"The torture of animals should be a federal crime with stiff penalties," said Rep. Buchanan. Pixabay
In Dec. 2010, President Obama signed a law that made it a federal crime to create and distribute animal torture videos. That law, however, did not ban the underlying act of animal torture itself.
That's why Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) re-introduced the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act, or (PACT) Act that prohibits "intentional acts of crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, impaling or otherwise subjecting animals to serious bodily harm," according to a press release, and makes it easier to prosecute those involved in the horrific acts.
<p>
Those who are convicted face federal felony charges, fines and up to seven years of jail.
</p><p>
While all 50 states have their own laws against animal cruelty, and an existing federal law prohibits animal fighting, the PACT Act will allow prosecutors to go after criminals who torture animals across state lines and on federal property,
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/us/animal-cruelty-federal-felony-bill-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> noted.
</p><p>
According to the bill's text, it criminalizes those who "intentionally engage in animal crushing if the animals or animal crushing is in, substantially affects, or uses a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce."
</p><p>
"The torture of innocent animals is abhorrent and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law," Rep. Buchanan said in the press release. "Protecting animals from cruelty is a top priority for me and I look forward to working with Congressman Deutch on this important issue."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="3c49b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BCKJKA1576683769"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1089975351286083586" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The torture of animals should be a federal crime with stiff penalties. My bill with Democrat @RepTedDeutch has ove… https://t.co/ECUoUYdlYh</div> — Rep. Vern Buchanan (@Rep. Vern Buchanan)<a href="https://twitter.com/VernBuchanan/statuses/1089975351286083586">1548705349.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
Rep. Deutch called the legislation a "commonsense" effort to "bring some compassion to our animal laws."
</p><p>
"For many Americans, animal welfare is an important policy issue, and the idea of animal abuse is abhorrent," he continued. "By building on state and local laws, Congress should act to guarantee a level of protection for animals across the country by criminalizing these inhumane acts. We've acted in the past to stop the horrific trend of animal abuse videos; now it's time to make the underlying acts of cruelty a crime as well."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="2f4ba" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4KJBWS1576683769"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1090241730790731776" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Stopping animal cruelty is important to Americans across the country and folks are surprised when they hear that ab… https://t.co/69S56mEB0Z</div> — Rep. Ted Deutch (@Rep. Ted Deutch)<a href="https://twitter.com/RepTedDeutch/statuses/1090241730790731776">1548768858.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
The legislation includes exceptions "for normal veterinary care, hunting and conduct necessary to protect life or property from a serious threat caused by an animal," the press release said.
</p><p>
The bill has been endorsed by the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police and national animal welfare groups including the
<a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/" target="_blank">Humane Society of the United States</a>.
</p><p>
"All 50 states now have felony penalties for malicious cruelty, and there are federal statutes on animal fighting and crush videos," the Humane Society wrote in a <a href="https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&%3Bpage=UserAction&%3Bid=7572" target="_blank">petition</a> to draw support for the bill. "But there is no federal law prohibiting the underlying act of malicious cruelty when it occurs on federal property or in interstate commerce, and we need to close this gap."
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The vegan "Impossible Burger" is growing in popularity. T.Tseng / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Update, Sept 4: The bottom of this article has been updated with the Missouri Department of Agriculture's new guidelines and a statement from Beyond Meat.
Missouri is the first state in the country to enact a law that criminalizes certain uses of the word "meat."
The mandate, which came into effect on Tuesday, prohibits companies from "misrepresenting" products as meat if they are not from "harvested livestock or poultry." The measure was approved by the legislature in May and signed by former-Gov. Eric Greitens on June 1. Violators could be fined $1,000 and face imprisonment for a year, according to USA TODAY.
<p>
The initiative was backed by the state's pork producers, the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Cattlemen's Association.
</p><p>
"The big issue was marketing with integrity and ... consumers knowing what they're getting," Missouri Cattlemen's Association spokesman Mike Deering told USA TODAY. "There's so much unknown about this."
</p><p>
The terminology change could force a costly overhaul of certain brands' marketing and packaging in the state,
<a href="https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/pavag9/the-meat-lobbys-bill-to-ban-the-phrase-fake-meat-shows-the-real-threat-of-plant-based-alternatives" target="_blank">Munchies</a> reported. For instance, companies such as <a href="https://www.gardein.com/" target="_blank">Gardein</a> sell products such as Meatless Meat; Whole Foods' 365 brand touts Meatless Meatballs, Meatless Burgers and Meatless Breakfast Patties. It could also hamper <a href="http://www.memphismeats.com/">Memphis Meats</a>, a San Francisco-based startup developing "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-meat-production-2504409733.html" target="_blank">lab-grown</a>" tissues cultured from animal stem cells.
