Blue Jays Adapt to New York City--Sort Of

A blue jay has built a nest on the fire escape on Fifth Street in Manhattan. It's not a great spot; sooner or later the babies--in the natural course of things--end up on the ground before they learn to fly. And inevitably some well-meaning person picks them up to save them.

As if the mother blue jay doesn't have enough problems, her mate is not really contributing the to the household. Instead of getting food, he has fixated on a cat that lives in a third floor apartment down the block. The jay constantly buzzes and swoops at the cat's window, as if he's going to convince the cat to move out.

Where to Go to See Unusual Birds

Where to See Animals in the Northeast

Why is the Guy Who Promoted Horse Slaughter Recommending NY Stop Spay-Neuter?

Jolly, a handsome, neutered dog

New York State is about to cut off spay-neuter funds. It's a short-sighted idea that leads to more strays and more government spending--like stopping vaccines to save a few bucks. Who would propose such a change? How about Patrick Hooker, a guy who got into the office lobbying pro-horse slaughter, pro veal and is generally not so keen on animal welfare.

Right now the change is buried on page 171 of a nearly 600-page state budget, billed deceptively as "dog licensing reform." Search for spay or neuter. You won't find it. I don't know much about the byzantine Albany budget process, so I turned to the Times Union, where Brad Shear wrote an excellent column explaining that the provision was recommended by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, Patrick Hooker and already approved by David Patterson. In 2008 the embattled governor, he notes, "stole $1 million from the fund and put it in the general fund."

Hooker got the job in 2007 after working for 16 years as a lobbyist for the New York Farm Bureau. His state bio says he was the "farm advocacy organization's top lobbyist, serving as Director of the Public Policy Division." He's also a hunter and maple syrup producer. The Daily News reports he gets a $1,622 farm subsidy himself.

While Hooker was the chief lobbyist for the Farm Bureau, it was fighting for horse slaughter and against bills that would outlaw the practice. The only reason New York didn't ban horse slaughter was that the Farm Bureau energetically opposed it, Deborah Glick told WNYT. He's spoken out for foie gras. The bureau worked against applying the same environmental and immigration laws to farmers that others face. The bureau likes to say it wants rules that are "size-neutral"--code for supporting big factory farms. They're against laws for minimum cage sizes. Generally, the agency where Hooker directed policy came down opposed to most animal welfare laws, as if they were some crazy idea of meddling cityfolk.


Hooker also worked for upstate Republican John Randy Kuhl. Kuhl was famous for wanting rural western New York to secede from the rest of the state. (That's a switch: the city has long wanted to brush off the upstate huckleberries and their $11 billion drain on our taxes.) Now he is also famous as the guy who lost to ticklemonster Eric Massa.

People in New York City have paid little attention to the way Albany runs the ag department. Until now. Just last year food activists complained the chairman of the Assembly's agriculture committee was too cozy with the farm bureau, too. Just how did these guys who support just about every anti-animal initiative going start running dog policy for New York state?


The state suspended its stressed and underfunded low-cost spay-neuter program in October. In New York state when you get a dog license, you pay $3 extra if your dog isn't spayed or neutered. (And until recently, if your dog was neutered you were supposed to get a notary to certify that--a higher expense.) Your community has to spend it on spay-neuter. I've already been all over the issue of how this is absurdly low. It needs to be about 10-30 times higher to  incentivize people to neuter their dogs. Instead we may get an even more backwards policy that would feel right at home in the rural south, where dog populations and animal cruelty go unchecked.

Spay-neuter programs aren't just more humane, they save a ton of tax dollars. One study showed that New Jersey saved $2.2 million over 6 years with a subsidized neuter program because they didn't have to kill as many dogs in shelters. It's also safer for people: dogs are more aggressive if they aren't fixed and intact dogs  cause 95% of fatal attacks.


It's absurd that New York state treats pets as agricultural products. I'd imagine that Elliot Spitzer appointed Hooker to seem bi-partisan and to make rural voters happy. Hooker's certainly in touch with what upstate farmers want. But he's not qualified to oversee dogs for the rest of us.

Here's the ASPCA's Action Site on the Issue

Where to Go to See Dog Events Unrelated to Breeding

4 Budget Cuts that Save U.S. Taxpayers $280 Million AND Help the Environment, Animals and Wildlife Watchers

President Obama wants to freeze the tiny part of the federal budget that applies to programs in the environment, parks, education and transportation. I've seen this movie before and know this political gimmick doesn't have a happy ending for wildlife. But here are four easy way to cut the federal budget by $280 million a year and help the environment, wildlife and animal watchers.

Discount Grazing on Public Lands: $121 million
Wild Horse-Roundups and Permanent Holding:  $85 million a year
Killing Coyotes, Starlings and other "Bad" Animals: $71 million a year
Rounding up Yellowstone Bison $3 million

1) Stop Cattlemen Welfare $121 million Cattlemen get to graze on federal land for about one-tenth the cost they would have to pay the private sector. This is a program both the left and right hate. The CATO Institute calls it "land-use socialism."

Ranchers now pay about $1.35 per animal unit per month (AUM), compared to $13.50 in the real world. Just to break even the federal government should be charging between $7.64 and $12.26, a GAO report found. We could stop losing $121 million by charging market rates.

