Etsy Marketplace Drives Trade in Animal Body Parts

Written by: Heather Clemenceau

(Caution – this blog contains disturbing images)

The foot is holding its own heart to “scratch back” at one’s enemies.

Animal sacrifice is a practice associated with certain folk religions or witchcraft, including branches of Voodoo, particularly in some regions where it has been syncretized with other religions or cultural traditions. Voodoo, also known as Vodou or Vodun, is a complex belief system with roots in West Africa and the Caribbean. Similarly, Santeria is a religion that originated in the Caribbean and was brought to the Americas by slaves.

Individuals who practice Santeria also participate in animal sacrifices for many reasons, including black magic rituals, religious ceremonies involving curses, and even requesting assistance from spirits. Practitioners also believe that rituals will help couples to reconcile and improve their relationship and sex life, as well as a way to expunge sins or the pain that comes from being involved in criminal activity.

Dried chicken feet are used revenge spells supposedly to torment other people and “crush their lives.” Of course, none of this will work against an enemy. It’s distressing that Etsy allows the product category at all, and made worse by permitting sellers to use such violent language.

Recently there has been a huge increase and rise in ritualistic religions throughout the United States, and in the past 20 years there are hundreds of thousands of people engaging in rituals that included animal sacrifices and the use of animal body parts. In the online world, cottage industries have sprung up to provide animal parts to believers, claiming to help customers achieve their wishes, which sometimes consist of taking revenge on enemies.

While eBay typically does not allow these types of sales (exceptions being for some packaged food products and “charms” like rabbits’ feet), the Etsy marketplace permits it, and allows animal parts to be sold as “handmade and artisanal products.”  As the result of a petition to stop the sale of animal body parts, the biggest concession by Etsy was to disallow the sale of endangered species.  But every other species is acceptable.

On the more “harmless” scale of product offerings, some vendors sell mock animal figurines (cost $83 CDN), which may be impregnated with incense and oils, and then burnt as a sacrificial offering. By the way the sacrificial animal burns, the seller claims to be able to determine whether the purchaser’s gift is accepted, whether their wish will be fulfilled, and whether difficulties await them along the way. While no animal has died for this superstitious nonsense, the idea is (to me at least) still highly distasteful due to the symbolic/visual aspect.

Real animal parts are far more numerous on Etsy. Dried chicken feet, for example, are used in the practice of Hoodoo, as well as other magical traditions, for protection and for enemy work. The feet are believed to be powerful protection against evil doers and are believed to work by magically “scratching” one’s enemy. Many practitioners will use a chicken foot as part of an anti-theft spell which is usually hung in the open, such as from a rear-view mirror or above a door. Chicken feet can also be used alone as part of a charm, fetish, or for inclusion into a mojo bag, a cloth pouch practitioners believe provides protection, luck, love, prosperity, or spiritual cleansing.

What better way to say you love someone then by giving a real bloody heart? The seller tells us that “The hearts are ethically sourced from adult turkeys and professionally preserved. A translucent red water-based lacquer brings out the color.”

The procurement of animal parts for use in voodoo ceremonies varies depending on cultural practices and local availability. In some cases, practitioners may obtain animal parts through hunting, fishing, or farming. The demand for animal body parts fuels practices such as poaching, trapping, and illegal hunting, which can lead to the suffering and endangerment of wildlife populations.

Many of the Etsy merchants claim the animal parts of obtained through “ethical means,” which could also mean that they obtain the body parts from slaughterhouses. But how do merchants explain their possession animal parts that do not originate from typical “food animals?” Numerous species of exotic bird body parts are offered on Etsy, and many of these could originate from African Voodoo markets.  There is also a proliferation of bird wings and heads, and dried or taxidermied bodies on offer, with no explanation of how they died or were acquired.

Exotic animal parts are OK with Etsy, just as long as they aren’t from endangered animals! Merchants can make any claims they choose about the ethics of obtaining these animal parts, and there is no means to confirm any of it. Even if, in their belief, their products are “ethically obtained,” my own opinion as a vegan is that all the aforementioned activities are not only cruel, but dangerous for communities as they perpetuate myths about the effectiveness of spells and incantations. The sale of animal body parts can also pose risks to public health through the spread of diseases and zoonotic infections. Handling and consuming animal parts without proper hygiene and safety measures can lead to the transmission of pathogens and pose health hazards to individuals and communities.

The ethics of performing spells to harm others (even if they aren’t actionable) are highly debated and depend on various factors, including cultural beliefs, personal values, and the intended consequences of the action. In many ethical frameworks and moral philosophies, the desire to intentionally cause harm to others through metaphysical means, is considered unethical and morally wrong. Many ethical systems, such as utilitarianism or deontology, emphasize the principle of minimizing harm to others. Intentionally casting spells to harm individuals would generally be considered a violation of this principle. Ethical considerations also involve respecting the autonomy and free will of others, including animals who are killed for these purposes. Using spells to manipulate or harm individuals without their consent infringes upon their autonomy and moral agency. 

I just want to cry. Why?

IMO, the whole idea of using any form of supernatural or magical means to seek revenge on others reflects deep-seated issues within society:

• Lack of empathy and understanding: When individuals feel wronged or hurt, they may not have the emotional maturity or support to deal with those feelings constructively. Instead, they may resort to seeking revenge as a way to alleviate their pain or regain a sense of power. This lack of empathy for humans extends itself to animals as well.
• Social norms and media influence: In some cultures or communities, revenge might be glorified or portrayed as a justified response to perceived injustices. This can normalize vengeful behaviour and make it seem like an acceptable or even desirable course of action.
• Feelings of powerlessness: People who feel marginalized, oppressed, or disenfranchised may turn to voodoo or other forms of magic as a means of asserting control over their circumstances or seeking justice when they feel powerless within existing systems.
• Misguided beliefs: Some individuals may genuinely believe in the efficacy of voodoo or other supernatural practices for influencing others or causing harm. These beliefs can be reinforced by anecdotal evidence, cultural traditions, or misinformation.
• Psychological factors: Revenge can be driven by complex psychological dynamics, including feelings of anger, resentment, or a desire for validation or retribution. These emotions can cloud judgment and lead individuals to prioritize harming others over finding healthier ways to address their grievances.

These raccoon feet are almost certainly the result of trapping.

Selling animal body parts for rituals raises ethical questions about the treatment of animals and the commodification of living beings. It’s also in conflict with ethical principles of compassion, respect for life, and stewardship of the natural world. Animals may be killed inhumanely or exploited for profit without regard for their well-being, for useless “trinkets” in rituals.

Since Etsy has ignored complaints about the selling of non-endangered animal parts, the responsibility lies with the consumer, who is responsible for determining the demand for products sold on online marketplaces. It’s essential for consumers to educate themselves about the ethical and legal implications of purchasing animal parts, reject superstitious beliefs, to make informed choices that align with their values, and distinguish between scientific findings and pseudoscience.

Used for Hoodoo, Voodoo, and Santeria.

Disgusting Blood-Sport Brought Back By Premier Doug Ford

Written by: Heather Clemenceau

*Caution – this blog post contains graphic images.

I didn’t think it would be possible to be more disgusted by Doug Ford’s government. Lobbyists must have donated serious money to DoFo’s cash for access “stag and dough” event, to benefit Ford’s developer, police friends, because he is reinstating/expanding a cruel dog “sporting” event. “Bill 91, the Ontario government’s massive Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act, 2023, was ordered for third reading in the Legislature on Thursday, May 11, 2023. Schedule 14 of the act would repeal and re-enact section 35 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, to provide for new regulations concerning the issuance of licences for new and existing train and trial areas. These regulation changes would include granting new licences through a one-time 90-day application period and allowing licences to be transferred to new owners.”

