BOSTON - More than 175 Massachusetts veterinarians have signed a letter to be presented to state legislators asking them to support The Act to Prevent Farm Animal Cruelty. At the heart of the issue are confinement crates for calves and gestation crates used for pregnant pigs.

According to Dr. Barry Kellogg of Pittsfield, senior veterinary adviser for the Humane Society Veterinarian Medical Association, the Act would require that pigs and calves being raised for food have enough living space to turn around, lie down and extend their limbs.

"We have the responsibility to not be cruel to animals, and these confinement crates are cruel and inhumane in their restriction of activity of motion and behavior," the veterinarian declared.

Calves raised for veal are confined in crates too narrow for them to turn around, and they are often tethered by their necks to further restrict movement until they are slaughtered at about 16 weeks old. The majority of breeding pigs are confined day and night during their pregnancies in gestation crates, which are the size of the pig's body. They are impregnated again after they give birth and are put back into such crates.

Kellogg said he and veterinarians around the state support the Act, which simply would give animals more space.

"And that's all we are attempting to do is to eliminate the totally restrictive (conditions) with some requirements to be able to lie down, turn around, extend their limbs," he stated.

Some people in agribusiness defend the use of gestation crates to save money, as few workers are needed to tend to the animals when they are thus confined. Kellogg said however that many humane alternatives can be implemented without raising costs. He added that many of these intelligent and social animals suffer both physically and psychologically from being isolated and prevented from engaging in natural behaviors.

Nine states have banned confinement cages and many major food chains such as Dunkin' Donuts and McDonald's are phasing out their use from their food suppliers.

The bill will be presented at a public hearing scheduled in Boston today, scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. at the State House, 24 Beacon St., Boston, Hearing Room A1 & A2.

A copy of the signed letter is at tinyurl.com/kgy5d3m.




get more stories like this via email

Government labels on meat products that say "humane" or "raised in a stress-free environment" are meaningless, according to some animal-rights groups, because the feds don't verify the companies' practices on the ground.

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, has just submitted a petition calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service to stop approving labels that PETA calls "grossly misleading."

Jared Goodman is the general counsel for animal law at the PETA Foundation.

"The government is enabling companies to exploit consumers' willingness to pay more for products that are made from animals who are supposedly raised humanely," said Goodman, "but in reality, suffer in many of the exact same ways as those who are raised pursuant to regular industry standards."

The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

PETA says its investigations show some companies with the "humane" label - even some that advertise themselves as "cage free" - still mutilate the beaks of poultry, crush male chicks while they are still conscious, and keep animals in crowded sheds with little light or room to roam.

The nonprofit Humane Farm Animal Care has created a "Certified Humane Program" that evaluates producers on standards of care in raising and slaughtering animals. But Goodman pointed out that third-party programs are merely voluntary.

He said he thinks the feds should not approve "humane" labels, since companies have a strong financial incentive to misrepresent the ways they treat animals.

"They don't consider animal welfare a priority," said Goodman, "and are not going to invest the resources that are needed to provide these animals with adequate care before they're ultimately sent to the same slaughterhouses that kill animals from factory farms."

There are no federal anti-animal cruelty laws, but states will investigate when complaints are filed.

PETA claims that adopting a vegan diet is the only way to be sure your meals are cruelty-free.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it is considering a ban on lead ammunition on several national wildlife refuges, a move some wildlife advocates want to see replicated at the state level in Wisconsin.

Mark Naniot, director of wildlife rehabilitation for Rhinelander-based Wild Instincts, explained lead ammunition fractures into small particles when fired into an animal, which means lead-contaminated meat can then be consumed by hunters and scavengers.

"They ingest these tiny little lead particles, and all it takes is one or two almost microscopic particles to cause lead poisoning," Naniot noted.

Naniot explained Wisconsin's Conservation Congress, which acts as an advisory committee to the Department of Natural Resources, has voted on lead ammunition regulations in the past, although it has never approved such policies.

While there's no current ban, the Department of Natural Resources recommends against using lead-based ammunition and angling gear, citing concerns over lead poisoning.

Many hunters have embraced lead-free ammunition, but some counter it is more expensive than lead-based ammunition and less widely available. Naniot acknowledged the cost for a box of lead-free ammunition can be $10-$20 more, but argued it can take hunters years to go through a single box of ammunition.

"There's 20 shells in a box," Naniot pointed out. "And most people will shoot maybe one or two at a deer, maybe shoot a couple to make sure their gun is sighted in. So, you're shooting two or three [shells] a year. Well, that box is maybe going to last you maybe four or five years."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is accepting public comment on the proposed lead-ammunition ban until August 8. The rule would open up 19 federally-managed refuges to hunting, with the trade-off being lead ammunition would be banned on those lands. None of the refuges are located in Wisconsin.

A new study aims to reduce wildlife collisions in one of the biggest hotspots for them - Highway 395 from Reno, Nevada, through Tahoe up to Susanville.

The nonprofit Wildlands Network worked with specialists at Pathways for Wildlife to place about 40 cameras on the route - to see where animals are trying to cross and where specialized fencing is needed to direct them to culverts or a wildlife overpass.

Mari Galloway, California program manager with Wildlands Network, said the road cuts off the migration pattern for many different species.

"The mule deer, coyotes, pronghorn, elk, black bears, mountain lions," said Galloway. "American badgers, grey fox and long-tailed weasels occupy the area as well."

Many species overwinter in the lower elevations near Reno and migrate to the Sierra Nevadas in the summer in search of food, mates and new territory for the juveniles.

According to the University of California, Davis Roadkill Ecology Center, from 2016 to 2021 there were almost 350 large wildlife collisions - mostly mule deer - on a 60-mile stretch of Highway 395, doing more than $6 million in damage.

Tanya Diamond, co-owner and wildlife ecologist at Pathways for Wildlife, said the year-long study will identify existing passageways and fencing that could be improved or repaired, and the best place for a new wildlife overpass.

"In 15 years of study, I don't think I've ever encountered a highway that needed this much extensive help," said Diamond. "This is such an important area with the deer migrating like that."

The work builds on efforts from CalTrans and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and their counterparts in Nevada. Actual construction of new culverts or overpasses is a few years off, once environmental studies are complete.