In recent years, several other pharmaceutical and biotech companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk, have adopted similar policies prohibiting or severely restricting chimpanzee use.

While many of these companies did so at the request of The HSUS (either through shareholder resolution efforts or direct talks with company representatives), many others have chosen to adopt policies on their own after a 2011 Institute of Medicine report found nearly all chimpanzee use for research to be unnecessary. Private companies seem to be following the lead of the federal government by moving away from chimpanzee research. We hope that the remaining private companies using chimps will get on board, so that the use of chimps in invasive experiments stops in both publicly and privately funded institutions.

Chimps don't belong in commercials, and they certainly don't belong in laboratories. It's good to see the signs that the larger society views it that way too.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Advocates for Humane Treatment Welcome Scrutiny, If It's Honest." This article was adapted from "Ending 'Commercial' Exploitation," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

In an era of sweeping change in communications, the long-standing principles of American journalism are being tested and challenged. Some journalistic principles are enduring, however, and for good reason. The enterprise depends on a commitment to establishing and reporting facts, and to communicating them with accuracy and fairness. This is a foundational component of a civil and democratic society.

This is one of the reasons for my disappointment in the tone of coverage given to The HSUS by more than a few members of the agricultural press over the last several years. Some writers with industry trade journals and other information outlets in the sector have settled into an unquestioning reliance upon false claims about The HSUS, including those being spun by public-relations operative Rick Berman, who's fought the medical community on tanning beds and trans fats, Mothers Against Drunk Driving on alcohol use and automobiles, unions on minimum wage issues, and anti-smoking groups on behalf of major tobacco companies.

At one level, it's a boon for an advocacy organization to have a Darth Vader-type adversary, since it reminds supporters of our effectiveness and the stakes. In the time that Berman has been conducting his brand attack, we've driven rather extraordinary changes in society and dramatically increased in size. He's an extreme example of the third-party players in American politics who will say just about anything to sow division and polarization, mainly to line their own pockets. [The Koch Brothers Are Still Trying to Break Wind (Op-Ed)]

At The HSUS, we don't expect everyone to agree with all of our positions, and we understand we'll get push-back on our attempts to stop extreme confinement of animals on industrialized farms, to stop tail-docking of cows, and to advance other limited reforms. We get it, and that's all part of the discourse and rough-and-tumble of debate about serious issues. It's also one of the reasons that we operate with such transparency, and are so active in communicating what we do and what we stand for.

Here are some specific elements of our governance and our approach that I'd ask you to consider:

• In addition to having hundreds of people in leadership on our national, state and issue councils, The HSUS is governed by a 27-member, unpaid, board of directors. That board includes the CEO of a Fortune 500 company; the retired managing partner of the Washington office of one of the biggest law firms in the United States; the former Secretary of the U.S. Senate; a Rhodes Scholar, Olympian, and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives; medical doctors who have spent their careers at Harvard and the Mayo Clinic; the CEOs of several major companies; and a host of other dedicated, sincere, and professionally successful people who are highly selective about their philanthropic commitments. These people not only care about animals, but they are sophisticated when it comes to matters of business and non-profit management. They take no money from The HSUS, and they are among its most generous donors. Not one of them would be party to malfeasance or misuse of funds, and certainly not all of them!  
• The caricatures of The HSUS — which has the highest ratings from Charity Navigator and the Better Business Bureau — as either a super-rich enterprise that drains money from animal shelters or an organization that is working to stop all animal use, are ludicrous on their face. The founders of The HSUS were consummate pragmatists, and one great, original purpose for the organization was to complement the work of local humane societies by working at a national level. It is no accident that as we have grown, so has the rest of the animal-welfare movement, with a proliferation of species-focused organizations and a general surge in the fortunes and professionalism of the sheltering and rescue communities. These other groups don't wish to see The HSUS duplicate their efforts, but to augment the broad work of animal protection in ways that they cannot.  
• For 60 years, The HSUS has been about protecting all animals, including, but not limited to, companion animals. Our magazine is called "All Animals," our website screams out "all animals," my daily blog covers the vast array of our programs affecting hundreds of species. It's all available for any discerning person — a supporter, a donor, a journalist, or a critic — to learn about our work. If we are misrepresenting ourselves as the group that runs local animal shelters, we sure have a funny way of showing it, shouting from the rooftops as we do about the many campaigns we run, including core initiatives on dog-fighting, puppy mills, whaling, sealing, gestation crates, bear baiting, lead ammunition, and dangerous exotics as pets — many of them issues that no local societies have the reach or the resources to work on. Why is it hard to believe that there are millions of Americans who care about fighting for the interests of all of these animals, as well as the companion animals we also help in so many ways?

• There are countless ways to help animal shelters and rescues that don't involve pass-through grants. We provide training and resources to professionalize the field, host the nation's largest trade show for animal shelter and rescue professionals, publish "Animal Sheltering" magazine and animalsheltering.org, and sponsor a national public-service advertising campaign together with Maddie's Fund and the Ad Council that, in the last three years, has resulted in more than $150 million in advertising to promote local shelters. When The HSUS conducts rescues of animals from puppy mills, dog-fighting operations, or cruelty or hoarding cases, we fill gaps in the nation's humane infrastructure or handle cases that might bankrupt some local groups.  
• The television ads that we run — which are a small part of our promotions — specifically include language that says "Local humane societies are independent from The HSUS." Could we be more clear? Throughout our website, this sort of language is reinforced: "Local humane societies and SPCAs are independent entities and are not run by The HSUS or any other national entity. The HSUS works with local humane societies and supports their work through training, evaluations, publications, and other professional services."  
• We have always done so much more than just help animal shelters, a core component of the animal-welfare movement, but just one part of it. While we've never laid claim to running every local shelter — and no group does nor could they ever perform such a task, since there are thousands of such groups — let me mention that the HSUS provides hands-on care to thousands upon thousands of animals, conducting an extraordinary range of programs. What's more, the domesticated animals pictured in our television ads were rescued or cared for by our staff, or were the subject of an investigation we conducted.

• Finally, let me ask how you'd react, as individuals who are proud of agriculture, if some animal advocate wrote a column saying the American Farm Bureau Federation was dishonest because it should be giving all of its money to individual farmers, or the National Pork Producers Council should give all of its money to individual pig farmers? It would be laughable, since these organizations have broader responsibilities to represent the interest of the entire industry. One would think that person extraordinarily naïve for making such an unsophisticated, unknowing claim about those organizations, right? It is no different when such a disingenuous charge is made about The HSUS and other national animal welfare groups.

The HSUS is highly scrutinized because it tackles tough, controversial issues. We talk about all the issues we focus on, we are the No. 1 animal-care provider in the United States, and we campaign aggressively to advance our animal-welfare agenda. Our adversaries would rather that we not focus on them, and we understand that. But this is who we are, and we're going to continue that work because we think that it's right and because that's what our members support. We are not troubled by critical questions, and we are always willing to answer them. And while we'll always deal with people who will try to define us in false ways, we'll continue to hope that serious-minded journalists — whether they work for an industry trade publication or a general news-gathering organization — will work to separate fact from fiction and treat the broad topic of animal welfare with the seriousness it deserves.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "In New York, the Age of Horse and Buggy Has Passed" This article was adapted from "An Open Letter to Agriculture Journalists and Leaders," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Live Science.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

In recent years, consumers have had a growing appetite for making conscious choices about what they eat, and moving the food marketplace toward more humane and sustainable production practices.

In October, the HSUS's board of directors met in Washington, D.C., along with our Humane Society International board colleagues and our national council and state councils, and one topic we took up was that shifting consumer landscape regarding food and agriculture. Nebraska cattle rancher Kevin Fulton gave a rousing speech about factory farming and how that system of production torments animals and unravels rural communities, receiving a standing ovation from HSUS members.

In the United States and Canada, The HSUS has demonstrated that consumers will respond and make more informed choices in the marketplace if there is compelling information about animal cruelty and personal and public health — as with gestation crates, veal crates and battery cages.

But it was particularly heartening to read the recent story on the front page of the Washington Post about how demand for shark fin soup has declined in China, perhaps by half, since the non-profit organization Wild Aid (along with student campaigns and outreach events held by Humane Society International and the Jane Goodall Institute China's Roots and Shoots program) mounted a consumer campaign there about the cruelty of finning — a publicity campaign that featured basketball icon Yao Ming. The seeming success of this campaign is a reminder that well-executed education efforts can produce change, even in the most challenging settings.