This type of “training” technique is one that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNR) has been phasing out since 1997: dogs running down terrified captive coyotes, foxes and rabbits who are kept penned in tiny enclosures in between torture sessions where they are mutilated. There are now 33,000 members in the Ontario Sporting Dog Association, which lobbied the government over the past year on the training and trialing licenses. (David McNew/The Associated Press).

Hunter grins while his dogs attack a coyote

These facilities should be illegal – this is animal cruelty plain and simple, and disgusting that anyone would refer to it as a “sport.” Additionally, dogs that are forced to participate can also suffer from injuries or even death at these events. Penned dog hunting licenses are banned in every other province. Moreover, how will dogs who are trained to be vicious, distinguish between coyotes, foxes, and rabbits and innocent smaller breeds of dogs, especially in provincial parks?

Newmarket Today published this excellent letter by Sharon Willan of Aurora, and she follows up with a request for readers to contact their MP:

“If you found your child torturing a cat, dog, bird, or any animal, you would be very concerned. In the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatrist Association cites harming animals as a sign of conduct disorder. The technical term is Zoosadism, pleasure derived from harming animals.

Why then is penned dog hunting considered a sport for adults? Wild animals are taken from their environment, placed in small cages and held in barns. They are released only to have dogs chase them to exhaustion and possibly kill them. If the wild animal survives, they are recaptured, placed in cages and sold to another penned dog organization to be hunted again and again.

In 1997, penned dog hunting was banned. However. there are 24 still operating in Ontario. Instead of closing these down, the government of Ontario is expanding the licensing so that more animals can be tortured.”Penned hunting is widely condemned, controversial, and causes extreme and unnecessary stress, suffering, and death to wild animals, while posing threats to public health and safety at the same time.” All other provinces and many states in the U.S. have banned this cruel practice but the extreme segment of “hunting lobby groups like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Ontario Sporting Dogs Association are pushing the government to reverse the ban so that new dog hunting pens can open up, and existing pens can sell to new owners.” (Animal Justice, June 23, 2023)The members of these associations should read about the mental disorders associated with this torture of animals.

What kind of people have we elected who would allow this kind of antisocial behaviour to be the law? What are we teaching our youth about respecting life including the lives of animals?

Anyone who has owned a pet has grieved over their pet’s illness and pain. They have seen the suffering the animal is going through. Wild animals are no different — they suffer. The dogs who are forced to join in the hunt also suffer. Under normal circumstances, they would not be part of this heinous act.

If you are appalled about this law, please write to your local MPP and demand an end to penned dog hunting.”

Sharon Willan
Aurora

Society should do everything possible to protect wild animals, they have a place within the ecosystem and should never be subjected to this kind of torture, for the amusement of humans.

Find your MPP here

Dear Bird Lovers – Please Don’t Feed Hot Pepper Seeds in Your Feeders!

As much as I enjoy “squirrel parkour” around my birdfeeder on a daily basis, sometimes both myself and the birds need a break. My birdfeeder was being emptied every two days, and the birds would retreat quickly whenever a squirrel rushed the feeder. I took to alternating between cracked sunflower seeds (which everyone loves) and safflower seeds (which squirrels won’t eat unless they are starving).  At one time I got curious about the pepper-laced seeds and logs since they were promoted as a food source that birds would eat but squirrels and other mammals (like raccoons) would not.

It’s very true that the squirrels want nothing to do with anything doused with capsaicin (hot peppers), which causes the “heat” you feel when you’ve eaten anything exceedingly hot. The burning sensation is likely a plant defence that occurs when capsaicin tricks your body into thinking it’s experiencing a real burn.

Ecologically, capsaicinoids may function to protect the seeds within the fruit. They may also influence seed dispersal patterns by influencing gut retention times of the seeds, resulting in more successful plant reproduction.

Research has shown that only mammals have receptors for capsaicin (it’s a mammalianTRPV1 agonist) while birds do not, so they are thought to be unaffected by consuming pepper-laced foods.  Scientists have isolated the VR1 receptor in birds and found that capsaicin does not bind to it, thus it does not produce a painful sensation (at least not when eaten – it’s uncertain what happens if it comes into contact with their eyes).

Birds did eat the pepper-laced seeds and logs, but I noticed it took a really long time for them to be consumed.  Also noteworthy is the fact that the pepper-laced peanut logs eventually fell apart and onto the ground, where no one seemed to eat them.  If they had not been of the pepper-laced variety, squirrels would have cleaned this up in short order. Eventually I picked up what was left and threw it away, because I was concerned the pepper particles would contaminate the ground and when small animals rooted around, they might get their eyes irritated.

The more I thought about this possibility, I began to wonder what might be the unintended consequences of using capsaicin on other animals and insects.  Even if birds were not affected in any way, is this an equitable feed to provide? Can dogs be harmed if they root around in the fallen peanut logs? Is it better to alternate foods or reduce foods that squirrels eat, rather than put this potential irritant out where susceptible animals come in contact with it?

Some organizations, such as Cornell’s Lab of Ornithology, which operates the backyard citizen-based Project FeederWatch, have expressed concern about offering birds spiced-up food and recommend that we don’t use it.

The Audubon Society had this to say about hot pepper products….

“Use no additives in seed or nectar. Capsicum [the genus for hot peppers] irritates the eyes of humans and is likely to do so with birds as well. We do not recommend adding capsicum to bird seed.”

“There really haven’t been any scientific studies on whether the hot pepper extract, capsaicin, is harmful to the animals’ eyes. It does deter squirrels from eating seed. The nerve receptor in mammals that is triggered by capsaicin, however, is apparently not activated in birds; and, therefore, the mucous membranes in the gastro-intestinal system of birds ingesting capsaicin are not irritated. This might be the same for their eyes, but that is not clear from the scientific literature. Capsaicin is deadly to bees and other beneficial pollinators, so that is not something we promote spraying around our yards as an insecticide.”

Capsaicin has a technical fact sheet on the National Pesticide Information Center website.

“Capsaicin is an animal repellent that has also been registered for use as an insecticide, miticide, rodenticide, and feeding depressant.”

Source: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/Capsaicintech.html

USES:

“Capsaicin is used on vegetation such as crops and trees, buildings, and garbage containers. It is registered to repel vertebrate pests such as rabbits, squirrels, deer, voles, raccoons, cats, dogs, and skunks. It is also used as an attack deterrent for dogs and bears. Uses for individual products containing capsaicin vary widely.

It is applied to foliage of plants to deter feeding by insects such as spider mites, lace bugs, and other invertebrates. Capsaicin is used as an insecticide in addition to its use as a repellent.

Capsaicin is toxic to some bacteria and has been evaluated for use as a marine antifoulant.

Inhalation results in inflammation of pulmonary tissue and damage to respiratory cells. Capsaicin also irritates skin, sometimes severely.

In insects, capsaicin’s toxicity appears to be through metabolic disruption, membrane damage, and nervous system dysfunction. Capsaicin has also been shown to repel insects as well as kill them.

Capsaicin triggers the release of the neuropeptide P from the sensory nerve fibers of the C type. In mammals, capsaicin binds to the TRPV1 vanilloid receptor. The TRPV1 receptor then releases sensory neuropeptides that trigger a neurogenic inflammatory response.

