Chris Packham with his portrait, which it is said depicts him as “a living saint”, in the Fitzrovia Chapel Credit: Richard Ansett/Radio Times
Chris Packham has posed as St Francis of Assisi in a portrait celebrating him as a “living saint”.
The portrait of the presenter and environmental campaigner is now on show on the altar of the Fitzrovia Chapel, central London.
Originally commissioned by Radio Times magazine to mark Earth Day, it is the work of photographic artist Richard Ansett.
Packham is surrounded by images of some of the UK’s most endangered species. Mr Ansett said it also made reference to Packham’s neurodiversity – the presenter was diagnosed with autism in his 40s.
“I hope that every pixel of this portrait offers a safe space for anyone challenged by neurodiversity. Packham’s remarkable connection to the natural world drives him relentlessly to save us from ourselves,” Mr Ansett said.
The portrait of Packham is available to view until May 21 at the former chapel, where it is described as a work “elevating him to the status of living saint”.
Chris Packham is surrounded by some of the UK’s most endangered species in the artwork Credit: Richard Ansett/Radio Times
Packham said: “This photo is about a fundamental level of engagement, an engagement of equals. It conveys the importance of nature to heal us, provide us with a sanctuary in times of terrible trouble.
“But the species featured are also rare or declining so it serves to remind us that our one and only home, our Earth, is on a brink too many are refusing to see and act to protect and repair.
“This is a photograph about love, a love of life, all life.”
The featured species include the red squirrel, the house martin, the woodcock and the hedgehog.
Mr Ansett, an award-winning photographer whose previous works include Sir Grayson Perry in the style of the Madonna and Child, added that the Packham portrait “recognises the difficulties that he has prevailed over to become a success in his career and a positive light for so many people”.
It is “a personal tribute to Packham’s humanity in challenging the worst parts of ours, in our ambivalence to the destruction created in the wake of our own needs”, the photographer said.
Wehave several posts on the issue here on the site – the kill shelter at San Antonio has exceptionally high numbers – today, Tuesday, 48 dogs are listed for “euthanasia” …
Please stop the killing of loving healthy and loveable dogs! And they kill owner surrenders first. Mia in the photo here was 4–her owners said very sweet. She was wagging her tail happily in her pink harness as she entered the shelter. Then, terrified, despite the best efforts of volunteers, she was killed three days later. Her life was short—and precious. She deserved better.
In 2024 , six days a week, animal rescue nonprofit and kind individuals have less than two hours to rescue dogs that are released to be euthanized. They were on target to kill more than 4000 dogs and cats in 2023–and it’s as bad this year.
It would be worse without the army of volunteers and kind rescues who step up to save these sweet adoptable pets. In March 13 2023 they even killed a service dog despite efforts to save him including an adoption bid.
ACS euthanizes healthy adoptable dogs three days after intake—a Director stated in an interview he wished he could do this quicker. There are usually 20 plus dogs killed at a time, including sweet friendly and highly adoptable puppies. Over 20% of dogs are killed—the figure for cats is worse.
They euthanize puppies, nursing mothers, young dogs, dogs that are confiscated because of cruelty and seniors. They euthanize gentle loving dogs.
Let’s stop this killing together. Let the mayor Ron Nirenberg, city manager Eric Walsh and governor Greg Abbott and the director of Animal Services in San Antonio feel your outrage at these unnecessary deaths by signing. Let them know they need to pay attention to the dogs and you—and stop this! Networking and more funding—with a change of policy and perhaps personnel at administration level—would be a good start. Other cities manage this.
The policy of high kill isn’t helping San Antonio’s problem with strays and the dumping of dogs. They need an aggressive spay and neuter campaign.
Up to 508 puppies can be born from one unspayed female dog and her offspring in seven years.
Up to 4,948 kittens can be born from one unspayed female cat and her offspring in seven years.
The more they kill the more are produced, and spaying and neutering—and limiting breeding in the city—would be a cheaper solution than slaughter.
And without your help thousands more dogs will be quietly killed. Please sign—and share and promote if you can. Their lives are sacred—it’s the only one they get.
51 stray animals were found dead in garbage bins outside the Street Animal Rehabilitation and Training Center owned by Gebze Municipality. Animal rights advocates and witnesses have accused municipal workers of killing the animals and discarding their bodies in garbage bags.
Footage shared online shows numerous dead cats and dogs, placed in black garbage bags, lying next to the rehabilitation center’s trash containers. Videos circulating on social media depict animal corpses being removed from torn bags that were pulled out of the containers.