For the last couple of years, New York Times columnist Nick Kristof has been trying to wake up consumers about the evils of factory farming — specifically the overuse of antibiotics and misuse of animals, who are crammed into small cages and living in overcrowded, inhumane environments. Recently, Kristof tackled that topic again, writing movingly about his childhood experiences on the farm where he grabbed geese and delivered them to the chopping block, watching as "one goose would emerge from the flock and walk tremulously toward me, terrified but unwilling to abandon its mate. It would waddle after me toward the chopping block, trying to honk comfort to its mate."

Kristof argued that we should start to think about the lowly chicken, who is not as dull as we've been led to believe. We raise and kill nearly nine billion of them a year and they have been bred for ludicrously fast and unhealthy growth, and there are not even humane slaughter standards to guarantee them a merciful death. "[J]ust as we try to protect dogs and cats from undue suffering, without necessarily considering them our equals, it makes sense to minimize animal suffering more broadly when we can," he added. "So even when there are no salmonella outbreaks, there are good reasons to keep away from wretched birds raised in factory farms."

Factory farming is a model that can produce a major yield of animal protein, but it comes with enormous costs for animals and for the whole of society. Sensible people cannot be in denial any longer. The factory farms are a calamity for animals and for the planet, and these systems operate only because people tolerate them and buy up the farms' products.

We must do better, make more conscious choices, and bring a sense of urgency to how our daily lifestyle choices have such enormous consequences for the lives of other creatures. The HSUS promotes eating with conscience and we embrace the "Three Rs": reducing the consumption of meat and other animal-based foods; refining the diet by avoiding products from the worst production systems (e.g., switching to cage-free eggs); and replacing meat and other animal-based foods in the diet with plant-based foods. So this holiday season, be a conscious consumer. Consider planning a holiday menu focused on plant-based foods, or buy from a sustainable farmer.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "One Chimpanzee's Life is a Testament to Humanity" This article was adapted from "Food for Thought for Consumers," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

This has been a year of hope and tremendous progress for chimpanzees in laboratories, with pledges from the federal government to transfer hundreds of chimps to sanctuaries in the months ahead.

One chimp left the laboratory more than a decade and a half ago and lived her succeeding years in a sanctuary run by The Fund for Animals, an HSUS affiliate — but she will not see the new year. Kitty, the eldest of three chimps at the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, passed away peacefully recently at the age of 51.

Born in the wild in her native Africa, wildlife traders captured her at the age of 10. She was transported to the United States, and she was put into a breeding program to produce chimps for laboratory experiments. Over the course of her life, Kitty gave birth to 14 infants, including two sets of twins. All but four of Kitty's babies were immediately taken from her after birth. Kitty was retired from the breeding program in May, 1997, and arrived at Black Beauty Ranch on June 3, 1997. She lived her life at the sanctuary as the matriarch and leader of her group, which included Lulu, her best friend, and Midge, the youngest of the trio.

Kitty was one smart chimpanzee. She was always the first to explore the areas of her outdoor chimp habitat and the new forms of enrichment that her care team provided to make her time in captivity more stimulating. She was an expert at disassembling whatever contraption was designed to engage her. She also built elaborate nests made of blankets, boxes, hay and stuffed toys, leaving Midge with the scraps she left behind. Her care team always chuckled at Kitty's bedtime set-ups which also usually included a stash of snacks.

When her friend Lulu suffered a stroke, Kitty immediately stepped in and began to care for her by bringing snacks and magazines to her side. This came as no surprise. Kitty's files from her time in the breeding program were full of comments noting excellent maternal care. She was even put into a foster-mother program where she helped inexperienced chimps rear their babies.

Over the last few days as Kitty declined, Lulu was able to return the favor to her friend. Lulu gave Kitty her constant companionship until the end. For those of us who knew her, while our hearts are broken that Kitty is gone, we take comfort in knowing that she spent the last 16 years of her life around chimps and people who would do just about anything for her. She had security, friendship and love, with her basic needs provided to her. She knew the dark side of humanity, people who took her from her home in Africa as an adolescent, shipped her halfway around the world, and then conscripted her into a life as a breeding machine to feed a closed and harsh industry. But she also came to know human kindness and love, and those were surely her most recent memories.

We can never express fully how grateful we are to have known Kitty and how proud we are to have told her story — for her and for all of the other chimpanzees being used in laboratories, some of whom are her children and grandchildren. Kitty is survived by her offspring, her best friends Lulu and Midge and her Black Beauty Ranch family, led by Director Ben Callison.

"I have nothing to fear and here my story ends. My troubles are all over and I am at home," reads the inscription at the entrance to the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch. We made good on that promise to her. RIP.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Bringing an End to Bear Baying" This article was adapted from "Kitty 1962-2013," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Last month, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) put an end to the archaic and barbaric practice of bear "baying," three years after The HSUS released the results of an undercover investigation that showed dogs attacking a tethered, often declawed and defanged bear, with hundreds of people watching the spectacle just as they'd watch a dogfight or cockfight. Dozens of news outlets covered our original investigation, and there was a collective gasp that such a thing was both permitted and conducted.

Recently South Carolina's DNR announced that the six bears used in bear baying competitions had been relinquished to the agency and were safely transported to the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, Colo., where they will spend the remainder of their lives in peace.

At the bear baying events The HSUS investigated, handlers released dogs that successively attacked a tethered bear for hours. The supposed goal was for the dogs to corner the bear and keep her still, or "at bay." In reality, the dogs barked furiously at the terrified bear, jumping on her and biting her face and legs — and the bear fought back, swatting at the dogs. While similar spectacles take place in Pakistan, South Carolina was the only U.S. state known to host these cruel events.

Since The HSUS first saw the footage that our undercover investigators captured, we have been working — sometimes quietly behind the scenes — to rid the state of this disgraceful pursuit.

In September, the DNR arrested a man and filed felony charges against him for allowing dogs to repeatedly attack and bite a captive bear. As part of a plea deal, the owner surrendered three bears, which were among the six transported to Colorado. And in early October, The HSUS applauded DNR's entire law-enforcement team, who worked to investigate this activity and ensure that the bears were sent to a reputable sanctuary.

The six rescued bears range in age from 7 to 23 years. We don't know how many years of their lives were spent suffering in what must have been a terrifying existence, but today we are so thankful that we could pull back the curtain on this underground and shameful practice. It's another transformational HSUS investigation that resulted in people of conscience (in this case, law-enforcement personnel) taking action once the truth came to light.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Why is a University Accepting Random-Source Research Dogs?" This article was adapted from "Keeping Bear Baying at Bay," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Recently, a woman stuck her arm into a tiger enclosure at G.W. Exotic Animal Park — a notorious roadside zoo in Oklahoma run by Joe Schreibvogel — and had to be airlifted to a hospital to try to save what remained of her limb.

The HSUS investigated the facility with an undercover operative in 2011, and we found approximately 200 tigers and other dangerous exotic animals, public contact with these powerful wild animals,   and an operation with unstable leadership waiting to go belly up. Indeed, earlier this year Schreibvogel filed for bankruptcy on behalf of his personal estate and the park (which continues to do business as the Garold Wayne Interactive Zoological Park).

Our undercover investigation showed the park may have a greater number of dangerous exotic animals than any other roadside zoo in the nation. Schreibvogel operates the facility as a petting zoo that breeds tiger and bear cubs for the public to pet and play with for a fee. During our investigation, it was revealed that in 2011 alone, tigers from G.W. Exotic Animal Park bit three members of the public at a fair, a young girl was bitten on the leg during the "play cage" portion of a park tour, a tiger cub scratched a young child while he was posing for a picture with the animal, and a 20-week-old tiger knocked down and bit a small child.

In September, one other roadside zoo, the Las Vegas Zoo, closed its doors, placing the onus on the animal-welfare community to take the bulk of the animals — and bear another enormous expense for problems not of their own making.

Given that so many states have lax laws governing roadside zoos, allowing unaccredited people to possess all manner of wild animals, these unfortunate scenarios will continue to play out over and over again. This is why The HSUS is working nationwide to restrict the possession of dangerous wild animals in private homes and at unaccredited facilities like G.W. Exotic Animal Park and the Las Vegas Zoo. Both Oklahoma and Nevada have weak laws — or no laws — governing the keeping of tigers and other dangerous animals.

We have also filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prohibit public contact and close encounters with tigers and other big cats, bears and primates. The USDA is currently accepting comments and we urge you to show your support to finally put an end to these dangerous encounters.

