By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Lisa Castagnozzi considers herself an engaged community resident. The longtime animal rights activist stays plugged in on local issues, yet even she was surprised to learn a new slaughterhouse was planned in Milwaukee, right up until approval for the development of the land was poised to pass the city council. Castagnozzi wasn’t alone. Most of the community had been left in the dark, it turned out. Once Castagnozzi and the group Slaughter Free Milwaukee found out, they jumped into action to spread word of the planned slaughterhouse — ultimately winning their fight to prevent the plant from being constructed.

Slaughterhouse Owners Try to Keep Zoning Applications Quiet

Though the slaughterhouse was planned for Milwaukee’s Century City Business Park — a district that city officials have struggled to get businesses to move into — numerous residential neighborhoods would be affected. Yet initially, only a few people were there to weigh in on the proposal at the public council committee meeting where the proposal was first addressed.

It was at that meeting that members of the council, including Alderman Robert Bauman, began questioning company representatives, and learned what the company was proposing was a slaughterhouse. The facility would slaughter roughly 500 cattle daily, including animals from Illinois, Montana, Wisconsin and the Dakotas, according to the company’s representative at the meeting.

At a zoning meeting held a week later, Alderman Robert Bauman called these suspiciously quiet efforts a “strange proceeding,” pointing to the lack of briefing by the Department of City Development and the absence of citizens weighing in during the public comment period.

“There was nobody there,” he said during another zoning meeting. “There were no citizens in support and no citizens in opposition.” The effort to keep the new facility proposal quiet was alarming to Castagnozzi, both as an animal rights advocate and a member of the community.

“We didn’t know anything about a slaughterhouse potentially coming into Milwaukee,” she says, calling it “kind of out of the blue.” The fact that the meat processing plant would be constructed in a “city-owned lot” meant the community should have a chance to weigh in, she says.

Alderman Bauman expressed similar concern in his public comments. “Slaughterhouses and…all types of businesses that produce noise and dirt and odor have historically had a stigma in central city communities,” he pointed out in his remarks to the full city council. “Why? Because for whatever reason, those types of negative land uses just seem to always end up in poor neighborhoods — primarily neighborhoods of color.”

Only Days to Inform Their Neighbors

Once Castagnozzi and her small cohort of animal rights activists did learn about the proposed measure, they had just a few days before the next meeting was scheduled to get the word out. With limited time and resources, the group took to online and physical spaces to reach community members, and began to make headway. “We as a group, made flyers, did social media, we physically spread out in the community and went to the coffee shops,” she says.

Some policymakers “don’t care what kind of jobs they are, how much they pay or what the working conditions are like — they’re jobs,” says Robert Grillo, head of Slaughter Free Network. According to government documents, the facility would have paid employees an average of $17 an hour — significantly above the city’s $7.25 minimum wage but well below the salary needed to live comfortably in Milwaukee.

Milwaukee’s residents do care, it turns out. In a matter of days, activists organized dozens of opposition letters and delivered them to council members. “Jobs are not just jobs. Slaughterhouse work is among the most exploitative, dangerous and relatively low paid work in the market,” reads the letter signed and sent by many of the opposing residents.

During a city council meeting, Alderman Khalif Rainey who at the time represented the neighborhood raised objections to campaign efforts. Rainey argued that the letters were not reflective of the community, and that he had received messages from people out of the state, but barely heard from his own constituents.

Though he voted to send the proposal back to committee for further discussion, Rainey argued that the jobs it would bring would improve the lives of the majority-Black community in which the slaughterhouse would be constructed. “That’s a good, well-paying job,” he said in the council meeting, “so again, it’s crazy how all roads lead back to this one question: do Black lives matter?”

Castagnozzi disagrees. “No one we spoke to was for it,” she says. At one community cafe near the proposed site, Castagnozzi says, none of the customers knew what was planned and, when they found out, they were appalled. “They just couldn’t believe it. Like, ‘what do you mean? Like, that’s the business they’re going to put in our neighborhood’.”

Getting communities to agree, collectively, to oppose a local initiative that offers jobs can be difficult. “People are afraid of retaliation. People are afraid of speaking out or they have certain relationships, and they’re worried about those relationships causing them problems with their work or in their personal life,” says Grillo.

It’s a risk that paid off for the Wisconsin group that have now organized themselves as an official chapter of the larger national organization. Strauss canceled their plans to build a new facility in Milwaukee. Ted Beneski, head of Insight Equity Holdings, LLC, which owns a majority share in Strauss Meats, sent an email from his iPhone to Grillo. The company’s “strategy has changed,” it read, and Strauss is “not planning to build a slaughterhouse [in or near Milwaukee] or anywhere else for that matter.” Earlier that summer, the remaining Strauss Meats slaughterhouse in the Milwaukee area was also shuttered. According to a press release the decision was the result of their recent divestment from the lamb and veal businesses, combined with the relocation of their beef operations to Illinois.

