ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide. Founded in 1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE has no alignment or affiliation with any other entity.

 

This site built and maintained by: GREANVILLE ASSOCIATESand CRESCENT COMMUNICATIONS •Rev. 12.1.05 Copyright ANIMAL PEOPLE, INC. 1992--2006

 

 

 

 

 
   

 
powered by FreeFind

ESSENTIAL DESTINATIONS

MONTH: October 2006

Editorial: Voting to help animals

 

On midterm election day, November 2, 2006, depending on the will of the U.S. electorate, both the House of Representatives and the Senate may shift from Republican to Democratic control. President George W. Bush, a Republican, will remain in the White House until 2008, but history suggests that if either the House or the Senate goes to the Democrats--or both--the outcome for the next two years will probably be much better for animals than if either party controlled all three elected branches of the federal government.

 

That possibility alone should be sufficient incentive to get pro-animal voters out to the polls in the many closely contested districts, even where neither candidate has a record on animal issues that especially inspires either support or opposition. Pro-animal voters will obviously want to support strongly pro-animal candidates of either party, and oppose those with anti-animal records, as indicated by the legislative scorecards published by such organizations as Humane USA PAC and the Humane Society Legislative Fund, but this year there is a further consideration. Almost all of the major pro-animal federal legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act, Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act, was originally passed and has been most positively amended by divided Congresses. Precedent thus indicates that this year the outcome of every seriously contested House and Senate race matters to people who care about animals.

 

So-called "Congressional gridlock," when neither party has clear dominance, is good for animals because neither major U.S. political party is closely aligned with pro-animal positions. Neither party ever has been: animal issues have rarely been election issues. Political support for animal advocacy has always cut diagonally across the U.S. political spectrum, and still does.

 

The same could be said for support of the animal use industries--but with a difference. Historically, when politically dominant, both parties have strongly supported animal agriculture, hunting, trapping, fishing, the fur trade, and animal experimentation. Both could be expected to do so now. The difference is that that the animal use industries tend to use campaign contributions to buy friends among whichever party is dominant. If neither party is dominant, they have to spend twice as much money to buy the same influence--and then both parties are watching to expose politicians whose votes are blatantly for sale.

 

Politicians with strong pro-animal beliefs are much less likely to take their positions with campaign funds in mind, in part because the animal use industries have far more money than pro-animal Political Action Committees. While pro-animal PACS have increasingly often demonstrated some ability to help swing close races, especially at the state and local level, the U.S. political scene is still far from including pro-animal PACs capable of matching the national funding clout of the major animal use lobbies. Demographic patterns indicate that this could change soon, and building strong pro-animal PACS now is accordingly an essential part of laying the political foundation for longterm future success, but achieving near-term political success for animals requires tactical astuteness as well as muscle-flexing.

 

Both the Republicans and Democrats presently include many strong elected voices for animals, in Congress and at other levels of government, whose opportunity for advancing legislation tends to be best when neither party is able to push through a strictly partisan agenda. When one party or the other has unquestioned political dominance, working on bipartisan measures tends to take a low priority, and is even seen as suspect by the idealogues of the dominant party. Conversely, in a "gridlock" situation, the most effective politicians are those who can work with their political opponents. Pro-animal legislation tends to be among the projects used to build bipartisan coalitions in divided legislatures, advancing most successfully when the animal use industries are most stretched, and most at risk of alienating key politicians if they give too much to members of either party.

 

ANIMAL PEOPLE, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is not allowed to endorse specific candidates or political parties, or promote specific legislation, but there are now many pro-animal organizations established and structured specifically to do political analysis and make recommendations. Among the best-known are the League of Humane Voters, in New York City; PAW-PAC in California; HEAL-PAC in Michigan; and Humane Heart in Louisiana. Some states have several such organizations--and they do not always agree. Humane USA PAC also has state affiliates that make candidate recommendations. Most of these organizations post their endorsements on a web site. An informed pro-animal voter will find out who they support, and why, before going to the polls.

 

An informed and effective pro-animal voter will also be aware that people who care about animals need not vote as a block to develop clout. Rather, people who care about animals will develop clout if they reliably turn out in force on election day, year after year, to vote as their consciences and understanding of the issues suggests--and make candidates aware of the issues that move them, both before and after each election.

 

Who a person votes for is less important than explaining to the candidate why he/she got the vote. If animal advocates vote for someone but the someone isn't aware of having the support, the vote has much less influence.

 

Informing losing candidates why they lost votes is also worthwhile, especially before elections so that they have a chance to amend their positions, but also afterward. The actual candidate may never run for office again--or may come back with a different platform. The person most likely to be influenced, however, is the campaign manager. Campaign managers often are hired professionals, who represent many candidates over the years, and often they learn their jobs by representing losing candidates. Influencing a young campaign manager who made a good showing on the losing side may at times be more valuable, eventually, than influencing a winning candidate whose term is brief.