Substandard roadside zoos, like the G.W. Exotic Animal Park, have no business possessing these creatures. It almost always turns out badly for the animals. And, typically, the animal-welfare community eventually picks up the tab for reckless people who casually pass off their problems to people who warned about these bad outcomes on the front end.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "North Carolina Puppy Mills Set Standard for Poor Quality " This article was adapted from "You Can't Hold a Tiger by the Tail," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Recently, the U.S. Senate gave final approval to a bill — backed by The HSUS and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) — that provides millions of dollars in federal funding to help transfer chimpanzees from laboratories to sanctuaries. Passing this legislation was essential for NIH to act upon its plan to retire nearly 90 percent of government-owned chimpanzees.

A team of Republicans and Democrats from both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate came together in an extraordinary show of support, including Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman, as well as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), its ranking minority member; and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), its ranking minority member.

Together, they passed legislation that will allow NIH the flexibility to proceed with using the funding, and give retired research chimpanzees the opportunity to live the remainder of their days in suitable sanctuaries.

The passage of this legislation, which was signed on Saturday by President Barack Obama, caps a remarkable series of successful initiatives executed by The HSUS and kick-started by an HSUS undercover investigation that broke on ABC News in March 2009. One of our brave investigators was hired by the largest primate laboratory, with the largest population of chimps, and found not only mistreatment, isolation and breeding of chimpanzees in violation of federal policy, but also long-term warehousing of chimps. Many of the chimps were not even being used in experiments. The question was: What's the point of keeping them in these deficient environments, and breeding more of them, if so many are not even used?

The investigation added fuel to the effort to get chimps out of labs, and The HSUS helped spearhead the effort, working with federal lawmakers, leaders at NIH, and with the U.S. Department of the Interior during the last four years. The final passage of the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (CHIMP) Act amendments was a milestone on a set of achievements with the promise of new lives for these great apes and an end to decades of persecution.

The turning point came when an expert panel of scientists — called to examine the value of chimpanzee research after The HSUS's allies in Congress requested the review — determined that the use of chimpanzees was "largely unnecessary." The panel said chimps had been useful in certain areas in the past, but that there now are other ways available to gather insights and information.

Some months later, NIH director Francis Collins accepted the recommendations and announced, in dramatic fashion, that NIH would in fact retire the vast majority of its government-owned chimpanzees to sanctuaries.

Then, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to a legal petition from The HSUS, the Jane Goodall Institute, and other groups, proposed that all chimps, including the captives, be listed as endangered — a more stringent standard of protection with consequences for people (including those at laboratories) who possess chimps.

As The HSUS and its allies gained ground in those areas, we realized that there was a limit on the amount of money in NIH's budget for sanctuary support, as per the CHIMP Act, which The HSUS helped to pass 13 years ago.

There was no similar restriction on funding for the housing of chimps in laboratories, so NIH was faced with the prospect of being forced to keep retired chimpanzees in barren lab cages rather than spend the money more efficiently on higher-welfare sanctuaries; this barrier not only threatened future retirement of chimpanzees, but funding for care of chimpanzees already retired at Chimp Haven in Louisiana, the national chimpanzee sanctuary.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment to the CHIMP Act that removed the barrier, and the Senate followed with swift, final approval. This decision came down to the wire — with sanctuary funding expected to run out quickly.

Meanwhile, The HSUS — thanks to its generous supporters — has donated more than $600,000 to chimp sanctuaries to support the movement of more chimps to those superior facilities.

All in all, it's an incredible example of what The HSUS brings to the animal movement: an ability to work with executive agencies as diverse as NIH and the Interior Department, to move legislation in Congress at a time when that body is viewed as dysfunctional, and partnering with hands-on groups (in this case, chimp sanctuaries) that are the right resting place for the retired animals.

We extend our thanks to so many of our supporters, but especially so to Jon Stryker, Audrey Burnand and Jane Goodall. And we thank many lawmakers and other public officials, with a special shout-out to NIH director Francis Collins for his incredible leadership on the issue.

Also, hats off to the many HSUS staff members who worked tirelessly on the issue for years — from the undercover investigator, to our communications team, to our Animal Research Issues department, to federal affairs and the animal protection litigation unit.

This is a good move for taxpayers, but it's also a reclaiming of society's humanity and our kinship with the great apes. They deserve not just survival, but peace — and now we are making that dream come true.

One final thought: All six original chimpanzee masterpieces featured in our Chimpanzee Art Contest were auctioned off on eBay between Nov. 4 and Nov. 14, raising more than $5,300 for the benefit of the North American Sanctuary Alliance. For more information on available prints, click here.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Why is a University Accepting Random-Source Research Dogs?" This article was adapted from "Great News for Great Apes," which first appeared on The HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

This has been a year of real progress in ending the use of carbon monoxide gas chambers in animal shelters. Texas banned chamber use on dogs and cats statewide; Mississippi and South Carolina have now closed what we believe to be their last working chambers; Michigan legislators are likely to pass a bill to outlaw chamber use; and Kansas is poised to promulgate regulations banning such chambers this fall.

Just last month, animal advocates closed two more carbon monoxide gas chambers in North Carolina and one in South Carolina, thanks to funding and support provided through The HSUS. We're working with every shelter and agency ready to shift away from carbon monoxide chamber use.

While we are working to end the use of inhumane methods of euthanasia in shelters, we are also working to end the euthanasia of healthy and adoptable cats and dogs altogether.

One effort The HSUS is very proud of is our work to promote the adoption of shelter animals. In honor of National Adopt a Shelter Dog Month last month, The HSUS and its partners — Maddie's Fund, the Ad Council and Halo Pet Foundation — released a video series called "Meet My Shelter Pet" to showcase the unique bonds between shelter pets and their adoptive owners. One of the videos features music man and Late Show with David Letterman band leader, Paul Shaffer — who leads The World's Most Dangerous Band, the CBS Orchestra. Shaffer, with his daughter Victoria, show off the lovable personalities of their four adopted dogs, Riley, Jake, Echo and Rue.

[From Animals, We Can Learn Generosity and Forgiveness (Op-Ed ) ]

The videos are part of The Shelter Pet Project, a public-service advertising campaign launched in 2009 to positively change the perception of shelter pets. Shelter-pet adoptions are on the rise in the United States. More than 17 million people will acquire a dog or cat within the next year, and each year, four million of those animals are adopted from shelters or rescues.

Despite such gains, however, 2.7 million healthy and treatable pets are still losing their lives in shelters each year.

The Shelter Pet Project's goal is to bring that number down to zero. To watch the videos or search for your next shelter pet, visit TheShelterPetProject.org.

Inhumane euthanasia is one of the long-standing problems for animal advocates — but day by day, and shelter by shelter, we are getting closer to where we all want to be.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Devastation in Philippines Draws Support for People and Pets" This article was adapted from "The World's Most Dangerous Band Promotes Shelter Pets," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Animal advocates have long cast a suspicious eye on the practices of the pet food industry with talk, over decades, about hidden ingredients in canned and dried goods containing horse meat, so-called 4-D meat (dead, downed, dying and diseased animals) and even the carcasses of euthanized dogs and cats from shelters.

Today, the nutritional content and safety of pet food is a mainstream concern, given growing consciousness about nutrition and healthy foods and the view that pets are family members. The pet-food market has grown dramatically, with some pet food companies even marketing organic food for dogs and cats.

But concern over pet food safety may now be at an all-time high, with a series of scandals that have claimed the lives of thousands of animals in recent years, and called into question the conduct and corner-cutting at some points in an often long and difficult-to-trace supply chain.

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new proposed standards governing oversight over the pet-food industry, calling for makers of animal food sold in the United States to develop written plans to prevent food-borne illnesses, like salmonella. Producers would need to put protective procedures into place at critical points in the production process where problems are likely to arise.

This much-needed upgrade of the regulatory framework comes as the FDA is still trying to determine the precise cause of a six-year spate of pet illnesses — involving more than 3,500 dogs, with nearly 600 known fatalities — apparently stemming from jerky-style pet treats.

This latest food-safety scare, while substantial, is small in comparison to the 2007 scandal that ultimately claimed the lives of thousands of dogs and cats. The source then was an ingredient maker in China that added melamine, an inedible compound used in plastics, into pet food. A company called Menu Foods, headquartered in Canada, then blended and packaged pet food under dozens of different labels that sickened and killed pets throughout North America.

It was that case that provided impetus to the U.S. Congress to update food-safety laws for the first time in decades, enacting the Food Safety Modernization Act and revamping portions of the Food Cosmetic and Drug Act. The FDA's recent proposal amounts to a rule-making, a partial follow up to the 2010 law that the Congress passed.

The FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) haven't overcome food-safety risks for people either — with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that 50 million Americans contract food-borne illnesses each year. And the recent efforts are preliminary steps to try to deal with pet-food safety issues. Those challenges are compounded by the difficulty of monitoring production practices in other countries. China is the biggest exporter of pet food consumed in the American market. [FDA Proposes New Rules for Pet and Animal Food ]

The new rule will be open for public comment for just a few months, and FDA has proposed it would become effective 60 days after the final rule is made available to the public. However, the agency is also proposing to allow businesses additional time to comply with the rule's requirements, ranging from one year to three years, depending on business size. The HSUS encourages pet owners to participate in this process, and we will be making it as easy as possible for you to do so. Be sure to check my Facebook page in the coming days for information on how you can submit your comments.

Ultimately, the best protection for pets will come from watchful pet owners. They can start with the HSUS pet-food safety webpage and sign up to receive our pet-of-the-week newsletter which includes new recall alerts.

Most importantly, be sure to avoid all jerky-style treats. In the end, consumers must demand that pet food manufacturers make it a priority not only to assure safe foods, but also more humanely produced animal products.

Given the concerns about pet treats, you might consider baking your own healthy dog treats as a precaution. Baking at home can save you money and be a fun experience for the entire family. Healthy recipes for treats your dog will love can be found at: humanesociety.org/dogs.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Hunt Club Auctions Opportunity to Kill Endangered Rhino." This article was adapted from "The Case of the Terrible Treats," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Recently, California has been in the spotlight for efforts to reform wildlife management and discard archaic practices, with Gov. Jerry Brown recently signing wildlife-protection bills into law.

For decades, The HSUS and its allies have campaigned vigorously to stop abusive trophy-hunting and commercial trapping practices — this year alone, we are leading the charge to stop the trophy hunting of wolves in Michigan and end the unsporting and inhumane practices of bear baiting, hounding and trapping in Maine.

On Oct. 2, Gov. Brown signed legislation to make California the first state in the nation to halt the use of lead ammunition in hunting. The HSUS led the fight, along with Audubon California and Defenders of Wildlife, besting the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and other hunting-rights lobby groups that called for the status quo and the continued incidental poisoning of countless birds and mammals, including endangered California condors, in the Golden State. Gov. Brown also signed legislation, on the same day, to forbid the trapping of bobcats around Joshua Tree National Park and other national parks and wildlife refuges — a second major wildlife victory.

The bobcat bill — Assembly Bill 1213, authored by Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) — was initiated by residents around Joshua Tree National Park. Those residents realized that commercial trappers were lining up on the park's boundaries and literally luring bobcats out of the park, where they are protected, and into cage traps. Trappers kill bobcats for their fur, which sells for as much as $700 a pelt on the international market — mainly in China, Greece and Russia. Los Angeles Times reporter Louis Sahagun broke the story earlier this year, featuring local residents who were appalled by the exploitation of the beautiful cats.

This issue has special meaning for me. In 1994, I worked hard lobbying to pass the California Desert Protection Act, which made Joshua Tree a national park and expanded the boundaries of the former national monument. Then in 1998, I helped lead Proposition 4, a California ballot initiative to ban the use of body-gripping traps to kill fur-bearing animals.

With those two policy gains, who would have thought that bobcats living mainly in Joshua Tree would still be at risk?

But animal exploiters are nothing if not resourceful, requiring constant vigilance on the part of animal advocates. So now it was our turn again to cut them off at the pass.

California already protected bobcats from steel-jawed leg-hold traps and snares; it banned trophy hunting of another big cat — the mountain lion; and it banned chasing bears and bobcats with packs of dogs — a gain The HSUS and its allies secured last year. It was time for the state to stop unscrupulous trappers from killing park-residing animals for nothing more than their pelts.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "As Constrictor Attacks Continue, Look to the Snake Trade" This article was adapted from "Roaring for Bobcats," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The horse slaughter industry is a global enterprise, with the sellers, transporters, slaughterers and packers often clandestinely going about their work of moving horses from stable to table.

In the United States, which has the world's largest horse population, there is broad opposition to horse slaughter, but federal and state policies don't yet square with popular sentiment. Each year, transporters ship tens of thousands of healthy American horses to Canada and Mexico for slaughter, and the industry is moving to resume slaughter plant operations on U.S. soil, as well.

That's been temporarily blocked by a series of legal actions by The HSUS and Front Range Equine Rescue. And we are working to turn around the broader problem by calling on Congress to pass the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act, which would ban horse slaughter in the United States, and also forbid the live export of American horses to our North American neighbors.

Our work to pass the SAFE Act has met resistance from the horse slaughter industry and from a number of agriculture organizations, which value the horses mainly as a commodity. Their side got a boost not long ago when the Navajo Nation's leader said he favored slaughtering horses as a way to deal with the large population of feral horses on the tribe's lands, which cover a physical area the size of West Virginia.

But more recently, Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly reversed course and abandoned his support for the inhumane practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption. We applaud him for working through this and supporting a better way of dealing with conflicts with horses.

"I am interested in long-term humane solutions to manage our horse populations," Shelly told Fernanda Santos of the New York Times. "Our land is precious to the Navajo people as are all the horses on the Navajo Nation. Horses are sacred animals to us."

Major credit also goes to former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for brokering the deal. Richardson, who also served as former U.N. ambassador and as the U.S. Secretary of Energy, is one of the most effective and outspoken animal advocates among the nation's political leaders.He helped outlaw cockfighting in New Mexico and upgraded many other state laws; he also played a major role in protecting former laboratory chimpanzees at the Alamogordo Primate Facility and in aiding the effort to get the National Institutes of Health to agree to phase out their use of chimps in laboratories.

Now he's turned his attention to horse slaughter, and he and actor Robert Redford, working with Animal Protection of New Mexico and the Foundation to Protect New Mexico's Wildlife, have had a major impact. Richardson and Redford also joined The HSUS's federal lawsuit to block horse-slaughtering plants from opening in New Mexico and Iowa.

The Navajo Nation has set a good example by turning to humane long-term solutions instead of resorting to ruthless treatment of horses. The HSUS stands ready to work with them to develop and implement sustainable programs for managing a horse population that everyone can live with, including the horses themselves. We send our great thanks to President Shelley and to Gov. Richardson, and hope that their form of problem-solving provides inspiration to Congress to get to the task of protecting American horses from slaughter, at home and elsewhere throughout North America.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "As Constrictor Attacks Continue, Look to the Snake Trade" This article was adapted from "Navajos Say Hold Your Horses on Slaughter," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

A New York area animal control officer, under investigation for workers' compensation fraud, attracted headlines last month after law enforcement discovered that he had 850 snakes, including Burmese pythons, in his garage. Richard Parrinello was selling pythons and boa constrictors as pets over the Internet, even though state law forbids the possession of certain species.

It's an extraordinary circumstance, but hardly unique. There are millions of large constricting snakes traded via the Internet through private dealers like Parrinello, at reptile shows, and also at pet stores. In so many cases, those pet dealers are keeping the snakes in warehouse-type conditions, often inside exceptionally small, stacked, plastic containers no larger than a shoe or sweater box, and selling them through websites and at reptile expos.

It's not good for the snakes, and there are all sorts of collateral impacts, mainly public-safety and ecological effects.

Every day, I hear about incidents of snakes on the loose in some community — in recent days, there were incidents in Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Vermont. A few weeks ago, two young boys were strangled to death by an African rock python in New Brunswick, Canada. And last week, there was a Siberian Husky strangled by a rock python believed to be from an established population of this highly dangerous, non-native snake in Miami-Dade County, Fla., as the dog's owners frantically and helplessly tried to break the vise-like grip of the snake. The family is now grieving and have attested that it was one of the most traumatic experiences of their lives.

At The HSUS, we've logged hundreds of incidents, such as attacks, escapes, or intentional releases of pythons, boa constrictors or anacondas, reported in nearly every state in the country. They've turned up in apartment buildings, gardens, vehicles and high-school football fields.

They're also showing up in natural areas, wreaking havoc for native species. Some studies report massive losses of opossums, raccoons and even bobcats in the Everglades, probably due to large, self-sustaining populations of non-native snakes in south Florida. The original pythons who became established in the state almost certainly were pet-trade cast-offs or escapees.

Eighteen months ago, the administration of President Barack Obama took a half-step on the issue, banning trade in four of nine large, constrictor snakes. It was the clamoring of reptile breeders and snake owners, and their ludicrously exaggerated reports of economic losses, that prevented the White House from taking more comprehensive action. A risk assessment done by the U.S. Geological Survey found nine snake species posing a medium or high risk of colonizing habitats and causing impacts on native species. Yet the administration banned trade in only four species of constricting snakes. Since then, trade has, for the most part, shifted to the other five species.