</p><p>Additionally, the <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/fake-meat-producers-are-challenging-missouri-over-new-advertising-law/article_f56ec1c0-0f20-5177-bce6-bbb32858ade7.html" target="_blank">St. Louis Dispatch</a> reported that plant-based burger company <a href="http://beyondmeat.com/" target="_blank">Beyond Meat</a> just expanded its manufacturing facility in Columbia. It employs more than 200 workers in mid-Missouri and is poised to add another 250 employees. <br></p><p><span></span>On Monday, a coalition of organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri, the
<a href="https://aldf.org/" target="_blank">Animal Legal Defense Fund</a> (ALDF), the <a href="https://www.gfi.org/" target="_blank">Good Food Institute</a> (GFI) and vegetarian foodmaker Tofurky filed a <a href="https://www.gfi.org/images/uploads/2018/08/GFIetalMOMeatComplaint.pdf" target="_blank">complaint</a> in a Missouri federal court challenging the law.
</p><p>
<span></span>The groups say the law is designed to protect the meat industry against the growing $5 billion plant-based "fake meat" sector, which has boomed from the public's increasing appetite for healthier, more humane and environmentally sustainable food products.
</p><p>
"As more and more consumers are making the conscious choice to remove animals from their plates, Missouri is putting its thumb on the scale to unfairly benefit the meat industry and silence alternative producers," said ALDF executive director Stephen Wells in a statement.
</p><p>
The groups maintain that the state's consumer protection agency has no evidence that consumers are confused by the labels of plant-based products.
</p><p>
<span></span>The lawsuit alleges that the new law violates constitutional principals such as free speech, discriminates against out-of-state companies, denies fair and honest competition in the marketplace, and infringes on the Due Process Clause because the vague language in the law makes it difficult for companies to know what is and is not legal.
</p><p>
"Americans don't like censorship, and they don't like the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace," said GFI executive director Bruce Friedrich. "We're confident that the Court will overturn this anti-competitive and unconstitutional law."
</p><p>
<span></span>Not all meat producers are against faux-meats. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tyson-foods-clean-meat-2529938894.html" target="_blank">Earlier this year</a>, Tyson Foods, one of the largest meat companies in the U.S., announced it is ramping up its investment in lab-grown animal protein in response to growing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption" target="_blank">demand for meat</a> worldwide. The company's venture capital arm purchased a minority stake in Memphis Meats.
</p><p>
The meat industry is lobbying the federal government to make similar changes. In April, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association submitted
<a href="http://www.beefusa.org/CMDocs/BeefUSA/Media/NCBA%20Response%20to%20Petition%2018-01%20Meat%20Definitions%20FINAL.PDF" target="_blank">official comments</a> to the United States Department of Agriculture outlining key principles for the regulation of fake meat products.
</p><p>
"It is critical that the federal government step up to the plate and enforce fair and accurate labeling for fake meat," Kevin Kester, president of National Cattlemen's Beef Association, said in a
<a href="http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases.aspx?NewsID=6628" target="_blank">press release</a>.
</p><p>On Aug. 30, the Missouri Department of Agriculture <a href="https://agriculture.mo.gov/animals/meat.php" target="_blank">issued a clarification</a> of how the new "Missouri Meat Advertising Law" will be implemented, as follows: </p><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Products must include a prominent statement on the front of the package, immediately before or immediately after the product name, that the product is "plant-based," "veggie," "lab-grown," "lab-created" or a comparable qualifier; and</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Products must include a prominent statement on the package that the product is "made from plants," "grown in a lab" or a comparable disclosure.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>No enforcement referrals will be made until Jan. 1, 2019.</li></ul><p>The new guidelines will be phased in over the next four months to give companies time to update product labels and bring packages into compliance.</p><p>Beyond Meat issued a statement to EcoWatch on Aug. 31 saying the company was pleased the legislation does not disallow the descriptor "plant-based meat" and plans to continue operating under the newly released guidelines.<u></u><u></u></p><p>"We are satisfied we were able to reach an understanding with the state of Missouri that affirms our use of a 'plant-based' qualifier on our packaging is fair and accurate. We believe that we are building meat directly from plants, and that consumers are not only accepting of this innovation but enthusiastically embracing it," said Ethan Brown, CEO and founder of Beyond Meat, in the statement. "Free speech, commerce that is unstifled by unnecessary government interference, and consumer choice are foundations of our country. To this end, we are pleased that the legislation did not go so far as to disallow our use of the descriptor plant-based meat, and we plan to continue operating under the newly released guidelines, selling our delicious plant-based burgers, sausages and beyond."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Victory for Whistleblowers in North Carolina: Court Reinstates Constitutional Challenge to 'Anti-Sunshine' Law
06 June 2018
Politics
Overlooking Cowee Mountain in the Great Smoky Mountains of NC, from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Mary Anne Baker / CC BY 2.0
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Tuesday that a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's anti-sunshine law can go forward, reversing the decision of the federal district court. The law was designed to deter whistleblowers and undercover investigators from publicizing information about corporate misconduct, and a coalition including animal welfare, press freedom, food safety, and government watchdog groups is challenging the law's constitutionality.