NON-TARGET ORGANISMS:

Modes of toxicity for non-target organisms are expected to be similar to those of targeted insects and mammals. Capsaicin is considered toxic to honeybees and other beneficial insects. Although birds have the TRPV1 receptor, it is not activated by capsaicin. No information was available regarding toxicity of capsaicin to fish or other aquatic life.

DERMAL:

Capsaicin can cause skin irritation. Little absorption occurs across the skin. Edema following dermal exposure in mouse ears in several studies peaked within 1 hour of application, although subsequent applications produced less of a response.

Capsaicin can severely irritate the eyes, and was found to cause corneal lesions in rats and mice.

The dermal LD₅₀ was determined to be >512 mg/kg in mice, however no signs of toxicity were noted at the doses tested.

Capsaicin produces its repellent effect when it contacts either eye or respiratory tract mucus membranes. Signs of acute exposure include coughing, inability to vocalize, and temporary blindness.

Mice and rats dosed orally with 96 to 200 mg/kg capsaicin demonstrated immediate salivation, convulsions, reddening of the skin, and dypsnea, or labored breathing. Animals either died within 26 minutes of dosing, or showed no further symptoms 24 hours after dosing.

Inhalation exposure to capsaicinoids in pepper sprays damaged rat bronchial, tracheal, nasal, and alveolar cells, causing acute inflammation.”

Since capsaicin is toxic to some insect species and causes PAIN to mammals, I think it should be avoided. We should move away from the thinking that we should use such deterrents on “pest” species. I have decided that a little seed for squirrels and more for birds is a good compromise for me. Since squirrels do take more than their share, I alternate between cracked sunflower seeds and safflower seeds and millet seeds. We do have a resident chipmunk who will eat safflower seeds all day long with a big smile on his/her face, but chipmunks hibernate, and once he has taken his winter hoard, we don’t usually see him again until the spring. While there are safflower seeds in the feeder, I toss a few peanuts out on the lawn every day, and they are taken away within the hour.

Most squirrel-proof feeders offer a modicum of protection, however, squirrels can eventually outthink most mechanical deterrents! Some squirrels have figured out that they can just launch themselves at feeders protected by anti-squirrel baffles, bounce off and eat the resulting seeds that are spilled on the ground. For every problem presented to a squirrel, there is a solution!

“Solutions” that frighten, hurt, or shock squirrels are cruel, and may also hurt birds too. Please try kinder methods first.

Henry’s Gotta Go!

Written by: Heather Clemenceau

Netflix has a new true crime docuseries out that profiles scandals within the sports industry with first-hand accounts from those involved.  Episode 6 – “Horse Hitman” profiles Tommy Burns, AKA “The Sandman,” who was responsible for the killings of expensive sport horses at the behest of their owners, to perpetrate insurance fraud. The horse killings were discovered by the FBI incidentally while they were investigating the disappearance of Brach candy heiress Helen Brach in the late 1970s. The investigation, which centered on a racketeering scam where wealthy heiresses were convinced to invest in horses worth up to 750,000 (who were later killed for insurance),  led them to Burns, who subsequently made a deal with investigators where he would provide all the horrible details that implicated him, and would only be charged with one crime (but if the FBI discovered he lied about any detail, he would be charged for all the killings). 

Tommy’s intel led to the conviction of many individuals who contracted with him to kill their horses. But Burns was hardly a role model; he was really a deeply/flawed anti-hero, who had literally no empathy for horses when he could enrich himself by killing them. But in watching the Netflix episode, you may find that his dialogue creates the same sense of justice being served that a traditional hero might.   

As a young adult, Burns had a long history of making bad decisions. Starting in the horse industry by doing manual labour at farms, he moved through the ranks of anti-hero archetypes, crossing almost all moral lines. He initially began working for Barney Ward, who owned Castle Hill Farm, and was a former member of the US Equestrian Team and US World Cup team, which gave him close insights to others in the horse industry. He developed a strong loyalty to Ward. Through his connections, he left Barney’s employ and went to work for lawyer Jim Druck, who operated Eagle’s Nest Farm near Ocala Florida, where he bred show horses. Rielle Hunter (formerly Lisa Druck) was his accomplished teenaged equestrian daughter. In 1981, Lisa/Rielle was riding a show horse named Henry The Hawk. Henry had been purchased and insured for $150,000; he was one of the top hunters in the country at the time.

Vintage Photo of Henry the Hawk

Tommy Burns became obligated to Jim Druck when Druck got him off an assault with a deadly weapon charge – “You owe me.” Druck confronted Burns about having an affair with his wife, and he now needed money for the divorce settlement. Druck got an offer to sell Henry the Hawk for less than the amount he was insured for. So Druck determined that “Henry’s Gotta Go.” The horse’s fate was thus sealed. 

Very ironically, Druck’s legal practice consisted of defending insurance companies against claims. He knew that if a horse were electrocuted in a certain manner, it would be very difficult for a veterinary pathologist to find signs of foul play, unless the animal was necropsied by someone who knew to look for a burn mark, the death would be chalked up to colic. Electrocuting a horse mimics colic – the twisting of the horse’s gut that comes on very suddenly without symptoms. Druck counselled Burns exactly how to do it – with an extension cord split down the middle, with alligator clips attached to the ear and rectum of the horse. It was the “perfect crime,” from which Druck profited with Burns as the facilitator. 

After the killing of Henry the Hawk, Burns was out-of-control.  He was stealing saddles and credit cards, all centered around horse shows and the horse industry. Druck encouraged him to leave town because the cops were suspicious, so he reached out to his friend Barney Ward, who he claimed had a legitimate interest in helping him.

Around this time, Burns made a connection with horse trainer Paul Valliere (who trained Canadian Olympian showjumper Eric Lamaze). Valliere offered Tommy $5,000 to kill his horse Roseau Plattier. The insurance policy on the horse was about to lapse, so apparently this was the reason he needed the horse dead ASAP. So he was also electrocuted.  Then, horse people started calling Tommy on a weekly basis, and his fee went up considerably.

Tommy Burns’ Tools of the Trade. He traveled the show circuit, visiting stables with his bag full of electrocution equipment, to make “problem” horses go away.

George Lindemann Jr was from of one of the richest families in Palm Beach – his father was a billionaire. To kill George Lindemann Jr’s horse Charisma, he was paid $35,000 plus expenses. For $5,000, Burns had an accomplice break the leg of a horse named Streetwise, whose owner just didn’t like him. Burns, who justified electrocution as “painless,” apparently drew the line at breaking a horse’s leg with a crowbar, so he subcontracted that one out, knowing that a veterinarian would have to euthanize the horse.  Streetwise had had a colic operation previously, and as colic was excluded from his insurance policy, the jumper cables couldn’t be used.

“Break his fucking leg.”  She was heartless. ~Tommy Burns

By 1991, Tommy was under surveillance, and he and his accomplice were arrested at the conclusion of the beating of Streetwise. Police took his confession and reported the killings to the Insurance Crime Bureau. Paul Valliere admitted to the crime of contracting with Burns to electrocute Roseau Plattier and defraud the insurance company of $75,000. In his deal with prosecutors, Valliere agreed to wear a wire for over a year, gathering information for the federal authorities, which revealed an astonishing plot twist in the docuseries.

Plot Twist

Tommy Burns claimed in the documentary that he was always forthcoming with the FBI, but in truth, he held back a significant piece of information. If you haven’t watched the Netflix episode, and you don’t want a major plot twist revealed, I suggest you skip down to the epilogue. 