We need a federal policy prohibiting the import and interstate transport of the other five species for the pet trade. Why risk the lives of people and animals, put law enforcement and other first responders in unnecessary danger, jeopardize highly sensitive ecosystems and species we are working to recover, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars in terms of exotic animal control, just because some people want these types of exotic wildlife in their homes?

The Second Amendment doesn't say a word about the right to possess anacondas or boa constrictors. And the costs to society far exceed the benefits.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "When People and Wildlife Conflict, Humane Solutions Work Best" This article was adapted from "Snakes on Planes, in Garages, and Everywhere Else," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The work of The HSUS is grounded on a couple of core principles: animals have the capacity to suffer, and we humans have the capacity to help them. We hold all the power over animals, and our choices and conduct have enormous consequences for them. And it's hardly some far-off or abstract concern, since they live in our communities, as pets and wild neighbors, and they are enmeshed in so many sectors of our economy and society, whether in food production, fashion, science or wildlife management.

That statement is from a blog I posted earlier this year. Those aren't just words, but a call to action.

At The HSUS, one of the important steps we've taken to provide a better outcome for wild animals in our neighborhoods is to expand a business, Humane Wildlife Services, that we created to provide homeowners, companies, municipalities and communities with humane solutions to conflicts with wildlife.

The idea was to provide a more enlightened and forward-looking approach to the work being carried out largely by the so-called "nuisance wildlife control" industry, which has a strong hold on strategies and commerce in this sector. Businesses in this field vary in size and ethics, but the dominant mindset is to trap and kill or to trap and relocate. Most companies do not search for or try to reunite dependent young, and many do not close up entry points or otherwise solve wildlife problems at their source.

Both animals and humans end up losers — and for animals, often fatally so. And while many of those businesses market themselves as humane, they overstate threats posed by wildlife in our proximity, they sometimes mislead homeowners about the nature of the problems they face and the available solutions, and they too often mischaracterize what the law allows regarding their disposition.

Unfortunately, homeowners and businesses often believe that lethal conflict resolution to, say, a wild animal nesting nearby or in a home, is the only option they have.

Since creating The HSUS Humane Wildlife Services program in 2007 as a fee-for-services business, we have proved that a better approach is possible and preferable — not only sparing animals and solving the concerns of property owners, but instilling in neighborhoods a fresh appreciation of the wild animals among us.

Our goal is to show that humane methods are not only more effective, but commercially viable. Animals can be evicted from "human-built environments," parent animals can be reunited with their dependent young and structures can be wildlife-proofed to prevent future conflicts. Those who have worked with our service attest to being amazed at the insight they gain into the ways of nature, which is all part of the deal.

That's what I call a success story in the evolving development of the humane economy.

Whether it is a squirrel living in an attic, a raccoon in a chimney, a beaver damming a road culvert or geese loafing at the local marina, these conflicts can be successfully resolved without killing.

Our most recent raccoon videoexemplifies our approach — and some of our innovative uses of cameras and reuniting protocols — which led to a humane and effective solution for one of our customers. We hope it's an approach that will continue to spread throughout the country, and be taken up by local humane organizations and other providers over time.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Cat Overpopulation Spawning Novel Rescue Approach" This article was adapted from "What's Possible for Possums, Best for Beavers, and Good for Gophers," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Every now and then the animal advocacy movement has an "aha" moment — when new information emerges or new thinking causes us to question long-held assumptions, or even how we approach the complex challenges facing animals in our society.

We had one such moment at The HSUS a few years ago, when, during the Hurricane Katrina crisis, we saw so many un-spayed and un-neutered dogs and cats in the Gulf Coast states. Rather than presume "pet-owner irresponsibility," we instead dug in to find out why — deploying researchers to conduct surveys and focus groups and to gather and examine data. What we learned from that research — notably that socioeconomics, resources and access to services were at the heart of the problem — ultimately formed the core principles behind our pioneering Pets for Life program. People in neighborhoods with high numbers of stray animals are as receptive as anyone else to responsible pet ownership and the importance of spaying and neutering. Giving them the tools to act on their beliefs is the key to better outcomes.

Our movement may be at the front end of another aha moment with regard to how we respond to the un-owned outdoor cat population. When these so-called "community cats" arrive in shelters — whether brought there by "nuisanced" or well-meaning neighbors — their fate is often predetermined, and it's not a good one. What's more, the volume of cats coming into shelters isn't enough to reduce the size of the cat population, and the only conclusion is that we aren't doing much to help curb nuisances, cruelty or predation on wildlife.

Dr. Kate Hurley, a veterinarian and the director of the Koret Shelter Medicine Program at the University of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, joined me and several other sheltering leaders on stage at this year's Animal Care Expo to take a deeper look at this situation — questioning whether the goals of animal shelters are met by the intake of otherwise healthy stray cats. (Dr. Hurley penned the cover story in the current edition of Animal Sheltering magazine and recorded a Maddie's Fund webinar on the same topic, which I recommend to you for further investigation.)

I asked Dr. Hurley and her colleague, Dr. Jennifer Scarlett, veterinarian and co-president of the San Francisco SPCA, to help me answer a few of the most common questions that have come up as animal advocacy organizations navigate toward a new paradigm for community cats — one that holds the potential to be better for cats, wildlife and people.

Wayne Pacelle: Though total numbers have gone down over the last 40 years pretty dramatically, we are still euthanizing too many healthy and treatable dogs and cats in our country. Euthanasia rates vary by region, but increasingly, there is a widening gap between dogs and cats, in terms of outcomes for them. Cats are dying in shelters in big numbers, and especially so as a percentage of intake of cats. What's behind this phenomenon?

Jennifer Scarlett: When we look at statewide data in California from 1998 to 2010, we see a trend of dog intake going down and dog adoption and transfer to rescue going up. The result is a 22 percent drop in dog euthanasia over that period. For cats, their intake was slightly higher in 2010 with negligible change in adoption or transfer to rescue. So with more coming in and fewer leaving, and a euthanasia rate of around 70 percent, the situation has not improved. We've applied the same techniques for dogs and cats in shelters and what we're learning is that not only do we need to treat them very differently once they enter a shelter, but we also need to look at different methods for keeping healthy cats out of the shelter in the first place.

Kate Hurley: A lot of it likely has to do with ownership. The population of un-owned cats in the United States is estimated to be approximately the same size as the population of owned cats, yet historically shelter programs such as low-cost spay/neuter, public education and adoption programs have targeted animals with owners or those that could be placed into homes. Because the un-owned population of dogs is relatively small in the U.S., this strategy has been quite successful in many communities. However, for feral and un-owned cats, we need a different strategy.

WP: What shelter policies need to be revamped to turn this around?

JS: The vision for shelters must be to provide a temporary safe-haven for animals in need. The policy to get there is to balance our optional intake of animals (owner surrenders, healthy stray cats) with our ability to provide them with good care and positive outcomes.

KH: For years, shelters have struggled to control the un-owned cat population primarily through euthanasia. Now that we have better estimates of the size of the un-owned cat population, we realize that shelters have only been impacting a tiny fraction of the total population through euthanasia — not nearly enough to reduce the overall population size, not enough to protect public health, wildlife, reduce the cat population or serve any of the other goals we might have hoped to realize through this practice. Now that we understand this, shelters can set euthanasia aside as a tool to control cat populations and focus on other alternatives — most notably, shelter/neuter/return — where healthy un-owned cats that would not be candidates for adoption are sterilized, vaccinated for rabies, ear-tipped and returned to the same location where they were found. Shelters can also help community members find strategies to co-exist with cats peaceably, just as we do with other creatures such as raccoons and opossums that might make an unwanted appearance in somebody's back yard.

WP: Where do we start in making these changes, and what obstacles do you expect in trying to implement these ideas?

JS: There isn't a 'one-size fits all' solution. To begin, each shelter has to take an objective look at their capacity to provide positive outcomes for the animals that enter their facility. The common thread is to reduce intake, but the tactics for change can run the spectrum from managed intake to diverting all healthy cat intake to neuter and re-release, depending on the community. I believe the first obstacle to tackle is within our profession. Making the shift to control shelter populations at the front door may be a huge cultural change for some communities. Leaders who decide this is the best solution for their community have to be ready to invest a lot of work and communication to get their staff's buy-in, respond to the public's concern and be willing to work with local wildlife advocates. The good news is that results will be worth it.