Following the discovery, animal rights advocates rushed to the shelter to investigate the situation.
“We found four of them alive, barely breathing,” said Nimet Ozdemir, main opposition party CHP deputy from Istanbul, who spoke with BBC Turkish. Ozdemir stated that witnesses captured footage of workers sedating two dogs with an injection before placing them in the garbage. She confirmed that 36 dogs and 15 cats were retrieved from the bins.
Ozdemir reported that the dead animals were dumped along with medical waste, including syringes and drugs used to euthanize them. “We pulled four of them out alive, but they were in agony,” she said. According to Ozdemir, the dead animals were found together with their offspring, and the situation posed not only an animal rights issue but also a public health risk.
“Gebze Municipality has failed to follow the necessary procedures for disposing of deceased animals,” she continued. “Dead animals must first be stored in cold storage, then transported in special vehicles and buried properly. Otherwise, this endangers both the public and children.”
In a statement, Gebze Municipality, governed by the ruling AK Party condemned the incident and labeled the footage as “unacceptable.” The statement mentioned that 16 of the dead dogs were collected from the streets, while 3 died in traffic accidents and 10 succumbed to health issues. Regarding the dead cats, 9 were reportedly found dead due to “various reasons,” and 2 died after failing to respond to treatment.
The municipality confirmed that an investigation had been launched and that those involved were suspended pending the outcome. It also stated that the Kocaeli Public Prosecutor’s Office had been informed, and a legal process was underway.
Deputy Ozdemir emphasized that the incident reflects broader concerns about animal rights in Türkiye, especially following recent changes to animal protection laws. The amended law permits the euthanasia of dogs under certain conditions, but cats were not included in this provision, reflecting their deep cultural significance, especially in cities like Istanbul. For centuries, Istanbul’s street cats have been considered part of the city’s unique identity, with locals often providing food and shelter for them.
Main opposition party CHP deputy from Istanbul, Nimet Ozdemir holding dead cats in Gebze animal shelter of Türkiye on October 11, 2024. (Photo via X)
Animal rights groups have also raised alarms over similar incidents in Nigde and Ankara earlier this year, where municipalities were accused of killing stray animals. Both municipalities denied the allegations.
The incident in Gebze has reignited the debate over Türkiye’s treatment of stray animals, a contentious issue that has seen growing tensions between local authorities and animal rights advocates.
Local officials, including main opposition party CHP’s Kocaeli Deputy Nail Ciler, condemned the situation, calling on Gebze Municipality to provide a clear explanation. “This is a disgrace to Gebze. The authorities need to address this immediately,” Ciler said.
Meanwhile, Kocaeli’s governorate confirmed that both judicial and administrative investigations had been launched into the deaths of the animals
Published: May 12, 2025 at 06:12 PM Author: PENNY EIMS
Charlotte, North Carolina – On April 24, somebody posted a horrific, heartbreaking video of a possum being burned alive to social media. The heart-wrenching video shows three men dousing the innocent possum in an accelerant and then setting her on fire. The video sparked justifiable outrage, with numerous tips being phoned to wildlife and police officials. And though the identity of the two sadistic individuals appears to be known, only one person has been arrested.
On May 8, police arrested 30-year-old Cameron Bernard Torrence from Mint Hill on multiple charges, including instigating animal cruelty, fleeing and eluding arrest, and violating probation. Torrence is accused of unlawfully instigating or promoting cruelty to animals by participating in the burning of a live opossum and posting a video of the incident on Facebook. According to an affidavit, the video was uploaded to Torrence’s Facebook page on April 24 and depicted the opossum being doused with lighter fluid and then set on fire.#
((Videolink))
Although the video has since been deleted from his page, it has been shared thousands of times by other accounts. The video features at least two individuals, with a third person recording the act. Torrence appeared in court virtually on Friday and was given a secured bond of $10,000. His next hearing regarding the animal cruelty charge is scheduled for August1.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has found several people of interest related to the video. “We are looking into all leads,” said Senior Officer Kristofer Blankenship. There are multiple people of interest in the case.”
Animal Victory needs your signature now to hold them accountable when all suspects have been arrested! Please add your name and help us get justice for this innocent opossum who suffered in the worst way possible.