The FBI knew that Tommy must have had a connection who was facilitating these contract killings throughout the US.  They knew that he was not sufficiently resourceful to establish these connections of his own volition.  After Paul Valliere recorded a conversation for the federal agents, they confronted Burns with their discovery of the identity of this “facilitator.” In the recorded conversation made by Valliere, it was Barney Ward who revealed that he would have Tommy killed so that he could not take the stand against them.  Since he idolized Ward and took great pains to protect him, Tommy was forced to come to the powerful realization that, not only was the loyalty not reciprocated, he was completely expendable.   In no way had Tommy planned to implicate Barney. 

Epilogue

Tommy confessed to killing between 15-20 horses.  18 people were charged with revolving insurance fraud. The uber-wealthy George Lindemann Jr was sentenced to 33 months and was ordered to pay a $500,000 fine and restitution to the insurance company.  Paul Valliere was put on probation for 4 years and had to pay a $5,000 fine.  Tommy’s accomplice in the killing of Streetwise was sentenced to 18 months.  Jim Druck collected on a $150,000 insurance policy for arranging the killing of his daughter’s horse in 1982, but he was under investigation by the FBI when he died of cancer in 1990. He never suffered any legal consequences.

Valliere, a former coach for Canadian Olympic showjumper Eric Lamaze, is still giving clinics

Barney Ward was sentenced to 33 months in prison, followed by three years of probation, and was ordered to make restitution of $200,000 to one of the defrauded insurance companies.

Tommy himself was given leniency for his cooperation; he received a sentence of one year in prison.

No one was ever convicted for the conspiracy to murder heiress Helen Brach.  Stable owner/conman Richard Bailey was convicted of racketeering and fraud against Helen and other women.

Rielle Hunter (Lisa Druck) was devastated since she loved Henry. She must have wondered how a person could insert himself into her family, have an affair with her mother, and then kill her horse? With her own father killing her beloved horse, whatever family bonds she had must surely have been destroyed.

Why would any super-wealthy person kill a horse when they didn’t need the money?  In Druck’s case, he did need the money for his divorce.  But for others, the horses were “disappointments.” Their lack of performance was a symbol of failure that reflected poorly; if the horse goes away, you collect the insurance, and the embarrassment is removed. In that way, the owners were able to make themselves “financially and reputationally whole.” Charisma (Lindemann Jr’s horse) evidently performed poorly on the show horse circuit which made him look bad. He had the horse killed to save face. It was apparently easier than admitting he made a mistake in buying the horse. His father was worth around 4 billion so it certainly wasn’t an issue of money. But it’s really evidence of poor character when you kill an innocent animal for no other reason than you are embarrassed – with such wealth he could have simply given the horse away to someone who would have been overjoyed with the gift. For the mega-rich, cashing in an insurance policy on a horse is like redeeming a $25 gift certificate to Tim Hortons for the rest of us.

In cases where insurance fraud is never caught and punished, Insurance companies do what they always do when forced to absorb those losses – they increase premiums for everyone else.  But the horses were the biggest losers.

Prof. Jodi Lazare Dissects Unconstitutionality of Canada’s Ag-Gag Laws

Written by: Heather Clemenceau

Ag-Gag laws are a growing trend in Canada that’s bad for animals and freedom of expression. The agricultural industry, a huge lobbyist to the federal and provincial governments, is largely protected from even the scant animal welfare laws in Canada, a condition referred to as “agricultural exceptionalism.”  There are no statutes that cover what is illegal – only Codes of Practice “suggest” what should be proper treatment and conduct around animals.  

Art by Revers Lab https://www.saatchiart.com/print/New-Media-Animals/900577/4122507/view

Animal activists have provided valuable information of public importance by entering farming premises and documenting mistreatment and abuse. Journalists often resort to extraordinary techniques, including going undercover when there is no other way to get the story.  These investigations are of great importance since there is really no information that counters misleading industry marketing practices.  In her article entitled “Ag-Gag Laws, Animals Rights Activism, and the Constitution: What is Protected Speech?” Professor Jodi Lazare traces out the analytical framework for evaluating the constitutionality of Ag-Gag legislation in Canada.

Lazare’s article examines the constitutionality of Ag-Gag legislation that has recently been adopted by two Canadian provinces and is on the horizon in others. Ag-Gag laws prohibit activities such as trespass onto agricultural animal operations, gaining entry onto agriculture operations using false pretenses, and interfering with the transport of farmed animals to slaughter. The article contends that Canadian Ag-Gag legislation prevents the communication of messages related to seeking truth, participation in the political system, thus limiting individual freedom of expression. Current legislation restricts or punishes the utterance of specific words or spoken messages. Ag-Gag laws effectively prohibit undercover investigations of agricultural properties, whether by an animal rights activist, an undercover journalist, or anyone else.

Prof. Lazare’s analysis draws on events held at various protests and sit-ins at farms in Canada.

• September, 2019 – approximately 90 animal rights activists staged a “sit-in” at a southern Alberta turkey farm – by Liberation Lockdown
• December, 2019 – 11 animal rights activists occupied a pig farm south of Montreal – by Direct Action Everywhere
• February, 2020 – a main roadway was closed when animal rights activists occupied at King Cole Ducks in Newmarket, Ontario
• June, 2015 – protests held on a traffic island in Toronto adjacent to Fearman’s Pork slaughterhouse, by the Save Movement, where activist Regan Russell was killed by a transport truck in June 2020, not long after Ontario’s Bill 156 received Royal Assent.
• June 2014 – CTV Vancouver aired “shocking video” of “horrific animal abuse”23 at “the largest dairy barn in Canada.”24 The video showed “cows being whipped and beaten with chains and canes” – by Mercy for Animals

These laws are unnecessarily financially punitive. Trespassing is already illegal and many activists who have exposed inhumane farm practices and conditions have been charged as trespassers. There is no need to layer more penalties on top of existing laws. It’s very frightening to contemplate that someone in a farming environment could perform a citizen’s arrest and lock someone in a shed on the property.  Furthermore, barns are separate from homes – nobody lives there except the animals. Activists have no interest in trespassing into homes, so there is no legitimacy to the claim that Ag-Gag laws protect individual safety. Transport issues are not private property issues – how can you be prohibited from standing on a traffic island to protest? 

Politicians in Canada have played on the risk of infectious disease risks in pushing Ag-Gag laws. These laws in Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba target individuals protesting on public property near transport trucks or covertly recording conditions while working at farms and slaughterhouses, even though these activities pose no risks to biosecurity. Politicians have promoted the idea that animal activists are implicated in diseases like mad cow, which is spread by feeding pigs and cows contaminated spinal cord tissue from infected cows.  

We know that Ag-Gag laws do nothing to protect biosecurity – a report by Animal Justice shows that of more than 1,000 disease incidents that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has investigated since 2000, and none were caused by an animal activisst or a trespasser on a farm. Prion diseases, biosecurity gaps, infected trailers, insect and wild bird/animal vectors, backfeeding, and ticks, are not the result of contact with activists. Similarly, recent outbreaks of COVID-19 on mink farms in B.C were not caused by protesters or people trespassing, but by transmission from farm personnel to animals.  A FOIA to the CFIA revealed that no shipments of animals of any species been rejected at a slaughterhouse due to “interference” by animal activists from 2016-2020 either.  In Anita Krajnc’s “PigTrial” case, it has already been rejected by the court that activists have threatened the safety of the Canadian food chain.  (Rogues Gallery – Read who voted for Bill 156 – 65 PC and 1 Liberal MPP voted in favour…)

“[A]nti-animal rights and anti-food justice laws, that can be broken down into three distinct waves or eras, going back to the mid-1990s, all of which share a common purpose: incapacitating an increasingly influential movement — the animal rights movement.”