KH: I agree with Dr. Scarlett. One of the biggest obstacles for me, and I suspect for many others — both within the sheltering profession and for animal lovers and advocates in general — will be getting past the idea that admission to a shelter is always the best option for a cat who is homeless or whose owner can no longer keep him or her. For so long, it was commonly felt that shelters had to take every cat presented, as soon as it was presented, regardless of the shelter's ability to provide humane care or ensure a good outcome. Anyone who has worked a summer in a shelter can tell you this is stressful for staff and volunteers, as well as cats! Instead, we need to consider each cat's unique circumstances and balance these with what is happening at each shelter on any given day. When admission of a cat would cause over-crowding, poor conditions for cats in the shelter, or result in euthanasia of the newly admitted cat or another already in the shelter, then cats, shelters and communities are better served by finding alternative solutions. This could range from simply scheduling an appointment rather than immediately admitting the cat; to admitting the cat for sterilization, vaccination and return to its habitat; to offering a community member or owner other alternatives to shelter intake, such as utilizing low-cost spay/neuter resources in the community, using non-lethal deterrents to resolve nuisance problems, behavioral counseling, neighbor mediation, or any number of solutions we can offer when systems are not overwhelmed.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Gestation Crates Have No Place in U.S. Food Production (Op-Ed )" This article was adapted from "Are We Herding and Hurting Cats?," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Tens of thousands of dogs suffering in substandard, filthy and overcrowded cages for years on end finally will get the protection they deserve as a result of a rule the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) formally adopted earlier this month. That change, a long-held aspiration for The HSUS, the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), and the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL), has been decades in the making, and will extend federal oversight to thousands of puppy mills that do business online.

Of the dozens of puppy mills that The HSUS has helped close down during the past five years, the vast majority were selling puppies online, thus escaping federal oversight due to a loophole in federal Animal Welfare Act regulations that exempts Internet sellers.

Because large-scale dog breeders who sell animals to pet stores are regulated, but breeders who sell directly to the public are not, there has been a massive migration of breeders to the latter sales strategy within the last decade or so. If they could sell dogs and escape any federal oversight, why not get in on that act and continue to cut corners on animal care ?

The HSUS, HSLF and DDAL pointed out that it was fundamentally unfair that people involved in the same underlying business enterprise (breeding dogs to sell for profit) would face entirely different regulatory standards. It was a circumstance ripe for fraud and misrepresentation. Internet sellers of puppies often displayed images of puppies frolicking in open fields, while, in reality, the dogs were languishing, crammed inside feces-encrusted cages, receiving no protection from the elements and no veterinary care whatsoever. And until the legal standard was modified, the federal government couldn't take action because none of these mills required federal licensing and inspection.

Due to pressure from The HSUS and DDAL, the USDA's inspector general looked into enforcement of the rules governing dog breeding, and found appalling abuses of the dogs, deficient exercise of authority by USDA where it had authority, and identification of the glaring gap in the law that allowed Internet sellers to evade any federal oversight. It was the inspector general's report, combined with advocacy efforts by The HSUS and its allies in Congress and with the administration of President Barack Obama, that finally compelled federal action.

We thank the Obama administration and the USDA for bringing new standards of care to thousands of puppies, but also to kittens, rabbits and other warm-blooded animals who often are raised in inhumane facilities and sold as pets over the Internet, by mail or by phone, sight-unseen.

The HSUS and HSLF called on supporters to act in 2011, and 32,000 people signed a petition urging the Obama administration to crack down on unregulated puppy mills. When the USDA proposed an actual change in its regulations in 2012, HSUS members and other animal advocates generated 350,000 public signatures and comments in support.

There has been strong bipartisan support in Congress for closing the "Internet loophole" in the Animal Welfare Act regulations. Federal legislation, S. 395 and H.R. 847 — known as the PUPS Act, or "Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act" — sponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. and David Vitter, R-La. and Reps. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., Sam Farr, D-Calif., Bill Young, R-Fla. and Lois Capps, D-Calif., galvanized members of Congress to support efforts to finalize and implement the rule.

Puppy mills will not go away overnight, and it's still important for any potential puppy buyer to meet the breeder in person at his or her facility to see how and where a puppy was born and raised.

But this rule has the potential to allow federal inspectors to peer behind the closed doors of puppy mills, and improve the lives of tens of thousands of animals. That is a change worth celebrating, and we thank our supporters, the USDA, and our allies in Congress for supporting this significant step.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "States Take Steps to Prevent Zombie Deer and Poisoned Condors" This article was adapted from "USDA Announces Landmark Rule to Crack Down on Online Puppy Mills," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

It's been a remarkable 18-month period when it comes to the movement to combat the intensive confinement of animals on factory farms.

The public, major food retailers, numerous producers and so many lawmakers have turned against the idea of allowing immobilization of animals as a customary animal-production practice.

Recently, USA Today not only condemned the farm bill amendment introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — which seeks to nullify state laws banning extreme confinement of animals and standards on food safety and animal welfare — but also affirmed its support for federal legislation to ban the extreme confinement of laying hens in barren battery cages.

But perhaps the biggest story of the period has been the repudiation of gestation crates — confinement cages for breeding sows in the pig industry — by the nation's major food sellers. After McDonald's announced its plan to phase out the crates in February 2012, Burger King, Safeway, Costco, Cracker Barrel, Sodexo and about 50 other major food retailers followed suit.

After seeing the top-eight supermarket chains in Canada make a similar announcement, the National Farm Animal Care Council, a semi-governmental standard-setting body in the country, issued a preliminary plan to ban any new construction of gestation crates in 2014 and to phase out current crates, as well. That means all 10 provinces in Canada may phase out gestation crates if the policy is made final.

In the United States, New Jersey lawmakers aligned themselves with legislators in nine other states and overwhelmingly voted earlier this year to ban gestation crates. But surprisingly, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed that bill.

Recently, in a press conference with state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, the author of the bill in New Jersey, I joined colleagues in the animal-protection movement in asking lawmakers to affirm their original votes to ban gestation crates. The senate, following Lesniak's lead, voted 35 to 1 in favor of S. 1921, and the assembly voted 60 to 5.

Democrats and Republicans, by commanding majorities, favored this common-sense, humane policy of not confining sows in tiny crates. All animals deserve humane treatment, including those raised for food. It's wrong to immobilize animals in cages so small that the creatures cannot even turn around.

The HSUS is now launching a $150,000 advertising campaign in the state asking for lawmakers to uphold their original determination on this legislation. If they do, they'll succeed in overriding an unfair and inexplicable veto. New Jersey is one of the leading animal welfare states in the nation, and New Jersey lawmakers want to build on that record by enacting S. 1921.

This article originally appeared as "Putting the Override Effort in Overdrive"which first appeared as on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Recently, decision-makers in two of the nation's largest states gave the thumbs-up to critical policies for preventing the incidental death of wildlife.

If passed, one in California will help stop the random, mass-poisoning of wildlife by phasing out the dispersal of lead ammunition by sport hunters, and the other, in Florida, will help prevent the spread of a dangerous brain-eating disease called chronic wasting disease (CWD), which appears to be linked to captive deer-killing operations.

Earlier this month, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, a powerful policy-making body with members appointed by the governor, passed an HSUS-backed rule prohibiting imports of deer and other cervids for stocking at game farms. The state has an estimated 300 deer farms where the animals are raised to be killed for meat and other body parts, and about a dozen captive-hunting facilities where deer are offered up as targets in captive hunts.

Colorado, Wisconsin, and 20 other states have tested and discovered deer and other cervids with CWD — a deadly, incurable brain-wasting illness similar to mad-cow disease. Since 2002, Wisconsin has spent at least $40 million to contain the disease, including engaging in mass slaughter of deer in certain parts of the state.

Chronic wasting disease can survive in the soil for years after it has separated from its mammalian host. Many outbreaks of CWD have been traced to captive cervids, and state wildlife managers are deeply concerned that these zombie deer will infect free-roaming deer, which are at the center of the states' multi-billion-dollar sport hunting programs. Eighteen states now have a complete ban on the importation of live cervids, and seven states have a partial ban. A number of Florida hunting groups, in addition to the Florida Veterinary Medical Association, supported the state-wide ban.

On the West Coast, Gov. Jerry Brown can make California the first state to phase out the use of lead ammunition for hunting by signing Assembly Bill 711. The HSUS, Audubon California and Defenders of Wildlife led the charge to pass this bill, introduced by Assembly members Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento). The bill is based on hard data revealing that that more than 130 species, including endangered California condors, are vulnerable to poisoning by lead ammunition left behind by hunters, either in the entrails of animals that are shot or simply dispersed on the ground. One study puts the nationwide lead-related death toll for mourning doves — alone — to be more than 10 million birds. It's a staggering collateral toll.