Target: Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office
WHY THIS PETITION MATTERS:
We, the undersigned, demand these individuals be held accountable for dousing an opossum in accelerant and setting her on fire. Investigators have stated that they have more persons of interest, and we insist that these people be arrested and charged for this evil and heartless crime!
Research has consistently shown a strong link between animal cruelty and human violence. Individuals who commit such heinous acts against animals often pose a threat to society as a whole, as animal abuse is frequently a precursor to other violent crimes. Failing to hold these individuals accountable not only denies justice for the innocent opossum burned alive but also endangers the community at large. It is imperative that we send a clear message that such cruelty will not be tolerated.
Individuals are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Animal Victory relies upon the authorities and the court system to determine guilt or innocence.
Note: Opossums are gentle, shy creatures who play a vital role in the environment by controlling pests like ticks and insects. With a naturally low body temperature that makes them highly resistant to rabies, these misunderstood animals deserve compassion, not cruelty.
Ottawa eyeing new ways to ban export of horses for slaughter in Japan
Published Feb 13, 2025 at 11:00am
Ottawa is eyeing fresh ways to ban the export of live horses to Japan for slaughter to produce an expensive sashimi delicacy, after the proroguing of Parliament last month halted a bill sponsored by a Liberal MP that would have outlawed the practice.
The Liberal government is considering introducing regulations blocking the exports so it can keep a 2021 election promise before Canadians return to the polls this year.
An estimated 50,000 horses, many of which are large draft horses, have been exported since 2013, with some journeys exceeding the permitted limit of 28 hours.
In 2022 and 2023, 2,500 live horses a year were flown from Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg to Japan for slaughter for their meat, including to produce basashi, an expensive sashimi delicacy.
Animal-welfare groups and several Canadian celebrities, including singer-songwriters Bryan Adams and Jann Arden and classical guitarist Liona Boyd, have been applying pressure on Canada to follow the lead of other countries, including the United States, and ban the export of live horses.
“It breaks my heart that thousands of horses endure extreme suffering in terrifying transports every year, only to die in a senseless slaughter. Horses are not commodities; they are loyal companions,” Ms. Boyd said in a statement.
“As a lifelong horse lover, I can’t stand by while they endure such cruelty. I’m urging the government to honor its promise – Canadians have spoken, and we beseech an end to this suffering now.”
In December, 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a mandate to the then-agriculture minister to ban the export of live horses, to honour the Liberals’election pledge.
But a private member’s bill banning the export of live horses, supported by the government, was held up in the Senate for months last year, and had not passed the stages required to become law when Parliament was prorogued.
Bill C-355, sponsored by Liberal MP Tim Louis, was sharply criticized by Don Plett, leader of the Conservatives in the Senate, and the Tories are unlikely to support it when Parliament returns, destroying its chances of becoming law before the election this year.
Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay is now looking at other ways to enforce a ban, including by issuing regulations that would not require a vote or debates by the Commons and Senate.
In 2023, Ottawa introduced regulations to ban the import of elephant ivory and rhino horn, including by trophy hunters.
“The Government remains committed to ending the export of live horses by air for slaughter,” Mr. MacAulay’s spokesperson, Annie Cullinan, said in a statement, noting the commitment set out in the minister’s mandate letter and the government’s support of Mr. Louis’s initiative.
“We believe that a legislative change would be the most efficient and concrete way to end this practice, however, given that Parliament is currently prorogued, we are exploring other options.”
Animal-welfare groups have been urging the government to implement a ban before the next election, warning that the Liberals could face accusations of failing to keep their promises.
Kaitlyn Mitchell, director of legal advocacy at Animal Justice, said that “the vast majority of Canadians –across political lines – want a ban, and the government explicitly promised to deliver it.”
“Minister MacAulay has the power to act, whether by introducing regulations now or through a bill when Parliament returns,” she said. “This is a chance to follow through on a commitment that matters to many voters and for the Liberals to show before the next election that they can be trusted to keep their promises.”
But Mr. Plett warned against a ban, and shutting down the export trade in horses for meat.
“When our entire nation is on edge due to the U.S. President’s attack on our export markets, it would be outrageous for this government to pile on by shutting down a premium agricultural export market. This is a time to stand behind our farmers, not be caving in to animal rights extremists,” he said.
A Japanese animal-welfare organization, Life Investigation Agency, last year obtained official government reports of shipments of horses from Canada, including pregnant mares, in crates.