American legal scholar Justin Marceau

In the creation of the various Canadian Ag-Gag laws, legislators have mirrored regulations that have been deemed unconstitutional in the US.  Prof. Lazare has asserted that Ag-Gag laws have caused the public to lose confidence in Canadian farm operations.

So, what is the harm these laws are meant to address?  Neither animals, nor farm residents/staff are being harmed, and it is the very nature of protests that they all involve a hindrance of some sort. Obviously, the harm is the information that would be revealed. Ag-Gag legislation prevents speech that seeks to spread truth about animal agriculture and  disable participation in democratic discourse. Ag-Gag laws protect slaughterhouses and other animal ag industries from anyone who wants to expose their abuses – what other industries wouldn’t love to have these same protections from media exposure? This should not be taken lightly, either by legislators or by courts, as Bill-156 is challenged in court by Animal Justice.

A Pit Bull By Any Other Name….

Written by: Heather Clemenceau

After Tommy Chang’s dog Blu escaped, bleeding-heart pit bull fanatics, who consistently ignore empirical data on nanny-dog attacks, marched in protest in a show of extreme entitlement and disregard for others. Found running at large with cropped ears, Chang and others claimed that Blu was “not a pit bull,” even though most people would say that he looks exactly like a pit bull with his large brachycephalic head and stout, muscular body. Indeed, the “pocket bully” and other monikers are widely used order to get around breed restrictions in Ontario’s Dog Owner’s Liability Act (DOLA).

“If the dog looks like a pit bull, if it behaves like a pit bull and people recognize it as a pit bull, that’s enough to say that you’re dealing with a pit bull.” —Dr.  Barry Pless, Professor Emeritus at McGill University

Within days of his release by Vaughan Animal Services, amid public lobbying and media exposure, the subject of the intervention went on to bite a Tae Kwon Do student on the face at Chang’s studio. It was as if the dog, who had no business reason to be at the studio, had its own agenda to ensure that BSL advocates would be proven right yet again.

This is the privilege of the vocal few who are insisting on their right to make lousy decisions that imperil the public. They marched to “prove” that this dog and others like him are harmless and misunderstood, and they manipulated politicians and the media to get the dog returned. 

The pit bull advocacy movement can justifiably be compared to obstinate anti-vaxxers – the more you tell them to leash their dog, the more they “need” to take the dog in public, off-leash, encouraging people to interact with them whether they want to or not. And if you are attacked or bitten, it’s your fault because you must have misunderstood them. Blaming the victim (the practice of questioning what a victim could have done differently in order to prevent some undesirable event from happening) in this scenario is exactly what many of them went on to do…

This is where pitbull owners diverge from owners of other types of potentially dangerous dogs. Nobody puts flower crowns on German Shepherds or Akitas and tells people that “anybody can handle them.” Any bad experiences that involve pit bulls are due to “irresponsible,” or “bad owners.”  But why do only pit bulls have bad owners? We rarely hear of serious attacks by the many more popular breeds, even though “bad owners” exist across all demographics of dog ownership. What is it about this phenotype of dog that has created such a monopoly on bad owners? If a particular vehicle caused 70% of all accidents, would we all blame the driver?

The pit bull advocacy group Justice for Bullies promotes “teaching people to read a dog’s body language” in order to avoid or de-escalate bite risks. “Successful communities identify those most at risk of getting into an altercation with a dog – for example, children, mail carriers, meter readers, and delivery people. While it is the responsibility of the owner to contain and manage their dog, you can reduce bite risk by teaching people how to read a dog’s body language, how to approach them safely, and how to de-escalate a confrontation. When there is a serious dog-on-dog injury, it’s fair to report it and the owner of the attacking dog should expect consequences. But the media needs to make an effort to understand dog behaviour and look for sensible quotes rather than sensationalizing the story with the “what if a child is next?” trope.” 

13-year-old Muhammad Almutaz Alzghool. A Facebook message sent to the boy’s family read: “Bans shouldn’t be on these dogs nor should this dog be put down. Your kid should be put down!” Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/8362074/teen-allegedly-attacked-by-dog-released-vaughan-animal-services/ Photo credit: The Toronto Star

It’s not a trope. A child is often next, as was the case with Muhammad Almutaz Alzghool. What pit bull promoters don’t explain is, what will be the pathway to gaining this elusive understanding that will de-escalate dog attacks? What agency or government entity will be responsible for teaching people, especially children, how to read a dog’s mood? And how will it help people or pets who are not only NOT seeking interaction with a dog but are being actively pursued by some random loose dog? It’s really just another form of “soft” victim-blaming – shifting the focus to the dog bite victim instead of lobbing criticism where it belongs. Opponents of Ontario’s BSL were hard at work pushing out theories that Blu had not sufficiently “de-compressed” after being in the Vaughan Animal Shelter for several weeks. As if that were an excuse – no one would be safe adopting ANY dog from a shelter if they consistently attacked people within days after leaving.  And if the dog was “not himself” after his stint at VAS, why wasn’t he just kept at home?  I wonder if Blu was “not himself” after having his ears cropped? Pit bulls are frequently described as dogs that “didn’t have enough training” whenever someone is attacked.  What I consistently hear is that pit bulls not only require special training, but singular accommodation and consideration in order that they behave like practically every other dog that is well-integrated into society and doesn’t pose a serious risk to people and other animals. 

Vaughan Animal Services. Hacktivists became complicit in a boy’s dog bite, only 4 days before this “pocket pit bull” attacked him. I’m sure Muhammad and his family are relieved that this bite was inflicted by a “pocket pit bull” rather than a full-sized pit bull.

The reality is that training can only minimally influence many of the natural breed traits in a dog. So, I usually ignore excuses from people who don’t take genetics into consideration when discussing behaviour and aggression. In an owner assessment of 14,000 dogs, researchers from four American universities observed that for traits such as chasing and aggression, DNA accounts for approximately 60 to 70 per cent of variability between breeds. Most honest dog trainers didn’t need this study to tell them that the pit bull is not only more aggressive, but inflicts greater damage in assaults than other breeds, but as well because of its distinctive, well-documented “kill bite,” which can quickly rend flesh to the bone.

“(A)bout 25 years ago, my colleagues and I started to see disturbingly different types of injuries,” wrote Dr. David Billmore, professor and director of the Division of Craniofacial and Pediatric Plastic Surgery at Cincinnati’s Hospital Medical Center.  “Instead of a warning bite, we saw wounds where the flesh was torn from the victim. There were multiple bite wounds covering many different anatomical sites. The attacks were generally unprovoked, persistent and often involved more than one dog. In every instance the dog involved was a pit bull or a pit-bull mix.”