Chuck Bonham, the director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, backed the bill, along with a number of rank-and-file hunters. All of the state's major hunting groups, however, opposed the bill, even though non-toxic forms of ammunition are available, affordable and in use. In fact, waterfowl hunters made the switch to non-toxic shot more than two decades ago.

Committed conservationists and animal-welfare advocates know it is wrong to allow random poisoning of wildlife. It is inimical to any sound principle of wildlife management. Bullets should not keep killing long after they've left the barrel of a firearm.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Dogs to Prairie Dogs, Animals Need Rescue from Disaster" This article was adapted from "States Take Steps to Prevent Zombie Deer and Poisoned Condors," which first appeared on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The HSUS responds to natural disasters and human-caused crises for animals — whether hurricanes, tornadoes, puppy mills or hoarding cases — to help dogs, cats, horses and other animals at risk.

But the span of those efforts is wider than you may think, in terms of species diversity and geography — recently, helping prairie dogs from the floods in Colorado and camels in Egypt.

The recent flooding in Colorado has been eerily reminiscent of the early days of Katrina. Families stranded, communication shut off and homes and whole communities destroyed. One difference, as seen over and over on the news, was the welcome sight of pets, as well as people, being picked up — by pontoon boat, helicopter or canoe — and delivered to safety. [What is a 100-Year Storm? ]

The disastrous flooding appears to have resulted in seven human fatalities, hundreds unaccounted for, and nearly 12,000 residents evacuated across four counties. And on top of this, more than 1,500 homes have been destroyed and more than 17,000 were damaged. Local agencies and groups have been working tirelessly around the clock to rescue, shelter and care for the thousands of displaced Coloradans, including their pets and farm animals.

The HSUS's Prairie Dog Coalition, with our team leader based in Boulder, Colo., was in the field in Boulder County over the weekend, saving prairie dogs trapped in flooded areas, many of them combating hypothermia. In just one day, they rescued 45 prairie dogs from the freezing waters, and now have them recovering safe and warm — ready for a new home when conditions improve. See the Prairie Dog Coalition in action in this video.

At the same time, The HSUS is also halfway around the world, for a particularly human-caused crisis — the political turmoil in Egypt. Because the ongoing political unrest has kept foreign visitors away for many months, horses, donkeys and camels who once carried tourists around the pyramids are starving because, with no money coming in, their owners can't afford to provide for them.

Now, Humane Society International and several other non-governmental organizations have stepped in to fund the efforts of the Egyptian Society of Animal Friends to offer relief.

Despite violence in the streets and days of extreme heat, ESAF has been able to feed and offer veterinary attention to nearly 2,000 animals during a four-week period in the districts of Nazlet El-Semman and Kafr El Gabal.

Too often, animals are caught up as innocent victims when natural or human-caused disasters disrupt their lives and the lives of their caretakers — but rescuers stand ready to respond.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "A Blueprint for Ending the Euthanasia of Healthy Animals" This article was adapted from "Helping Animals Weather the Rain and Political Storms," which first appeared as on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

At The HSUS, we are working to end the euthanasia of healthy and treatable dogs and cats. Only about five million of the eight million dogs and cats who enter shelters today make it out alive.

Though these are better ratios than in years prior, there's still so much life-saving work ahead. Any business or enterprise with that kind of failure rate needs to conduct self-examination, challenge orthodoxies and find new ways to improve outcomes.

That's why I'm so pleased to share and promote the results of path-breaking work done during the last 18 months by key stakeholders in California. Despite being the most progressive state with respect to animal welfare policy — including a state law that no adoptable or treatable animal shall be euthanized — California shelters still take in nearly a million dogs and cats a year, with 40 percent, or 400,000, dying (150,000 dogs and 250,000 cats).

Emotionally and morally troubled by these results, and spurred by annual state budget confrontations over funding for state-mandated shelter holding periods, The HSUS worked to develop a solution alongside other leaders representing a cross-section of animal-welfare community organizations in California. Those partners include leaders of municipal shelters, rescue groups, private foundations and local and national nonprofit organizations.

The group solicits input from a wide range of opinions from animal-care professionals and has reviewed15 years of data, policies and practices from agencies around the state. The results, which include 23 best practices and legislative recommendations aimed at improving outcomes for homeless animals in California, were released last week in a draft white paper, introductory video and listening-tour launch.

Highlights from the draft recommendations include the following:

• Intake reduction — People often turn animals in to shelters without a realistic understanding of an animal's likelihood of survival or before making any effort to find an alternate home for their pet.
• Standards and practices —How shelters care for and move animals through their facility influences how those animals find homes. Maintaining records to help owners reclaim pets, moving animals as quickly as possible toward placement and working collaboratively with rescue groups are some of the answers.
• Cats — Outcomes for dogs are improving, but not for cats. There must be an overhaul in the way shelters approach management of cat populations. The latest issue of Animal Sheltering magazine touches on some of the solutions.
• Budget —Shelters need adequate resources to get the job done. We can get there by ensuring better compliance with state dog-licensing laws and also propose changes to government contracting formulas that currently reimburse some shelters based on the number of animals handled rather than on what happens to the animals (e.g., the number leaving the shelter alive and other outcome-based measures).

If you live in California, please join our state director at one of the listening-tour sessions coming up this month and next. The paper is a draft and they want to hear from you. What'd they miss? What'd they get wrong? What'd they get right? What else could be done at this moment where the focus is on making major changes?

Whether you're a resident of California or not, this document is a roadmap to get us past euthanasia of  healthy dogs and cats. That's a core goal of the humane movement, and it's about time we get there.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Can Farmers Cry Wolf and then Pocket the Cash?" This article was adapted from "'A Blueprint for Ending Euthanasia of Healthy Companion Animals," which first appeared as on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

There's something rotten in Michigan — and the stench is coming from one rogue farm in the western portion of the Upper Peninsula. Based on state documents obtained through Michigan's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and an analysis of those documents conducted by the National WolfWatcher Coalition and Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, four-fifths of the livestock killed by wolves in the western management unit (96 animals out of 120) come from this one farm. The documents make plain that the owner of this farm is engaging in unsound, sloppy — and perhaps even criminally inhumane — practices.

The story told in the FOIA documents broke late last month in the Marquette Mining Journal and on Michigan Public Radio. Even though state law already allows the killing of individual wolves threatening livestock or pets, the state senator from this region has shepherded two bills through the Michigan legislature to allow trophy hunting of gray wolves — right after they were Gray Wolf May Lose Endangered Species Status . There are only about 650 wolves in the entire state, and that number is down from the wolf census two years ago.

There are only about 650 wolves in the entire state, and that number is down from the wolf census two years ago.

There were 11 farms that reported wolf problems in the western region of the Upper Peninsula, with most of them having only a single incident. In an investigation conducted this past winter, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) found that the owner of that one farm, John Koski, did not live on the farm and did not provide proper care for his cattle, failing even to remove dead animals — allowing their carcasses to attract predators. The state provided three "guard" donkeys to him for free, yet DNR officials found two of them dead, and the third one was in poor condition. Koski also failed to use fencing as a protective mechanism, even though the state also provided that to him at no cost.

Koski was even paid for the livestock "losses" he sustained, pocketing $33,000 of the $40,000 paid out by the wildlife management unit.

It doesn't take too much deductive reasoning to figure out what's at work here: proponents of hunting and trapping wolves for trophies and for their pelts used Koski as a poster child for their hunt, citing enormous losses from wolves. What they didn't tell people was that the vast majority of all incidents involving wolves occurred on one farm, which was clearly exhibiting the worst management practices and inviting predators or other animals onto the farm by leaving rotting animal carcasses around. It essentially amounts to a wolf-baiting situation, and then crying crocodile tears when the wolves show up for a free meal.

The people who want to kill wolves don't want to admit that their agenda is driven by an irrational hatred and a lack of understanding of wolves. They try to dress up their policy goal of wolf-killing in socially beneficial terms. Specifically, they say the hunt will protect farmers.

The fact is, the state already allows the killing of problem wolves. And the state provides free tools to farmers having wolf conflicts and compensates them for the very infrequent losses that occur. Random killing of wolves in the forests and wilderness won't do a thing to further mitigate the remote likelihood of a wolf incident. Sound animal husbandry practices are the solution.