To persuade community residents to speak out, advocates and organizers have to “create a tension,” says Grillo. “It’s a moral crisis,” he adds. “You have to create that to get people to take sides.”


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana's Natural Resources Commission will decide this week whether to allow bobcat trapping, giving Hoosiers one last chance to weigh in.

The meeting will be held Tuesday at 10 a.m. at Fort Harrison State Park in Indianapolis and will determine whether the state moves forward with a plan to permit bobcat trapping in 40 southern Indiana counties next fall.

Samantha Chapman, Indiana state director of the group Humane World for Animals, stressed Hoosier voices are critical at the meeting.

"We really want folks to show up and voice their opposition to this proposal," Chapman emphasized. "Indiana's bobcats are still recovering, and we need more data on what the actual numbers and populations are for bobcats in Indiana."

Opponents said the plan is premature. The Department of Natural Resources has released only a siting map, not a full study, raising concerns the species remains vulnerable. Humane World Animals urged residents to demand a zero quota, arguing the proposal prioritizes trappers over conservation.

The plan allows trappers to capture up to 250 bobcats, with each trapper limited to one and required to obtain a special license. Chapman warned trappers will kill bobcats at a time when Indiana must prevent past population declines rather than risk undoing decades of recovery.

"While the commission can legally set a quota of zero, it is instead proposed allowing 250 bobcats to be barbarically trapped, bludgeoned, strangled, stomped or shot," Chapman contended. "This is why we need Hoosiers to speak up at the Natural Resources Commission meeting."

Conservationists stressed live bobcats generate more economic benefits through tourism than trapping ever could. They urged Hoosiers to turn out in force Tuesday and speak before the commission makes its final decision.


get more stories like this via email

By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

As egg prices continue to skyrocket across the United States, some consumers are looking for alternative ways to secure affordable eggs, including turning to their backyard. Last month, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, penned a commentary outlining her plan to help "lower egg prices." Among her proposals - such as vaccinating chickens and reassessing California's Proposition 12, which tightened animal welfare laws - there was also a nod to raising backyard chickens.

In her commentary, Rollins writes that part of the plan is "to make it easier for families to raise backyard chickens." There was no expansion on this point, however, outside of a sentence in the USDA release of the plan promising to "minimize burdens on individual farmers and consumers who harvest homegrown eggs." A spate of articles also suggests the notion is picking up steam. Yet even though the idea may seem like a potential solution to rising egg prices, research suggests that keeping chickens for eggs may just bring the risks of avian flu to your backyard. In short, because your backyard is not protected from wild birds.

"The more birds that you have, especially when they kind of overlap with waterfowl habitat, for example, the increased risk you're going to have [of bird flu]," Maurice Pitesky, associate professor and expert in poultry disease modeling at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, tells Sentient.

The increased risk applies to industrial egg operations. Nearly 99 percent of farm animals in the U.S. are raised on factory farms - operations where animals are crowded together, often in unsanitary conditions. These settings are breeding grounds for diseases like bird flu, as the density and poor care make it easy for viruses to spread quickly. But it's not just factory farms that are at risk. In the past year, bird flu outbreaks have made headlines across the United States, and backyard chickens have not been immune to its reach.

Backyard Flocks Impacted

Over the last 30 days, 51 backyard flocks across the U.S. have confirmed cases of avian influenza, compared to 59 cases in commercial operations, as of March 3. While the number of affected backyard flocks is slightly lower overall, it's important to remember that the risk to smaller, home-raised flocks remains significant, primarily because the disease is often spread through wild birds - including their droppings and saliva - who can easily get to a backyard flock.

Wyoming recently reported its first human case of bird flu, which is believed to have been contracted from exposure to a backyard flock. The first severe case of avian flu in the U.S. occurred in December 2024 in Louisiana, where it was determined that the person had been exposed to sick and dead birds from a backyard flock. This person also became the first person in the U.S to die from the virus.

"This case underscores that, in addition to affected commercial poultry and dairy operations, wild birds and backyard flocks also can be a source of exposure," the Center for Disease Control has stated about this case.

Bird flu can spread to people through various routes in a backyard farm, according to the CDC, including direct contact with infected birds, their droppings and contaminated equipment.

The Spread: Wild Birds and Backyard Flocks

It's tempting to assume that backyard chickens are safer from bird flu than large commercial farms due to their smaller flock size and less crowded living conditions. But this assumption overlooks the critical role of wild birds in spreading the virus.

The virus is frequently carried by wild birds, many of which are migrating across the country. For backyard chicken keepers, this poses a serious risk, as wild birds can easily come into contact with their flocks, potentially bringing the virus with them.