The records, acquired through Japan’s freedom of information laws, showed that some horses had difficulty standing and fell during flight. Some suffered injuries such as a fractured leg, or died on board or in quarantine after arriving in Japan. Several experienced heat stroke, dehydration and physical compression on the journey, with one horse subjected to accidental suffocation.
On one flight from Edmonton in January last year, 85 horses were flown in crates to Kagoshima, and four horses fell within their crates during the flight. A mare was severely injured from the fall and died. Upon arrival in Japan, the three other horses were found collapsed in their crates, and were suffering shortness of breath. Two had injuries so severe they died shortly after arrival.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which monitors the transports and inspects the animals in Canada to ensure welfare standards are adhered to, called the reports troubling when they came to light last year and said it was looking into them.
Editor’s note: This post is part of the EJIL:Talk! Symposium on ‘Expanding Human Rights Protection to Non-Human Subjects? African, Inter-American and European Perspectives.’
The idea of expanding the normative framework of human rights to nonhuman entities is not quite new, but ever-so topical in the age of AI, corporate human rights, and the rise of the global Rights of Nature movement. Although animals may be paradigmatic (non)human rights aspirants, animal rights proper have not yet been adjudicated, let alone recognized, by the ‘sister regional human rights courts’ or international human rights bodies.
In recent years, however, animal rights have increasingly become an issue before domestic courts, even highest courts, such as the Supreme Court of India, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, the Islamabad High Court, or a lower court in Mendoza (Argentina). It is interesting to note that the judicial recognition of animal rights is so far more or less exclusively driven not by European or North American courts, but by courts from the Global South, which seems to refute the charge of “cultural imperialism” or Eurocentrism that is sometimes attached to the idea of universal animal rights. Given these contemporary developments in domestic animal rights law, and following a “bottom-up” approach to the future formation of a global animal rights law, the question seems not if, but when animal rights will advance to the world stage and eventually enter the halls of international (non)human rights courts.
Emerging animal rights and their pluralistic drivers
Since its inception, the idea of animal rights has had a mostly theoretical existence. In the absence of any legally institutionalized rights, the concept of animal rights typically relates to potential fundamental rights that (nonhuman) animals should have and that ought to be recognized and respected by human laws. Only recently, but with accelerating pace, have courts around the world started to deliberate and recognize actual legal rights of animals (see here for an overview of global animal rights jurisprudence).
One noteworthy difference between the ideal animal rights conceived by theorists and the real animal rights recognized in legal practice is the justificatory pluralism driving the emergence of the latter (as opposed to the justificatory monism – mostly of the naturalistic variant – that tends to ground the former). That is, while animal rights in theory are typically justified with reference to some morally relevant rights-generative natural quality of animals, animal rights in practice seem to be grounded in a broader and more heterogenous mix of divergent yet mutually complementing rationales.
Elsewhere, I have argued that there are both principled and prudential reasons that warrant institutional recognition of animal rights. In short, the principled argument for animal rights is of an ethical nature (a matter of justice or morality) and operates with intrinsic criteria, such as animals’ sentience, dignity, vulnerability, exploitability, or experiences of injustice. By contrast, the prudential argument for animal rights is of an instrumental nature (animal rights as a means of promoting other ends, e.g. the protection of humans or the environment) and relies on extrinsic considerations, such as social and environmental benefits that may result from cultivating animal rights-respecting practices.
Here, I will chart a slightly adapted, tripartite typology, based on the anthropocentric, zoocentric, and ecocentric justifications underpinning the recognition of animal rights in practice.
Anthropocentric underpinnings of animal rights
From an anthropocentric point of view, animal rights are justified instrumentally with their utility or benefits for human individuals or societies. Here, the recognition of animal rights is primarily motivated by and derivative of human interests, and functions as an indirect way of protecting or promoting certain human goods, such as human rights or health. Commonly invoked anthropocentric reasons for recognizing animal rights relate to:
The linkages between human and animal (in)justice: a growing body of research (see here for an overview) suggests a correlation between discriminatory (e.g. sexist, racist, speciesist) and rights-affirming social attitudes as well as empathy towards human outgroups and animals. Similarly, important links seem to exist between violence against humans and animals, both on the level of interpersonal (e.g. domestic or sadistic) and collective violence (e.g. animalistic dehumanization). Recognizing – and respecting – animal rights may thus concomitantly contribute to the protection of (vulnerable and marginalized) humans.