A dog trainer who “gets it:”

“90% of aggressive dogs are genetically aggressive. There’s a huge misconception that aggressive dogs were mistreated which made them that way. I find that statement to be absolutely false with very few exceptions. The sweetest dog in the world can’t be taught to be aggressive. In fact dog fighters always look for the naturally aggressive dogs because it increases their chances of a successful fighter. Dogs were wolves and have the same aggressive tendencies as them. The dominant male wolves are highly protective of food, females and territory; the three main elements of survival. If you look at it from a numbers standpoint from a litter, it’s basically no different with wolves or domestic dogs. Many litters come with one dominant personality, typically being male. Keep in mind this is very important in a wolf pack because the dominant males are the protectors and lead hunters in the pack. Without these aggressive personalities the wolf pack wouldn’t be as successful. This trait often trickles down into domestic dogs. These dogs are born with aggression but you won’t see it till they hit the adolescent period (around 9 months). Puppies are almost always sweet and get along with everything. But when they hit the adolescent stage things change drastically. 9 times out of 10 when someone comes to me with an aggressive dog the first question I ask them is when did they start noticing the problem. Overwhelmingly most people tell me it started when the dog hit around a year old. I tell them it’s nothing they did wrong, it was in your dog’s genetics. So the big question is how do you fix it? I find most aggression can’t be fixed, just managed. This means making executive decisions. If I know I have an aggressive dog the last thing I want to do is take it to a dog park. It’s risky and not worth the risk. My Chihuahua Lulu is very aggressive with children. For years I tried to acclimate her to kids with little success. When kids come over I simply put her away. It’s an executive decision that to date has gotten no children bitten. Knowing your dog’s personality traits and being realistic with the situation I feel is the most important element of understanding your animal.” Brandon McMillan (3 x Emmy® Winning Television Host, Animal Trainer)

Pit bull phenotypes are a direct result of breeding terriers with bulldogs for their “gameness” characteristic – biting and not releasing like most breeds, and ignoring their own pain when victims try to stop attacks by force. Pit bulls in general, don’t tend to submit to other dogs, they ignore submissive signals, and are therefore are less likely to respond to a submissive animal, including a person. Pit bull owners consistently deny the logic of BSL and are often clouded by their personal feelings. Many keep their dogs under the radar in areas with BSL, but lifting a breed ban turns the radar off. More dogs will run at-large and people start dropping their guard. Only after an attack do they receive legal scrutiny and this will be half-hearted due to the same breed advocates who pushed to lift BSL. Whenever they are reminded that they advocated to “punish the deed,” they find excuses to do anything but.

Without BSL, victims of pit bull attacks must dig into their own pockets to seek legal remedies that they must initiate themselves, while the offending dogs are housed at taxpayers’ expense for months and even years. The province and taxpayers must absorb the cost of treatment for dog injuries, and the victims suffer pain and disfigurement that could otherwise be avoided in many cases. Ontario would no longer have this proactive public safety law – someone has to suffer before action is taken and the harm is already done. Reactive law waits for the creation of a victim instead of preventing one.

Private Members Bills over many years have consistently failed to remove Ontario’s BSL. No one can or will put forth a proposal to “ban bad owners” because no test exists for “responsible dog ownership” and no one knows who the “bad owners” are until their dog attacks someone or another animal.

This Sounds Familiar….Lame Mare Sent to Slaughter From Rimbey Auction

Written by: Heather Clemenceau

A desperately lame mare was offered for sale at the Rimbey Livestock Auction Mart in Alberta, on June 16th. Video of the mare taken at the auction showed that she could not bear weight comfortably on her forefeet, and still images showed her standing in the classic laminitic stance, and lying down while other horses in the same pen were standing. This was a 13 year old pasture mate, weighing 1,070 lbs, who was described in the owner statement in the FOIA as “arthritic but not diagnosed by a veterinarian,” having suffered some kind of injury at the age of 5.

The mare was sold to a kill buyer and subsequently to Bouvry Exports, after potential rescuers were out-bid at the auction. As video evidence taken at the auction showed that the horse was barely ambulatory, the horse should not have been loaded on a trailer, yet, the mare had been loaded up for the (highly impractical and unnecessary) 4 hour journey to Rimbey and was ultimately slaughtered at Bouvry for the non-EU market on or about July 19, 2021, after being in transit for 3.5 more hours.

From The National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) Equine Code of Practice:

8.1.1 Fitness for Transport

“Horse owners and persons transporting horses have a primary responsibility for determining if an animal is fit for the expected duration of the trip. While the driver should not be relied upon to determine whether the horse is fit for transport, they have the right and responsibility to refuse to load a horse that they recognize as unfit.

Do not load horses with a reduced capacity to withstand transportation. These animals may show signs of infirmity, illness or injury (31). Never transport a horse unless you are sure it is healthy enough to withstand the stress of the entire expected trip (including intermediate stops). Each case must be judged individually, and the welfare of the horse must be the first consideration. If you are not sure whether a horse is fit for the trip, do not transport – contact a veterinarian.

When animals are unfit for transport, you must provide treatment until the animal is fit for the trip or not transport the animal, and, if necessary, euthanize the animal. Per the Health of Animals Regulations, it is illegal to load or unload a non-ambulatory animal unless the animal is being transported with special provisions for veterinary treatment or diagnosis, upon the recommendation of a veterinarian.”

The National Farm Animal Care Council is comprised of stakeholders primarily made up of farmers and veterinarians. What the NFACC has published are merely “guidelines,” which do not have the force of law behind them, as opposed to regulations, which are directly enforceable. So of course, sellers, auctions, kill buyers, and slaughterhouses thrive in the ambiguity of the language and lack of force in the guidelines.

CFIA Response to Growing Public Discontent

The FOIA response from the CFIA revealed that they received many messages of concern (friends might recognize their own message included in the PDF below). So the the Red Deer district office put on their CSI goggles and went to the auction house and contacted the mare’s owner (the EID is included in the FOIA documentation). The inspector’s report of July 22nd specifically made mention of the owner being asked whether the mare was administered any bute or banamine as a result of being “arthritic.”

It’s also revealing that while the owner admitted the horse was “arthritic,” and had a “slight limp” while getting off the trailer, the Rimbey auction response to the CFIA was that the mare was not lame when she came off the trailer, nor was she lame when she went through the auction (??!?) but because they placed her on a concrete pad over the weekend while the pens were being cleaned. Does anyone else think that the “concrete pad” is a convenient excuse for explaining acute lameness away to dismiss any future complaints about horses that can barely stand? And if concrete pads make horses stiff or lame, why put them there? It seems inconceivable after watching the video that this horse could be “offloaded at Bouvry with no apparent problems.” Has any animal ever been deemed too lame to ship by an auction mart or kill buyer? 

Where this investigation falls down, as it usually does, is in the lack of accountability for transport by everyone involved, and drug testing of the remains of this poor suffering animal. The auction house claimed that the SPCA was also involved; any action taken by them (highly doubtful) is not included for our review. And as always, the CFIA seems to leave any testing up to the discretion of the slaughterhouse.

It’s my own opinion that it’s heartless and generally illegal to deny an animal pain-relieving medication,  especially when a veterinarian or farrier indicates that it is in pain. I can’t decide which is worse – denying an animal medication because it might affect the ability to wring those last few dollars off of it, or “buting” it and sending it to slaughter anyway.  This particular owner confirmed to the CFIA that they did not administer bute to lessen this mare’s pain and did not seek veterinary opinion.

When an animal is in this much discomfort, he or she is now on its own timeline, not ours. We can’t choose to euthanize it or otherwise end its life on our schedule. If your animal is diagnosed by a veterinarian as non-viable/in pain/unrecoverable injury, it is now our responsibility to humanely euthanize him or her to avoid further suffering. Auctions are merely dumping grounds used by many miserly, unfeeling owners.

“The pound of flesh which I demand of him Is deerely bought, ’tis mine, and I will have it. I am sorry for thee: thou art come to answer
A stony adversary, an inhuman wretch
uncapable of pity, void and empty
From any dram of mercy.”