I'm a meat eater and amid the myriad choices of grass-fed and dry-aged, I've never gotten a special deal on federal land beef. If the massive federal lands were put on the free market, it would probably drive down costs for all ranchers--and consumers.
(Photo courtesy of Sharat Ganapati)

2) Stop rounding up wild horses : $85 million a year

We really have more wild horses in captivity that we know what to do with--about 33,000. The Bureau of Land Management started amassing mustangs under Bush, then proposed selling them to slaughter in 2005. The public was repulsed.

Each horse costs about $333 to round up (based on the $900,000 the BLM spent to catch 2,700 horses). Then it costs about $500 a year each to keep them.

But, we're still rounding up horses--another 12,000 this year. That will put nearly two-thirds of the wild horse population in federal custody at a cost of about $85 by 2012.

3) Stop Killing Coyotes and Starlings: $71 million a year
The federal government spent a stunning $71 million in FY2010 on the widely discredited science of killing 2.4 million predators and "nuisance" animals. The predators taken are quickly replaced by other animals moving into the territory. Wyoming spent $2.2 million federal tax dollars in 2007 to kill 11,000 coyotes, 300 foxes, 1,000 pigeons, 600 ravens and 55 wolves (among other animals they decided were bad).
Whether you think these animals should survive or not, you have to question whether federal tax dollars should be spent removing them.

The federal government also paid to dispatch (partial list)
1,177,00 starlings
335,000 cowbirds
90,000 coyotes
86,000 pigeons
16,000 cormorants
13,000 mourning doves
13,000 raccoons
6,000 squirrels
500 stray dogs
1,100 prairie dogs
1,110 feral cats
6,000 rabbits
876 robins (including 776 shot on purpose in Mississippi)
400 otters

344 wolves (including four critically endangered Mexican gray wolves that you are also paying the Fish and Wildlife Service to bring back)
336 cougars
84 mockingbirds
52 pelicans (including one brown pelican, then classified as endangered, intentionally shot in Florida)
43 Sandhill cranes
1 flamingo

4) Stop Rounding up Yellowstone Bison $3 million

Again, lay this one on the cattlemen. The various government agencies (parks, forest service, USDA) say they needs to limit bison because they might give a disease to 200 neighboring cattle.
"The U.S. government spends about $3 million a year to manage wild buffalo like livestock inside Yellowstone Park through its capture, quarantine, and vaccination program, all intended to prevent buffalo's natural migration to adjacent National Forest lands and on private lands where people want and respect them as wildlife," says Buffalo Field Campaign habitat coordinator Darrell Geist. He also points out that doesn't even count crop and livestock subsidies, giveaways to mining companies and gifts to
oil and gas interests. 

They could just stop giving out the money-losing grazing rights to the land in the valley. Remember, it's a money losing proposition anyway. But on top of that, we're paying to round them up and ship them off. Even though seeing bison is one of the reasons Americans like going to Yellowstone. BFC's. Habitat Coordinator Darrell Geist says they could probably buy out the cattle for about $1 million.


Where to Go to See Wolves
Places You Can See Bison

Supposed Allergy Sufferers Whine about Dogs and Cats on Airlines

The New York Times recently ran a story on pets on planes, specifically the hassle and expense. It will come as no surprise to dog and cat people that they were overwhelmed with people complaining that animals just shouldn't be allowed on planes at all. The issue is inevitably claimed to be allergies, but once again it seems more cultural than scientific.

Any reasonable dog person would be happy to accommodate one of the rare people who have severe dog allergies. But I won't accommodate any one else's irrational fears or cultural biases.

I've got severe allergies myself, but I am deeply suspicious of claims of being allergic to dogs. First off, the incidence of allergies to dogs is much rarer than it is to cats. Second, I don't know how many times I've heard someone claim they were allergic to something, but it turns out it's just a hunch. Unless you've had a RAST test, where they poke little anti-bodies in your arm, don't claim that you're allergic to something. I dated a guy who grew up thinking his brother was allergic to dogs. Turns out his mom made it up because she didn't like dogs. But the aversion to dogs--as well as the allergy excuse--is now passed down to a new generation in the family.

The complaints are more about dogs on planes instead of cats, which is peculiar because cats cause so many more allergies. Any dog sitting in a cabin of a plane is under 20 pounds and on some airlines under 15 pounds. That's not a lot of dog to be allergic to.

If we're going to be rational about animals on planes, then let's just have people be required to bathe their dog or cat within 48 hours of a flight. Therapy dogs generally have to do that before they visit a hospital. Yeah, it's huge nuisance, but dog owners already have to haul themselves to the vet right before a trip, too.

Second, if we're really dealing with allergies, then there should be no problem with poodles or any of the other breeds documented to be hypo-allergenic flying in the cabin no matter what their size. The president's Portuguese Water Dog Bo was selected not to cause allergies in the White House; that ought to be good enough for a Continental flight to Tampa.

One angry pet-hater wrote in with her fantasy of fining dog owners for every bark or growl or peeing in their crate. Sounds fine, as long I as I can exact a fee from every participant in an inane business meeting or flirtation among strangers I have to listen to, for every time someone slams their seat back or is befuddled by where to put their luggage. A toy dog travelling is at the bottom of my list of airline complaints. If you're afraid of a 15-pound lhasa apso growling, I really can't be responsible for your comfort.