Animal exploitation as a major driver of environmental human rights and public health threats: the need to establish animal rights as a bulwark against extractive exploitation is also increasingly debated in the context of protecting humans against existential environmental risks. This is because animal exploitation (notably industrial animal farming and wildlife trade) is a major driver of global health threats (such as the emergence of zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance) and of ecological human rights threats (such as climate change and biodiversity loss).
Cultural and religious reasons: certain (beloved or revered) animals are more equal than others, and are afforded special legal protections for cultural or religious reasons. For example, some courts, notably in Latin America, have recognized rights of companion animals (such as a dog in Colombia) as part of the protection of multispecies families and the affective bonds that humans have with their nonhuman family members. Another relevant example is the 2024 He Whakaputanga Moana Treaty (Declaration for the Ocean) – an Indigenous treaty that recognizes whales as legal persons, inter alia, because whales are considered ancestral beings and an integral part of a healthy ecosystem.
Zoocentric constructions of animal rights
Within a zoocentric frame of reference, animal rights are justified with intrinsic qualities of animals, such as their dignity or inherent value, sentience, personhood or subjecthood, or vulnerability. Here, the recognition of animal rights is primarily motivated by and centred on a legal concern for animals and their interests per se, irrespective of any instrumental or utilitarian considerations. In the words of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, “animals should not be protected only from an ecosystemic perspective or with a view to the needs of human beings, but mainly from a perspective that focuses on their individuality and intrinsic value”. Courts typically arrive at zoocentric animal rights through two different legal avenues:
Subjectification of animal welfare laws: some courts have derived animal rights from existing animal welfare laws, by extracting therefrom subjective animal rights as implicit correlatives of explicit human duties. For example, in a landmark judgment from 2014 (which has since been somewhat relativized and reversed), the Supreme Court of India recognized a range of animal rights, such as the right to life and security, protection against pain, suffering, and torture, to food and shelter, based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It further elevated these statutory rights to the status of fundamental rights by reading them alongside the constitutional provision on animal protection and compassion (the “magna carta of animal rights”).
Animalization of fundamental (human) rights: other courts, notably in the Americas, have probed the possibility of extending certain human rights to animals, such as the prohibition of slavery, or the procedural right of habeas corpus and the underlying substantive right to freedom. In the USA, courts have thus far declined to enlarge the protective scope of fundamental rights to animals other than humans (of course, corporations are a different story). By contrast, courts in Latin America (e.g. in Argentina and Colombia) have recognized animal rights based on a dynamic and extensive reading of constitutional rights (notably the right to habeas corpus).
Ecocentric foundations of animal rights
From an ecocentric perspective, animal rights are recognized in an eco-constitutional legal context (e.g. a “sociobiocentric” constitution) and as part of a holistic approach to environmental protection and rights. Against the backdrop of exacerbating ecological pressures in the Anthropocene, the environmental dimension of animal rights (as well as, conversely, the animal dimension of environmental rights) has become increasingly important in recent years. Courts, too, have been responsive to the human-animal-environment nexus, by converging or integrating the rights of humans, animals, and nature.
(Wild) animal rights as part of rights of nature: one form of ecocentric animal rights is the recognition of (wild) animal rights as an integral (individual) dimension of the rights of nature. The integration of animal rights into the rights of nature framework has been elaborated at length by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. In this context, some commentators observe a convergence between (animalized) rights of nature and (naturalized) animal rights, drawing on the obvious overlap and synergies between the two species of rights.
Ecological interdependence of human and animal rights: lastly – and this might be the clearest example of the confluence of anthropocentric, zoocentric, and ecocentric motives that are conjoined in the configuration of emerging animal rights – animal rights can be justified on the grounds of their ecologically mediated interrelation with human rights. For example, the Islamabad High Court has noted the “interdependence of living beings” and recognized animal rights alongside, and as an integral part of, the human right to life and environmental protection.
A win-win-win for humans, animals, and the environment
As this overview has shown, the recognition of animal rights in practice is only partially motivated by (intrinsic, ethical) concern for animals, and concurrently catalysed by instrumental concern for a variety of human interests and environmental considerations. It is this interplay of anthropocentric, zoocentric, and ecocentric rationales that is driving the emergence of animal rights alongside human rights and environmental rights. Some commentators contend that the anthropocentric and ecocentric reasonings that co-constitute real animal rights provide for a merely “weak grounding for animal rights”. Others dispute that these ulterior motives work to constitute “genuine animal rights” altogether. I would however argue, on the contrary, that this justificatory pluralism makes for a more diverse and democratic, resilient, rhetorically powerful, and thus ultimately stronger legal footing for animal rights in the real world. The pluralistic foundations of emerging animal rights indicate that they can be plausibly and palatably framed as a win-win-win situation. Simply put, animal rights are good for humans, animals, and the precious – and precarious – planet we all share.