Read the FOIA Documentation:

http

View this document on Scribd

Short Hills Hunt Makes Mockery of Social Sacrifices By Others

Written by:  Heather Clemenceau

(Please note that this blog includes graphic images)

Doe teats tacked onto a tree, for reasons known only to the hunters.

Now, more than ever, the Short Hills Hunting Protocol is revealed as a useless, non-binding document whereby neither party to the protocol have  the means nor the will to adhere to or enforce it. It makes no effort to address the current COVID pandemic as do other government health advisories for hunters. Restaurants in Niagara had previously required ID to prove that patrons were local, but anyone can attend this hunt without concern for coronavirus restrictions.  Occupants of parked cars mingled freely with each other, while the Six Nations have declared an outbreak crisis after an upsurge of cases. 

The Quebec government, published a guideline specifically to be used by hunters during the pandemic:

• Follow physical distancing measures by keeping a two-metre distance with people who do not live at the same address as you;
• Favour practicing your activity close to your main residence or in your administrative region;
• Travel with people living at the same address as you. Otherwise, plan on using more than one vehicle (car, ATV, etc.);

The Government of Canada also created a risk-mitigation tool that addresses outdoor activities, including hunting:

“If there is known COVID-19 activity in the community, the likelihood that it could be introduced into an outdoor space or recreational activity is higher. The risk of COVID-19 introduction and spread is also presumed to be greater if a higher proportion of individuals visiting the outdoor spaces or participating in the activity comes from outside of the community.”

In previous hunts, cars from out-of-province have been observed, and the staff of Ontario Parks who host the hunt also drive in from outside of the area. The hunters own published videos show that inside the hunt zone they don’t bother to observe reasonable social distancing precautions.  Hunting in Short Hills is possibly the only place hunting occurs without any references to precautionary principles in the time of COVID.

Every year dead or dying animals are found on or close to property lines, whether private homes or the Scout camp.  A study conducted by the Oklahoma Fish and Wildlife Agencies  found that approximately 50% of deer that were shot were never recovered. Some deer survived for up to 5–7 days before succumbing to their wounds. The protocol doesn’t address the issue that hunters are therefore often shooting towards a boundary (as evidenced by the number of animals found on or near property lines). Homeowners were forced to confront the gruesome remains of this doe, who was partially consumed by coyotes after a botched kill shot (doe evidently shot while fleeing).

After each hunt, the users of the park inevitably discover sickening blood trails and guts left near or on main trails. Perhaps the hunters would like to reposition this bio-mess to an area off the main trails? Leaving a gut pile in close proximity to a multi-use public trail is not the least bit respectful to other users but is hardly surprising. There is a culture of intolerance in the hunting community in general towards others user of wildlife areas and this is a prime example. It IS distressing that this is left in an area with high foot/recreational traffic and it attracts predators to the area where people are often walking with dogs. You can argue that scavengers will clean it up quickly, but that offers no protection to anyone walking their dog who happens to end up in the wrong place at the wrong time – it is currently coyote breeding season.  People also don’t want to drag their dogs out of the gut pile. This is no different than leaving garbage behind in the park.  Short Hills is a park and not an area set aside for hunting.  Biking, walking, and skiing (and not hunting) are why the park exists!

One of the gut piles revealed disturbing remnants of the kill, left for the casual park user to discover at their leisure.  The two fetuses discarded in the snow are evidence that the deer have good availability of food resources, that there have been good weather conditions for plant growth, and they are likely in better-than-average body condition.  Reproduction rates are linked to the plane of nutrition (defined as the quantity and quality of food intake).  Because of the high metabolic cost of pregnancy, it is reasonable to expect females with larger body size (i.e., more fat) to be better suited to tolerate body fat loss, and thus produce multiple fetuses per pregnancy, thereby going a long way towards refuting the oft-claimed opinion that the deer feeding requirements have eclipsed the ability of the park to provide. 

Mature evergreens are also being heavily damaged for the purpose of creating hunt blinds. Ontario Trails has rules for a minimal impact approach – because this is a park and not a raw forest.  At least one hunt in Ottawa Hills (Ohio) that was otherwise not opposed by nearby residents, was ended in part due to the forest damage caused by the hunters. 

Within one hour of the commencement of the hunt on November 3^rd, a hunter was observed moving through the Hydro corridor in the area of several private properties. Ontario Parks staff attended and removed him.  Hunt blinds are also being set up outside the hunt zone.  The difference between poaching and hunting is one of permission. 

Hunting accidents occur between hunters all the time. Add any park visitors who aren’t hunters, and you have a recipe for disaster. Two non-hunters (one with a dog) were able to gain access to the park during an active hunt despite assurances in The Protocol that the entry points would be virtually impregnable due to the vigilance of MERC and the MNRF. Was the hunt stopped under the circumstances? Nobody can/will say.

Park damaged to create hunt blinds

Hunter being removed from unauthorized area

Hunt blind outside the hunting zone

Unencased bows.

Hunters walking out of and back into the entrance with their crossbows in plain sight.

Opening the parks to hunting is unnecessary, unsafe, and introduces whole new layers of bureaucracy and expense. Leave the parks alone so that they can function as they were intended: to preserve the land and wildlife for future generations to enjoy.

The protocol for the 2020/2021 hunt makes absolutely no mention of coronavirus precautions, even though the Government of Canada published a risk mitigation tool for outdoor spaces.

Click to access short-hills-harvest-protocol-2020.pdf

Bill 156 – Nothing Strengthens Authority As Much As Silence

Written by:  Heather Clemenceau

Artwork in support of Animals in the Anthropocene, by We Animals Media, Jo-Anne McArthur, and Keith Wilson.

There’s no doubt that, in the defence of animal agriculture, Canadian legislators and politicians are becoming more and more oppressive. They’d have us live in a place where we all wear blindfolds. Bill 156 has outlawed picketing, protests, and any watering of animals that interacts with animal transport. It has empowered farmers to arrest anyone on their premises, using a degree of force that is vague and undefined. To that end, Bill 156 is designed, in part, to make sure nobody will be acquitted under the “thirsty pig defence” in future.

Whistleblowers make disclosures that are in the public interest. They should be applauded, not punished.  Thank you to everyone who has put their life on the line in the defence of animals.  

Please know what MPPs voted for this legislation. Their emails and party affiliation are included.  Most “aye” votes were registered by the PC Party, while most “nayes” were recorded by the NDP.

“Having unannounced inspections and external monitoring on large commercial farms would seem to be the right way forward to increase safety and public confidence – and that is the legislation that should be pushed forward.”  ~ Jan Hajek is an infectious diseases doctor, who has worked in Ontario for SARS, in Newfoundland in 2009 for H1N1, in Sierra Leone for Ebola, and is now working on the COVID-19 ward at Vancouver General Hospital.