Benjamin Anderson, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental and Global Health at the University of Florida, told Sentient in an email that wild birds, particularly ducks and geese, are the main carriers that can introduce the flu into backyard flocks. Outbreaks are also more concentrated along migratory bird flyways, Anderson noted, with four major routes across the U.S.

A 2021 study on avian flu transmission pathways found that flocks near or in contact with waterfowl and migratory birds are at a higher risk of infection. Although the study primarily focuses on commercial farms, its insights are also relevant to backyard operations - in essence, the researchers found that the virus can spread more widely when chickens aren't properly isolated from these outside threats. Infected birds can release the virus through their saliva and feces - in other words, exposure doesn't require direct contact with a backyard chicken.

Though backyard chickens are often not as crowded together as chickens raised commercially, birds raised in backyards are vulnerable to bird flu thanks to the lack of strict biosecurity regulations. Unlike commercial farms, which are at least required to follow certain guidelines to prevent outbreaks (such as regular testing and isolating infected animals), there is no oversight or enforcement for smaller, home-raised flocks.

With backyard bird flocks, says Pitesky, "their biosecurity on average is not ideal." There are a number of reasons why that can be the case, including a lack of "adequate fencing." It can even be as simple as the hobbyist may be pressed for time. "People have lives," says Pitesky. To keep backyard chickens safe, Pitesky says, "it takes some time and energy and money."

Backyard chicken keepers may not be aware of the measures they should take to minimize risk of exposure. A 2024 survey study in the UK of 1,550 poultry keepers found that not all backyard poultry owners were following biosecurity measures mandated by the government. The researchers found that some poultry keepers were unaware of what was required of them or faced barriers such as expenses, fewer carers for the birds and other welfare concerns.

The CDC has issued guidelines for backyard chicken owners to follow, such as restricting human access to their chickens, keeping them in enclosed spaces and minimizing exposure to wild birds. But if backyard chicken keepers do not implement these protocols effectively, the birds are left exposed to the virus.

Should You Raise Backyard Chickens During a Bird Flu Outbreak?

Anecdotally at least, Anderson has found that more people are interested in having backyard chickens these days, especially with high egg prices. And though both Anderson and Pitesky see the appeal of having backyard flocks, they also point to the risk associated with keeping them.

It's crucial to understand that keeping backyard chickens during an outbreak requires significant research, preparation and strict adherence to CDC guidelines. The CDC recommends wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling sick or dead birds, cleaning and disinfecting contaminated areas and avoiding stirring up dust or bird waste that may spread the virus. In an email to Sentient, Anderson writes "people should take necessary steps to learn how to raise poultry safely and according to local and state rules."

However, this guidance quickly becomes complicated - some infected birds (especially those that are infected with a low pathogenic strain of bird flu) may not show symptoms. This strain can then mutate into the highly pathogenic version. As a result, flock owners may not realize they need PPE or take proper measures when dealing with asymptomatic birds. They may end up spreading the virus unwittingly.

The Bottom Line

Though the current risk of contracting bird flu remains low for most of the public, the middle of a bird flu outbreak may not be the best time to start keeping backyard chickens. It may sound appealing to be able to source "free" eggs from your backyard, but the reality is that keeping backyard chickens safe from bird flu requires time and money. And ultimately, raising chickens in a backyard doesn't eliminate the risk of spreading the virus, and could even exacerbate the problem if you don't take the proper precautions recommended by the CDC.

As for Secretary Rollins' plan to make raising backyard chickens easier for homeowners, the details remain unclear. Sentient reached out to the USDA for more information on how her plan addresses these concerns, but has yet to receive a response.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Industrial farming practices could be boosting the spread of bird flu.

Avian influenza has been detected in poultry across the country, including in North Carolina, where 3.3 million birds had to be culled because of the disease at one farm alone in January.

Rania Masri, co-director of the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, said concentrated animal feeding operations used for poultry are a breeding ground for disease.

"CAFOs by design amplify the formation, the mutation and the spread of new viruses," Masri explained. "Which can very simply and quickly transform into a full-blown epidemic."

Masri pointed out industrial farms in North Carolina disproportionately affect low income communities and communities of color. Her organization signed a letter with other public interest groups calling for more transparent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The North Carolina Environmental Justice Network is also calling on the state to be more transparent with its data.

Craig Watts, a farmer and director of the contract grower transition program for the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, said diseases like bird flu at large industrial operations can create bottlenecks, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic when farms did not have workers and had to kill their birds.

"While they're killing those birds in the field, now our shelves are empty," Watts observed. "If you have smaller, more localized, regional, you might have an issue in, say, North Carolina but maybe it wouldn't affect Nebraska like a breakdown in the industrial system will."

Masri believes the control of the industry by a small handful of corporations is bad for democracy.

"The only thing that the industrial farming is good for is the shareholders of these mega-corporations," Masri contended.


get more stories like this via email