Crete, Greece, 13 January 2025 | The EURCAW-Aqua portal provides information, technical guidance, and educational resources on animal welfare in aquaculture
The European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare in Aquaculture (EURCAW-Aqua) has unveiled its newly launched website, set to become a cornerstone for advancing animal welfare practices in aquaculture across Europe. The platform, available at www.eurcaw-aqua.eu, is tailored for policymakers, researchers, national authorities, and the general public who are keen to drive improvements in aquaculture production methods.
The website offers an extensive range of resources, including research articles, technical guides, and best practices recommendations aimed at ensuring ethical and sustainable treatment of fish, crustaceans, and molluscs. Additionally, it features interactive educational materials, online seminars, and straightforward explanations of EU animal welfare regulations.
Dr Michael Pavlidis, a Professor at the University of Crete and Director of EURCAW-Aqua, commented: “The portal is designed to foster knowledge-sharing, build communities, and empower stakeholders to make well-informed, compassionate decisions that priories the health and welfare of aquatic animals, contributing to a more sustainable future.”
This EU-funded initiative also boasts an up-to-date new section, as well as details of key events such as conferences and training programs, ensuring that professionals and decision-makers stay informed about the latest developments and research in the field.
EURCAW-Aqua reaffirms its dedication to promoting ethical and sustainable aquaculture practices, collaborating with EU Members States to exceed current animal welfare standards. This initiative represents a significant step forward in fostering a more humane approach to aquaculture production.
This gross video is not recent, granted – but this is still the situation in many US States. And many also still use gas. As here.
The Comments below say it all really …
Author, Unknown:
Yes, I Gas Dogs and Cats for a Living. I’m an Animal Control officer in a very small town in central North Carolina. I’m in my mid thirties, and have been working for the town in different positions since high school. There is not much work here, and working for the county provides good pay and benefits for a person like me without a higher education. I’m the person you all write about how horrible I am.
I’m the one that gasses the dogs and cats and makes them suffer. I’m the one that pulls their dead corpses out smelling of Carbon Monoxide and throws them into green plastic bags. But I’m also the one that hates my job and hates what I have to do.
First off, all you people out there that judge me, don’t. God is judging me, and I know I’m going to Hell. Yes, I’m going to hell. I wont lie, it’s despicable, cold, cruel and I feel like a serial killer. I’m not all to blame, if the law would mandate spay and neuter, lots of these dogs and cats wouldn’t be here for me to gas. I’m the devil, I know it, but I want you people to see that there is another side to me, the devil Gas Chamber man. The shelter usually gasses on Friday morning.
Friday’s are the day that most people look forward to, this is the day that I hate, and wish that time will stand still on Thursday night. Thursday night, late, after nobody’s around, my friend and I go through a fast food line, and buy 50 dollars worth of cheeseburgers and fries, and chicken. I’m not allowed to feed the dogs on Thursday, for I’m told that they will make a mess in the gas chamber, and why waste the food.
So, Thursday night, with the lights still closed, I go into the saddest room that anyone can every imagine, and let all the doomed dogs out out their cages.
I have never been bit, and in all my years doing this, the dogs have never fought over the food. My buddy and I, open each wrapper of cheeseburger and chicken sandwich, and feed them to the skinny, starving dogs.
They swallow the food so fast, that I don’t believe they even taste it. There tails are wagging, and some don’t even go for the food, they roll on their backs wanting a scratch on their bellies. They start running, jumping and kissing me and my buddy.
They go back to their food, and come back to us. All their eyes are on us with such trust and hope, and their tails wag so fast, that I have come out with black and blues on my thighs.. They devour the food, then it’s time for them to devour some love and peace. My buddy and I sit down on the dirty, pee stained concrete floor, and we let the dogs jump on us. They lick us, they put their butts in the air to play, and they play with each other. Some lick each other, but most are glued on me and my buddy.
I look into the eyes of each dog. I give each dog a name. They will not die without a name. I give each dog 5 minutes of unconditional love and touch. I talk to them, and tell them that I’m so sorry that tomorrow they will die a gruesome, long, torturous death at the hands of me in the gas chamber. Some tilt their heads to try to understand. I tell them, that they will be in a better place, and I beg them not to hate me. I tell them that I know I’m going to hell, but they will all be playing with all the dogs and cats in heaven.