<p>In its decision, the Fourth Circuit determined that plaintiffs' First Amendment rights were harmed if forced to "refrain[ ] from carrying out their planned investigations based on their reasonable and well-founded fear that they will be subject to significant exemplary damages." The fact that North Carolina has not yet enforced the anti-sunshine law and that the law imposes civil rather than criminal penalties does not prevent the plaintiffs from seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights. The state, the court writes, cannot pass a law that "by its terms [ ] prohibit[s] Plaintiffs' planned activities and [ ] subject[s] them to civil liability" and argue that the plaintiffs cannot sue to protect their freedom of speech.</p><p>The state legislature overrode a veto of the bill by Governor Pat McCrory in June 2015, and the law took effect in January 2016. Under the law, organizations and journalists who conduct undercover investigations, and individuals who expose improper or criminal conduct by North Carolina employers, are susceptible to suit and substantial damages if they make such evidence available to the public or the press.</p><p>The North Carolina law is part of a growing number of so-called 'ag-gag laws' passed by state legislators across the country. The bills, which are pushed by lobbyists for corporate agriculture companies, are an attempt to escape scrutiny over unsafe practices and animal abuses by threatening liability for those who expose these improper and, in many cases, illegal practices. North Carolina's version is written so broadly that it would also ban undercover investigations of all private entities, including nursing homes and daycare centers. The North Carolina law threatens to silence conscientious employees who witness and wish to report wrongdoing.</p><p>The plaintiffs in the suit, represented by Public Justice, are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (<a href="https://www.peta.org" target="_blank">PETA</a>), the <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" target="_blank">Center for Food Safety</a>, <a href="http://aldf.org" target="_blank">Animal Legal Defense Fund</a>, <a href="https://www.farmsanctuary.org/" target="_blank">Farm Sanctuary</a>, <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>, the <a href="https://www.whistleblower.org" target="_blank">Government Accountability Project</a>, <a href="https://www.farmforward.com/" target="_blank">Farm Forward</a>, and the American Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (<a href="https://www.aspca.org/" target="_blank">ASPCA</a>).</p><p>This legal challenge is the first in the nation to make claims under both the U.S. Constitution and a state constitution.</p><p>The plaintiffs are represented in this appeal by David S. Muraskin and Leslie A. Brueckner of Public Justice in Washington, DC and Oakland, CA; Daniel K. Bryson and Jeremy Williams of Whitfield, Bryson & Mason LLP in Raleigh, NC; and in-house counsel for plaintiff organizations.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
A tiger known as Tony spent his life in a cage at a Louisiana truck stop. Tony died last week. Janusz Sobolewski / Flickr
By Stephen Wells
For more than six years, the Animal Legal Defense Fund fought tirelessly to save a tiger named Tony from a cage in the parking lot of a Louisiana truck stop. Sadly, we received news last week that Tony had died of kidney failure after spending 16 years confined to his cage, living and dying as a roadside attraction. Tony's plight is a microcosm of the problems with our legal system, a system that treats sentient beings as property and affords disproportionate political influence to their captors and abusers.
Tony was born into captivity, sentenced from birth to a life of exploitation, a gimmick used by his owner Michael Sandlin to sell gasoline at the Tiger Truck Stop. It doesn't take a degree in veterinary medicine to know that a truck stop is no place for a tiger. But veterinarians and animal behaviorists weighed in emphatically on Tony's behalf. Dr. Jennifer Conrad, a doctor of veterinary medicine with decades of experience with captive large cats, personally visited Tony and concluded that he was "exploited to the detriment of his welfare."