Wolves are an economic and ecological boon to the state, driving wildlife-oriented tourism and keeping prey populations in balance, thereby reducing crop losses and automobile collisions involving deer. That's why The HSUS urges all Michiganders to support two referenda — one to nullify the wolf trophy hunting season set to start in November, and the other to restore the rights of voters to have a say on wildlife management policies and deny the unelected political appointees at the Natural Resources Commission from having all authority to open new hunting and trapping seasons on protected species. To get involved, visit www.keepwolvesprotected.com.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Sharks Gain Protections in India, Will U.S. Follow Suit?" This article was adapted from "'Crying Wolf and Pocketing the Cash," which first appeared as on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed is adapted from a post on the blog A Humane Nation, where the content ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Last week, a federal appellate court rejected arguments from business groups challenging California's ban on shark fins as discriminatory and at odds with federal fisheries laws. Surprisingly, the Obama administration had filed a brief in support of shark-fin dealers and their bid to immediately enjoin implementation of the California law.

The panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's January decision to keep California's shark-fin law in place until a final judgment on the legal claims from shark-finning proponents is issued. It's a big preliminary win for the state of California and for The HSUS, which considers the sale of shark fins to be in the same category as selling ivory trinkets or elephant tusk — all cruel, unnecessary and deeply wasteful treatments of animals who are vital to their ecosystems and to ecotourism.

Meanwhile, Humane Society International (HSI) is making great gains globally on the shark-finning issue. Two days ago, India's Ministry of Environment and Forest, which operates under the authority of the Central Government of India, brought into force a 'fins naturally attached' policy to prohibit shark finning. The policy makes it illegal for any fishermen to land sharks anywhere on the coasts of India without their fins naturally attached to the body.

Given that the Pew Environment Group has ranked India as second, globally, in its haul from shark-fishing — from individual fishermen hauling all the sharks they can accommodate onto narrow hand-built catamarans to large fishing fleets with dedicated shark fishing trawlers — this is a monumental victory.

That victory came about because earlier this year, HSI India began a dialogue with India's Ministry of Environment and Forests in collaboration with the Association of Deep Sea Going Artisanal Fishermen, the country's largest shark-fishing community.

More than 66 species of sharks are reportedly found in the Indian seas. Fishermen have killed millions of sharks each year in Indian waters to export the fins to East Asia, Southeast Asia, and even Europe and the United States. Reports from India's Marine Products Development Authority have shown that from 2010 to 2011, India's export of shark fins to China alone was 101 metric tons.

Despite what may be unsustainable levels of killing, India had not put into place any concrete measures for the management of its shark populations. Even India's Wildlife Protection Act, which offers the highest level of protection to 10 species of sharks, including the whale shark, had so far proved insufficient for safeguarding these animals from commercial killing. By imposing the highest level of penalties upon any fishermen found with detached fins, the ministry has taken bold steps forward in safeguarding sharks.

While the government of India has made a bold proclamation, the Obama administration is moving in the opposite direction, specifically by seeking to nullify nearly a dozen state and Pacific-territory laws to crack down on the sale and possession of shark fins. In the case of the California law, the administration maintains it "obstructs the use of fishery resources lawfully obtained in federal waters."

The ruling by the federal courts is a boon to The HSUS efforts to defend state laws, and we hope the administration takes this important signal from the courts and gets back on the right side of this issue.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "Dogfighting Bust, 3 Years in the Making, Marks Transformational Change". This article was adapted from "'Fintastic' Outcomes for Sharks," which first appeared as on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed first appeared on the blog A Humane Nation, where it ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

While The HSUS provides an extraordinary amount of direct-care to animals, our biggest impact is felt through our cruelty-prevention programs — whether that's done by cracking down on puppy mills, factory farms or Canada's seal hunt, or other initiatives that take aim at institutionalized or systemic forms of animal exploitation.

One such effort is aimed at ending the use of lead ammunition in hunting. Specifically, in California, The HSUS is backing a bill to phase in a requirement that hunters use non-lead ammunition. The assembly passed the bill, A.B. 711, by a two-to-one margin, and if the senate follows suit and Governor Jerry Brown signs the bill, California will become the first state to require the transition to ammunition made of copper, bismuth, steel or other non-toxic metals.

Lead has been removed from paint, gasoline and other consumer products because it kills people. There's no known safe exposure level, which is why it's time to remove lead from hunting ammunition.

When the NRA and other groups fought efforts more than two decades ago to ban the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting, they said that a legal prohibition on its use would result in the end of duck and goose hunting. Such outlandish claims, which we can now evaluate in a very tangible way, have proven false. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service instituted a nationwide ban on lead-shot use for waterfowl hunting in 1991, and millions of waterfowl hunters made the transition to non-toxic shot.

The naysayers made the same claims when California lawmakers considered a bill to ban the use of lead shot in the range of the California condor, a vast area between Los Angeles and San Francisco. There, too, hunters made the switch, and there's been no decline in the sale of deer-hunting licenses.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation — the trade association for gun and ammunition makers, based in Newtown, Conn. of all places — is now running ads in California saying The HSUS is working to ban all hunting by pushing for AB 711. We've been down this road before, and their claims will be proved false over time.

Here's the reason for our support of this bill: A preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that there are significant public-health, environmental and wildlife-health risks associated with lead from ammunition. One estimate says that more than 10 million doves a year die from lead poisoning. When you consider that there are more than 130 species of animals known to die from lead poisoning, it's quite a staggering toll.

Scavenging birds like condors, owls, eagles and hawks, as well as mammals like coyotes, are all at risk and known to be suffering from lead poisoning. Death from lead poisoning is painful. Even when lead exposure isn't high enough to kill an animal, it doesn't take much to weaken an animal to the point where it then succumbs to predation or disease.

It's also better for hunters and their families, who won't be at risk of consuming lead fragments in the meat from wild game.

With an alternative product available, why not make the switch?

Editorial support for AB 711 from newspapers across California has poured in — the Los Angeles Times, the Monterey County Herald, the San Jose Mercury News, the Fresno Bee, the Sacramento Bee, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Bakersfield Californian, to name a few.

More than a hundred California veterinarians support the policy of removing lead from hunting ammunition. Even the president and vice president of California's Fish and Game Commission back the bill. More than 30 environmental, children's health, and animal protection organizations have sent letters of support for the bill, including Audubon California and Defenders of Wildlife.

If you live in California, and haven't weighed in with your state senator, now is a good time to do so.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was "What's Driving Federal Efforts to Nullify State Animal Protections?". This article was adapted from "Leading on Lead", which first appeared as on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

Wayne Pacelle is the president and chief executive officer of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). This Op-Ed first appeared on the blog A Humane Nation, where it ran before appearing in LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

If you care about farm animals in Iowa, there is unfortunately no shortage of high-profile, high-impact matters that would benefit from citizen activism there.

For example, with Congress in recess and lawmakers back home in their districts, The HSUS is working to defeat the amendment from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) to nullify important state laws — statutes that impose conditions or standards on the agriculture industry to protect animals, workers, public health and the environment. There is great value in organizing folks in King's district to defend Iowa's laws and remind King that his constituents don't support the amendment's attack on states' rights.

The HSUS has also been fighting the opening of a horse slaughter plant in Sigourney, Iowa, and we need people in the state to speak up and remind lawmakers and other decision-makers that the people of Iowa don't approve of the killing of horses for human consumption; fortunately, we learned last week that the plant owners decided to rescind their request to USDA for a grant of inspection, meaning that the immediate threat in Iowa of the plant opening is resolved.

There's also the fight over banning barren battery cages and supporting the national effort to give laying hens more space. And there's The HSUS effort to phase out gestation crates, and to amplify the views of animal advocates, rural residents and others who don't like systemic mistreatment of animals.

I could go on.

And yet, rather than take constructive and legitimate action on these enormously consequential matters — with millions of animals' lives or the quality of their lives hanging in the balance — some fool (who claims to be an animal advocate) defaced the Butter Cow at the Iowa State Fair. The fair is a cultural event that attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors and is attended by leading politicians in the state, the press and so many rank-and-file citizens. Apparently, this act was orchestrated in a clandestine way in order to demonstrate some opposition to factory farming, or perhaps to all of animal agriculture.

Can you think of any action more inane and counterproductive?

I guess this individual could have been more stupid by committing a crime that involved more than mere vandalism. But we don't want to give much, if any, credit to the person who did this.

The take-away: when the animal-rights movement is trying to conduct a serious discussion about issues, and seeking to drive major reform, we do not need tactical approaches that come out of the playbook of a fraternity.

We condemn the illegal conduct, and we hope that the good people of Iowa know that The HSUS and other serious-minded animal welfare groups think this person is as dumb as you do.

Pacelle's most recent Op-Ed was Porcupine Quills to Mange, Rural Pets Rely on Free Vet Clinics. This article was adapted from A Brain That Might As Well Be Made of Butter, which first appeared as on the HSUS blog A Humane Nation. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This article was originally published on LiveScience.