After about 30 minutes, I take each dog individually, into their feces filled concrete jail cell, and pet them and scratch them under their chins. Some give me their paw, and I just want to die. I just want to die. I close the jail cell on each dog, and ask them to forgive me. As my buddy and I are walking out, we watch as every dog is smiling at us and them don’t even move their heads. They will sleep, with a full belly, and a false sense of security.
As we walk out of the doomed dog room, my buddy and I go to the cat room. We take our box, and put the very friendly kittens and pregnant cats in our box. The shelter does not keep tabs on the cats, like they do the dogs. As I hand pick which cats are going to make it out, I feel like I’m playing God, deciding whose going to live and die.
We take the cats into my truck, and put them on blankets in the back. ‘ Usually, as soon as we start to drive away, there are purring cats sitting on our necks or rubbing against us. My buddy and I take our one way two hour trip to a county that is very wealthy and they use injection to kill animals.
We go to exclusive neighborhoods, and let one or two cats out at a time.
They don’t want to run, they want to stay with us. We shoo them away, which makes me feel sad.
I tell them that these rich people will adopt them, and if worse comes to worse and they do get put down, they will be put down with a painless needle being cradled by a loving veterinarian. After the last cat is free, we drive back to our town.
It’s about 5 in the morning now, about two hours until I have to gas my best friends.
I go home, take a shower, take my 4 anti-anxiety pills and drive to work.. I don’t eat, I can’t eat. It’s now time, to put these animals in the gas chamber. I put my ear plugs in, and when I go to the collect the dogs, the dogs are so excited to see me, that they jump up to kiss me and think they are going to play.
I put them in the rolling cage and take them to the gas chamber. They know. They just know.
They can smell the death. They can smell the fear. They start whimpering, the second I put them in the box. The boss tells me to squeeze in as many as I can to save on gas. He watches. He knows I hate him, he knows I hate my job. I do as I’m told. He watches until all the dogs, and cats (thrown in together) are fighting and screaming. The sounds is very muffled to me because of my ear plugs. He walks out, I turn the gas on, and walk out.
I walk out as fast as I can. I walk into the bathroom, and I take a pin and draw blood from my hand. Why? The pain and blood takes my brain off of what I just did. In 40 minutes, I have to go back and unload the dead animals. I pray that none survived, which happens when I overstuff the chamber. I pull them out with thick gloves, and the smell of carbon monoxide makes me sick. So does the vomit and blood, and all the bowel movements. I pull them out, put them in plastic bags.
They are in heaven now, I tell myself. I then start cleaning up the mess, the mess, that YOU PEOPLE are creating by not spay or neutering your animals. The mess that YOU PEOPLE are creating by not demanding that a vet come in and do this humanely. You ARE THE TAXPAYERS, DEMAND that this practice STOP!
So, don’t call me the monster, the devil, the gasser, call the politicians, the shelter directors, and the county people the devil. Heck, call the governor, tell him to make it stop.
As usual, I will take sleeping pills tonight to drown out the screams I heard in the past, before I discovered the ear plugs. I will jump and twitch in my sleep, and I believe I’m starting to hallucinate.
This is my life. Don’t judge me. Believe me, I judge myself enough.
******************
This is the current situation:
U.S. States With Highest And Lowest Shelter Kill Rates
Shelters across the country are full and many over capacity with adoptable dogs and cats. While each shelter does their best to find a loving home for each animal, hundreds of thousands (355,000) are euthanized each year due to lack of space and resources.
There are more homeless pets than adopters and it forces numerous shelters to make tough choices. Veterinarians.org published a study that analyzed the intake and outcome data from U.S. animal shelters and ranked the highest and lowest shelter kill rates.
They examined 3,261 shelters which covers roughly 93.5% of the total sheltered animals in the country. They found some heartbreaking results but also some states who are completely no-kill and inspiring others to do the same.
The bad news…
Mississippi has the highest kill rate of 18.3%, which is 3 times the nation-wide average. North Carolina and Alabama come next with high kill rates (over 14%). Less than half of the shelters in these states are no-kill.
However, when it comes to actual numbers Texas comes in with highest number of animals killed in a year – over 61,000. California comes next followed by North Carolina, Florida and Alabama.