<p style="">Dr. Marc Bekoff, professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, concluded that Tony's enclosure was completely unnatural and totally unfit, and that the manner in which Tony was kept at the Tiger Truck Stop fell significantly below the bare minimum required to ensure his psychological welfare.</p><p>The state legislature and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) recognized that keeping wild animals in captivity causes immense animal suffering and threatens public safety, so they banned the private possession of tigers. But the agency bowed to pressure from the Tiger Truck Stop and issued it a grandfather permit to keep Tony in spite of the ban.</p><p style="">In early 2011—moved by Tony's suffering and the passion of his supporters—we sued LDWF, arguing that the truck stop wasn't eligible for a grandfather permit. And we won. The trial court ruled that because the truck stop violated a local ordinance prohibiting the ownership and exhibition of tigers, it couldn't qualify for a permit. The court ordered LDWF to revoke the permit and prohibited it from issuing any new permits. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, leaving the Tiger Truck Stop and Michael Sandlin with an unlawfully possessed tiger and no permit to keep him. </p><p>That should have been the end of it.</p><p style="">LDWF should have seized Tony and sent him to a sanctuary where he could have lived out the last six years with grass under his paws, fresh air in his lungs and caretakers who prioritized his well-being. Instead, Tony would spend the next six years as a victim to a lethargic legal system that failed him at every turn, notwithstanding the indefatigable efforts of his legal advocates.</p><p style=""><strong>What Went Wrong?</strong></p><p style="">At the root of the problem is the fact that in the U.S., animals are property. And any time one asserts the rights of property against the rights of its owner, the game is rigged. Tony's "owner," Michael Sandlin, was able to exploit a narrative of private property rights under siege, claiming over and over again that he had a God-given right as an American to own a tiger.</p><p style="">Sandlin even filed his own lawsuit, arguing that Louisiana's ban on tigers violates his property rights. We intervened against Sandlin in the case to defend the ban and the right of the government to prohibit the inhumane captivity of wild animals. The case has been pending for more than five years. Although we expect Sandlin's lawsuit to lose, as a delay-tactic to keep Tony trapped at the truck stop, it succeeded spectacularly.</p><p style="">Another troublesome aspect of our legal system also doomed Tony to die at the truck stop: The undue influence of money in politics and the corruption of the political process by those who abuse animals.</p><p style="">In 2014, Sandlin convinced his state senator, Rick Ward, to introduce a bill to exempt Tony—and only Tony—from the state ban on big cats. The bill carved out a retroactive exemption to place Sandlin above the law that applies to all other Louisiana citizens, co-opting the legislature to undo the legal victory that revoked the truck stop's permit.</p><p style="">Despite our on-the-ground efforts to stop the bill in Baton Rouge, it passed and was signed into law by then-governor Bobby Jindal. We challenged the new law as an unconstitutional "special law"—a giveaway to a private special interest at the expense of the public interest. But the lawsuit was bounced on a procedural technicality to a different court, then languished, awaiting a ruling from the court that didn't come quickly enough to spare Tony.</p><p style="">All told, we filed four lawsuits, intervened in a fifth lawsuit, and fought legislatively for Tony's freedom. Tragically, it wasn't enough to overcome the lethargy of the courts to act—and the corruption of Louisiana politics.</p><p style="">But we will hold our grief over Tony's death in our hearts and our memories as we continue to fight to prevent Michael Sandlin and the Tiger Truck Stop from replacing Tony with another tiger, and as we fight for the liberation of other wild animals from cruel captivity.</p><p style="">While we have had numerous legal victories for captive wildlife—from lions to tigers to bears and more—we remain committed to fighting for animals using the laws we do have—while simultaneously working to transform the legal system to recognize the obvious: Animals are more than just "property."</p><p style="">Stephen Wells is executive director of the <a href="http://aldf.org/" target="_blank">Animal Legal Defense Fund</a>. <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/tragic_tale_of_tony_the_truck_stop_tiger/" target="_blank">Earth Island Journal</a>.</em></p><h4 style="">RECOMMENDED</h4><p style=""><strong><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wild-horses-burros-blm-2499116836.html" target="_blank">Brutal Outlook for Healthy Wild Horses and Burros: BLM Calls for Shooting 90,000</a></strong></p><p style=""><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/snow-leopards-threatened-consumers-2500147578.html" target="_blank"><strong>Snow Leopards Still Threatened by Consumer Demand for Skins and Body Parts</strong></a></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Audubon Society of Portland
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the nation's preeminent legal advocacy organization for animals, is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or people responsible for shooting a male bald eagle near Gaston, Oregon in late June. Total reward, including the Audubon Society of Portland's $1,500 reward offer for a conviction, now totals $6,500.