 

 

AYES / POUR – 68 (65 PC/3 Liberal)

Anand – Mississauga—Malton – deepak.anand@pc.ola.org

Baber – York Centre – roman.baber@pc.ola.org

Babikian – Scarborough—Agincourt – aris.babikian@pc.ola.org

Bailey – Sarnia—Lambton – bob.bailey@pc.ola.org

Barrett – Haldimand—Norfolk – toby.barrett@pc.ola.org

Bethlenfalvy -Pickering—Uxbridge – peter.bethlenfalvy@pc.ola.org

Blais – Orléans – sblais.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Bouma – Brantford—Brant – will.bouma@pc.ola.org

Calandra – Markham—Stouffville – paul.calandra@pc.ola.org

Cho – Willowdale – stan.cho@pc.ola.org

Clark – Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes – steve.clark@pc.ola.org

Coe – Whitby – lorne.coe@pc.ola.org

Crawford – Oakville – stephen.crawford@pc.ola.org

Cuzzeto – Mississauga—Lakeshore – rudy.cuzzetto@pc.ola.org

Downey – Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte – doug.downey@pc.ola.org

Dunlop – Simcoe North – jill.dunlop@pc.ola.org

Elliott– Newmarket—Aurora – christine.elliott@pc.ola.org

Fedeli – Nipissing – vic.fedeli@pc.ola.org

Fee – Kitchener South—Hespeler – amy.fee@pc.ola.org

Fraser – Ottawa South – Jfraser.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Fullerton – Kanata—Carleton – merrilee.fullerton@pc.ola.org

Ghamari – Carleton – goldie.ghamari@pc.ola.org

Gill – Milton – parm.gill@pc.ola.org

Harris – Kitchener—Conestoga – mike.harris@pc.ola.org

Hogarth – Etobicoke—Lakeshore – christine.hogarth@pc.ola.org

Jones – Dufferin—Caledon – sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org

Karahalios – Cambridge – belinda.karahalios@pc.ola.org

Ke – Don Valley North – vincent.ke@pc.ola.org

Khanjin – Barrie—Innisfil – andrea.khanjin@pc.ola.org

Kramp – Hastings—Lennox and Addington – daryl.kramp@pc.ola.org

Kusendova – Mississauga Centre – natalia.kusendova@pc.ola.org

MacLeod – Nepean – Lisa.macleodco@pc.ola.org

Martin – Eglinton—Lawrence – robin.martin@pc.ola.org

Martow – Thornhill – gila.martow@pc.ola.org

McDonell – Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry – jim.mcdonell@pc.ola.org

McKenna – Burlington – jane.mckenna@pc.ola.org

McNaughton – Lambton—Kent—Middlesex – monte.mcnaughtonco@pc.ola.org

Miller –  Parry Sound—Muskoka – norm.miller@pc.ola.org

Mitas – Scarborough Centre – christina.mitas@pc.ola.org

Mulroney – York—Simcoe – caroline.mulroney@pc.ola.org

Nicholls – Chatham-Kent—Leamington – rick.nicholls@pc.ola.org

Oosterhoff – Niagara West – sam.oosterhoff@pc.ola.org

Pang – Markham—Unionville – billy.pang@pc.ola.org

Park – Durham – lindsey.park@pc.ola.org

Parsa – Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill – michael.parsaco@pc.ola.org

Pettapiece – Perth—Wellington – randy.pettapiece@pc.ola.org

Phillips – Ajax – rod.phillips@pc.ola.org

Piccini – Northumberland—Peterborough South – david.piccini@pc.ola.org

Rasheed – Mississauga East—Cooksville – kaleed.rasheed@pc.ola.org

Roberts – Ottawa West—Nepean – jeremy.roberts@pc.ola.org

Romano – Sault Ste. Marie – ross.romano@pc.ola.org

Sabawy – Mississauga—Erin Mills – sheref.sabawy@pc.ola.org

Sandhu – Brampton West – amarjot.sandhu@pc.ola.org

Scott – Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock – laurie.scott@pc.ola.org

Simard – Glengarry—Prescott—Russell – asimard.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Skelly – Flamborough—Glanbrook – donna.skelly@pc.ola.org

Smith  – Bay of Quinte – todd.smithco@pc.ola.org

Smith – Peterborough—Kawartha – dave.smith@pc.ola.org

Surma – Etobicoke Centre – kinga.surma@pc.ola.org

Tangri – Mississauga—Streetsville – nina.tangri@pc.ola.org

Thanigasalam – Scarborough—Rouge Park – vijay.thanigasalam@pc.ola.org

Thompson – Huron—Bruce – lisa.thompson@pc.ola.org

Tibollo – Vaughan—Woodbridge – michael.tibollo@pc.ola.org

Triantafilopoulos – Oakville North—Burlington – effie.triantafilopoulos@pc.ola.org

Wai – Richmond Hill – daisy.wai@pc.ola.org

Walker – Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound – bill.walker@pc.ola.org

Yakabuski – Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke – john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org

Yurek – Elgin—Middlesex—London – jeff.yurek@pc.ola.org

 

NAYS / CONTRE – 22 (21 NDP/1 PC)

Arthur – Kingston and the Islands – IArthur-QP@ndp.on.ca

Begum – Scarborough Southwest – DBegum-QP@ndp.on.ca

Bell – University—Rosedale – JBell-QP@ndp.on.ca

Berns-McGown – Beaches—East York – RBerns-McGown-QP@ndp.on.ca

Bisson – Timmons – gbisson@ndp.on.ca

Bourgouin – Mushkegowuk—James Bay – GBourgouin-QP@ndp.on.ca

Fife – Waterloo – cfife-qp@ndp.on.ca

Glover – Spadina—Fort York – CGlover-CO@ndp.on.ca

Hassan – York South—Weston – FHassan-QP@ndp.on.ca

Hatfield – Windsor—Tecumseh – PHatfield-QP@ndp.on.ca

Horwath – Hamilton Centre – horwatha-qp@ndp.on.ca

Karpoche – Parkdale—High Park – BKarpoche-QP@ndp.on.ca

Kernaghan – London North Centre – TKernaghan-QP@ndp.on.ca

Mantha – Algoma—Manitoulin – mmantha-qp@ndp.on.ca

Rakocevic – Humber River—Black Creek – TRakocevic-QP@ndp.on.ca

Schreiner – Guelph – Mschreiner@ola.org

Stevens – St. Catharines – JStevens-QP@ndp.on.ca

Stiles – Davenport – MStiles-QP@ndp.on.ca

Taylor – Hamilton Mountain – mtaylor-qp@ndp.on.ca

Vanthof – Timiskaming—Cochrane – jvanthof-qp@ndp.on.ca

West – Sudbury – JWest-QP@ndp.on.ca

Yarde – Brampton North – KYarde-QP@ndp.on.ca

 

Richelieu Slaughterhouse – Breaking Bad Again!

Written by:  Heather Clemenceau

How often do you hear or see an ad that leaves you questioning the claims being made? Anyone who knows me knows that both online and IRL, I am a “super-complainer.” You really have no choice anymore, because “fake news” permeates literally every subject.

A few months ago I visited the Richelieu horse slaughterhouse website as I am wont to do every few months,  just to see what nonsense they are purporting.  There’s usually always something that can be used to launch an official complaint, and they didn’t disappoint.  Claims about horsemeat for pregnant women and for those prone to infection really drew my ire.  It’s not very smart to put out information that is so easily discredited. But nobody said horse killers are smart.

It took complaints to Ad Standards, Health Canada, and finally the CFIA (who acted upon the complaint) to do something about it.  The CFIA didn’t say exactly what they did or what they counselled Richelieu to remove or stop posting on their website, but I was very pleased that they looked at my materials and saw that the horse killers were using language that amounted to a murky sea of nutritional “advice.”

Our community of anti-slaughter advocates is strong and engaged! If you see questionable or false claims being made about the quality or nutritional value of horsemeat or indeed any animal product, please contact:

Ad Standards

The CFIA

Health Canada

Competition Bureau of Canada

READ THE CFIA Letter