The study found, “Five states account for half of all cats and dogs killed in U.S. animal shelters: California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Alabama.”
The solution to this heartbreaking problem is to encourage more people to adopt and give shelters the support and assistance they need to transform into a no-kill shelter.
The good news…
52% of U.S. animal shelters are no-kill, which has doubled since 2016. Best Friends Animal Society has a goal of making all shelters no-kill by 2025. They want to ensure that all dogs and cats get the chance to find a loving home – no matter how long it takes.
But shelters cannot do it alone. Best Friends shared, “For far too long, the burden has been placed on shelters themselves to save the lives of the animals in their care. It is imperative that the community and local government provide their shelters with the support they need to succeed.”
They help guide shelters toward no-kill status by giving them the tools they need to succeed.
According to Best Friends, “The most effective path to no-kill includes a combination of (1) collaborative partnerships and coalitions among animal shelters, animal rescue groups and community members working toward a collective goal; (2) proven programs and best practices designed to save the most lives possible; and (3) data-driven decision-making for each individual community.”
The only two no-kill states are Delaware and New Hampshire. Rhode Island, North Dakota, and Maine round out the top five with under 1% kill rate.
You can check and see if your local shelter is a no-kill shelter through the pet lifesaving dashboard. If not, see how you can help.
Best Friends reminds people, “Saving the lives of dogs and cats in animal shelters is the responsibility of each community. Animal shelters and the staff who work there can only create and sustain lifesaving programs if they have community support and participation. Working together thoughtfully, honestly and collaboratively is what makes true no-kill possible.”
*******************
(Google)
**************
30 Jul 2019
Shelter killing is the leading cause of death for homeless dogs and cats in the United States. It doesn’t have to be. This is the story of animal sheltering, which was born of compassion and then lost its way. It is the story of the No Kill movement, which says we can and must stop the killing. It is about heroes and villains, betrayal and redemption. And it is about a social movement as noble and just as those that have come before. But most of all, it is a story about believing in the community and trusting in the power of compassion.
The Federal election campaign is over – and for sheep, the outcome could not be more significant.
With the re-election of the Albanese government in the 2025 Federal Election, one of the most important animal welfare reforms in our nation’s history is now secure: the legislated phase-out of live sheep export by sea.
Thanks to the incredible efforts of supporters who helped amplify this issue – through donations, by fuelling our ad blitz in battleground seats, and via direct engagement with candidates – a candidate who backs the phase-out was elected in nearly every seat we campaigned in. This is a powerful reminder that while animals cannot vote, caring Australians will do so on their behalf.
We are so grateful to everyone who donated to our billboards declaring Australian sheep have suffered enough, and to the hundreds of our supporters who helped lobby candidates in battleground seats.
The Coalition ran on a platform of keeping this unpopular trade alive. The landslide outcome – especially in Western Australia where the live export lobby campaigned fiercely against the ban – can only be seen as a definitive rejection of policies that promote animal cruelty. This moment solidifies the turning of the tide.
There are other policies that the Albanese government committed to, which will ensure animals are a key priority for the new parliament, including:
Full implementation of the national Animal Welfare Strategy to improve standards and review outdated systems that entrench suffering for pigs, chickens and other farmed animals.
Inclusion of animal welfare protections in international trade agreements.
Expansion of the trophy hunting import ban to cover more protected species.
We are eager to work with the re-elected government – and the overwhelmingly animal-friendly crossbench – to ensure these and other much-needed reforms for animals are realised.
We are so grateful to our friends at the Australian Alliance for Animals and Stop Live Exports for uniting with us to ensure as many people as possible understood what was at stake for animals this election. While in many ways, the ‘real’ work starts now, we could not have a stronger foundation upon which to build the reforms that animals need and deserve.
the day no animal is forced onto a live export ship. But today, we celebrate one of the most significant animal welfare reforms ever achieved globally.
Today, we celebrate a victory for compassion thanks to our supporters and everyone who kept animals front of mind at the ballot box.
We can now count down to 1 May 2028 with certainty – knowing from that day onwards not a single Australian sheep will set foot on a live export ship. While of course we wish this end date was much sooner, we also recognise the need to consider all who may be affected by this historic decision.
As the trade winds down, fewer Australian sheep will suffer at its hands. Since our very first investigation, the number of sheep exported live by sea each year has dropped by the millions – from 6 million annually, to less than 500,000.
Now, we can safely say that within three years, this number will be zero.
World Animals Voice 