<p>The eagle was first spotted injured the third week of June, but was unable to be caught. Continued searches led to his rescue on June 28.</p><p>The eagle's condition when initially treated was grim: complications from the gunshot wound to his shoulder were feared fatal. The eagle has since improved, though it is doubtful he will be able to return to the wild or ever enjoy the freedom of flight again. Compounding this tragedy, the Audubon Society of Portland—that is providing the eagle's care—believes he was half of a nesting pair. How the eagle's mate or their eaglets fared following his injury is unknown.</p><p>The eagle's shooting is under investigation by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Oregon State Police. Bald eagles are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the latter of which makes hunting, capturing, shooting, injuring or killing a bald eagle a crime punishable by up to a $5,000 fine and a year in jail for first offenses. It is also a violation of Oregon state law to hunt bald eagles—which could result in additional charges under the state anticruelty law.</p><p>"Though the shooting of a bald eagle is a tragedy no matter when it occurs, the timing of this crime is bitterly ironic. This living symbol of the United States spent the Fourth of July fighting for his life because of the shooter's cruel act," said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. "The Animal Legal Defense Fund thanks the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and Oregon State Police for their efforts to hold the perpetrator accountable, and offers our full support in getting justice for this eagle."</p><p>If you have information related to this incident, please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Oregon Office at 503-682-6131.</p>
Read More
Show Less
The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint last week on behalf of a Wyoming resident in an attempt to stop an upcoming coyote-killing contest. The "Wyoming Best of the Best" involves teams of hunters vying to kill as many coyotes as possible from sunup to sundown.
Non-hunting participants place bets on the teams they think will kill the most coyotes. The complaint alleges the event constitutes a nuisance in the form of illegal gambling, since participants wager money and the outcome is based predominantly on chance. Illegal gambling is a violation of the state nuisance statute, designed to prevent activities that put the moral integrity and safety of the community at risk.
The Rock Springs event is scheduled for this coming weekend, Feb. 3 – 4. The rules encourage people of all ages and experience to enter, including children.
Wyoming Best of the Best involves betting opportunities for most coyotes killed, biggest coyote killed, littlest coyote killed, a rifle raffle and a Calcutta—a form of betting pool where participants pick winners and the pool of funds is distributed according to a prearranged scale of percentages, to those who selected winners. Hunting participants wager $50 per person for the chance to win cash prizes and advance to the state championship for killing the most coyotes. Teams may also wager an extra $20 per team to enter the "Big Dog/Little Dog" contests, for the chance to win extra cash prizes for killing the biggest and/or littlest coyote.
OMG! #Trump Sons Auctioning Off $1 Million #Hunting Trip to Celebrate Inauguration https://t.co/05pOgnH1JS @CenterForBioDiv @PETA @NWF @NRDC— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1482243854.0
The killing contest is not regulated by any government agency, hunting licenses are not required in Wyoming to kill coyotes and there is no limit on the number of coyotes a hunter may slaughter. The plaintiff worries the influx of hunters, whose goal is to win cash prizes for the indiscriminate and uncontrolled killing of coyotes, will negatively impact Sweetwater County's wildlife.
The contest also causes a serious disruption in the ecosystem leading to an unbalanced and unhealthy natural system. When coyote populations are disrupted by lethal means, younger pups have no adults to help them acquire food. This in turn causes many pups to prey on sheep and livestock. The disruption can also affect smaller predator populations by destabilizing entire ecosystems.
"Killing contests are simply blood sports," said Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Wells. "They are completely inconsistent with appropriate conservation goals or effective wildlife management. Coyotes are essential members of healthy ecosystems, not targets to be killed for 'fun.'"
Video Shows Wild Buffalo Held Without Food or Water Near Dakota Access Pipeline Construction Site
14 November 2016
Popular
A new video appears to show wild buffalo corralled behind razor wire and 8-foot deep trenches near the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) construction site in Standing Rock, North Dakota. The video, posted on Facebook by Indigenous Rising Media on Nov. 11 with more than 1.2 million views, accuses DAPL builders of fencing off the animals in order to finish construction of the controversial pipeline.
"As of today, Dakota Access pipeline has fenced our sacred wild buffalo and they are building a razor wire wall to protect the last stretch of construction," the Facebook post's accompanying text states.