 

Be aware that officeholders belonging to minority political parties tend to be less besieged by favor-seekers and are therefore often more accessible than members of the majority party, and may gain influence later as their parties rise. Establishing positive relations with an officeholder of relatively little clout now may become a ticket to great influence within a few years, especially if your encouragement helps the officeholder to advance to higher office.

 

Animal advocates need to be especially aware and involved at the state and local levels, as National Institute for Animal Advocacy founder Julie Lewin emphasizes at every opportunity, because the structure of government in the U.S.--and in most nations--delegates almost all authority over animal control, regulation of animal care, and enforcement of humane laws to state and local governments. Even in nations such as India, with relatively strong federal legislation governing animal issues, enforcement is largely left to local implementation, with considerable leeway for how laws are interpreted and applied. In the U.S., with 50 different state laws and more than 20,000 different local animal care-and-control ordinances, animal advocates must develop a strong local voice in order to influence the most basic humane issues.

 

Developing a strong local voice is self-amplifying. Local elections are the minor leagues for political advancement, where rising politicians typically get their start, and local issues tend to be echoed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thus if one community is especially successful in responding to an animal-related issue, others will tend to follow, and politicians rising from that community will tend to raise the profile of the solutions they found. Further, they will recognize in animal issues an opportunity to demonstrate effective leadership.

 

The careers of longtime California state assembly member Loni Hancock and Congressional Representative Ronald Dellums afford cases in point. More than 35 years ago the Editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE covered their election to the Berkeley City Council. Neither was elected on a pro-animal platform; neither was known as an animal advocate. Both were deeplly frustrated in pursuing their first political goals, but in 1972 they enjoyed a rare success in abolishing the use of decompression to kill animals at the Berkeley city shelter.

 

Decompression was then the most common means of animal control killing. By 1985 it was no longer done anywhere in the U.S.--and Hancock and Dellums, throughout the remainder of their 30-odd-year political careers, avidly promoted pro-animal legislation and public hearings on animal issues.

 

Independent thinking

People who care about animals and vote tend to be moved by a wide spectrum of issues, unlike gun owners, for instance, who are notorious single-issue voters. Thinking about a variety of issues and voting based on a complex analysis of multiple factors is worthwhile, especially in a closely contested election, because this is practically the definition of a "swing" voter, whom either candidate can attract. Usually candidates assess far in advance which way most of the single-issue voters will go, and try to keep them happy while reaching out to as many swing voters as possible. Thus, while single-issue voters weigh heavily in the decisions of entrenched incumbents, swing voters may possess greater leverage in tight races--if they use it. This, again, requires informing candidates and campaign managers of one's thoughts, including of dissenting perspectives on nominally "pro-animal" positions.

 

Thinking independently--and visibly--about "pro-animal" positions and endorsements is worthwhile, not least because animal advocacy group perspectives can at times be self-defeating.

 

A recent example may have been the passage of a California bill to criminalize leaving pets unattended in vehicles in weather that puts the animals' health at risk. Specific exemptions for "horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry, or other agricultural animals" may have resulted in a net loss for animals, as Animal Switchboard president Virginia Handley unsuccessfully pointed out, in her capacity as the senior humane lobbyist in California.

 

Across the U.S., attempts to ban or overturn breed-specific dog laws are supported by many humane organizations, but--as ANIMAL PEOPLE editorially pointed out in January/February 2004 and December 2005--may be completely against the best interest of dogs, especially pit bull terriers, the breed most often targeted. Pit bulls now make up more than a fourth of all dogs in U.S. shelters and have a 90%-plus euthanasia rate, because they more than any other dog are bred and sold as disposable commodities. Stopping the killing, and the dogfighting industry that thrives on cheap, abundant pit bulls, requires cutting off the supply of the only breed type ever widely used in dogfighting. Laws that restrict or prohibit commerce in pit bulls need not result in the deaths of any dogs who are already born, or cause anyone to give up a pet; such laws merely take the money out of breeding more of them.

 

Initiatives seeking to increase tax funding of wildlife agencies also require a second look. Such initiatives tend to be pro-animal only if the net effect is to transfer influence over wildlife policy away from hunters and other "blood sports" enthusiasts.

 

Candidate by candidate, bill by bill, voting effectively to help animals requires making judgement calls. Pro-animal people may come down on either side of a decision, depending on their personal assessments--but either way, they have more clout if candidates and news media know that the animal issues were involved and decisive in bringing a voter to the polls.