Reports claim that the buffalo are being held without access to food or water.
However, in the video's comments section, some have questioned whether the herd is actually part of a bison ranch and that the pipeline company might have nothing to do with it.
Still, there have been random sightings of wild buffalo/bison stampedes during the ongoing Standing Rock protests. (Note: although they are different animals, Americans use "bison" and "buffalo" interchangeably).
Watch here as the Standing Rock Sioux and their allies cheer over the arrival of the unexpected visitors:
According to the fact-checking site Snopes, "Bison are not necessarily a rare sight at the reservation. The Standing Rock Sioux have long-range plans to increase the size of their buffalo herd to 1,000. To handle a herd of that size, the tribe would need 20,000 acres of rangeland."
Buffalo are sacred to the Sioux. "Buffalo (Tatanka in Lakota) are a significant animal to Sioux and other plains peoples, who use it for food and clothing," Snopes writes.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has since launched an investigation into the matter.
"It has been reported that wild buffalo are being corralled and held behind razor wire fencing without food or water near the Dakota Access Pipeline—and that there have been threats of killing the buffalo by the construction company," the ALDF wrote on their Facebook page. "The Animal Legal Defense Fund is confirming reports, collecting additional information and investigating the legality of the treatment of these buffalo."
As #NoDAPL arrests underway yesterday, a herd of buffalo suddenly appeared https://t.co/grKFcsqTFr https://t.co/Qe3V5WLJMY— Monday (@Monday)1477674544.0
The $3.8 billion pipeline project is now entering the final stretch. As EcoWatch reported, more than 80 percent of has already been constructed. The final phase is an easement to build a tunnel beneath the federally protected Missouri river, but it first needs approval from the Obama administration.
Energy Transfer Partners's Kelcy Warren, the CEO of the parent company of Dakota Access LLC, which is building the DAPL, told CBS News last week he is confident the pipeline will finish despite the ongoing protests.
"We will get this easement and we will complete our project," he said.
Trump's Personal Investments Ride on Completion of Dakota Access Pipeline https://t.co/p6Kzdh6kjY @wwwfoecouk @globalactplan— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1478946627.0
Warren has been emboldened after Donald Trump's election win, as the president-elect holds stocks that are directly funding the Dakota Access Pipeline. According to Trump's financial disclosure forms, The Guardian reported that he has invested between $500,000 and $1 million in Energy Transfer Partners.
The ardent supporter of fossil fuels wants to bring back the Keystone XL and announced plans to undo President Obama's climate change and environmental policies.
A chain-smoking chimpanzee has become the hot attraction at the newly renovated Central Zoo in Pyongyang, North Korea outraging animal rights activists who say it's a form of animal cruelty.
The 19-year-old chimpanzee named Azalea became an Internet sensation Wednesday after the Associated Press posted photos of her smoking in her exhibit, a practice taught to her by zoo trainers to draw crowds. She can even light them herself, either with a lighter or an already lit cigarette.
"How cruel to willfully addict a chimpanzee to tobacco for human amusement," Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, told The Huffington Post. "Gradually, zoos are learning that spectacles such as chimpanzee tea parties, elephant rides and photo ops with tiger cubs are inappropriate and exploitative. The big question now is why are we keeping wild animals behind bars at all."
While Azalea reportedly lights up a pack of cigarettes a day, zoo officials told the Associated Press that Azalea isn't actually inhaling the harmful smoke, but some aren't buying it.
"I doubt it, in the same way that I would doubt a human who smokes a lot but says he never inhales," primatologist Frans B.M. de Waal told the Huffington Post. "Like Bill Clinton."
The new zoo features traditional zoo attractions as well as unusual ones featuring animals that perform tricks—such as "a monkey that slam dunks basketballs, dogs trained to appear as though they can do addition on subtraction on an abacus, and doves that fly around and land on a woman skating on an indoor stage," according to the Associated Press.
"This exemplifies the problem with any captive wildlife displayed for profit," Carter Dillard, director of litigation for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, told The Telegraph. "They are made to do unnatural and freakish things to attract gawkers. The good news is that the civilized world is moving away from this, like the gradual elimination of orcas from places like SeaWorld."
Unfortunately in this case, the Associated Press reports the zoo is attracting thousands of visitors a day that seem to find extreme delight in Azalea's smoking habit.
Caught on Video: #TigerCubs Abused, Forced to Swim with Tourists at #Florida #Zoo https://t.co/MlrdfOMgX4 #Tigers @peta @pamfoundation— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1476975150.0