On March 9, President Donald Trump announced the Ending Animal Exploitation of Humans Act.
It was a victory for animal advocates who have been fighting against the cruelty of animal agriculture for decades.
In fact, the Humane Society of the United States estimates that as many as 40 million animals were slaughtered in the U.S. in the first decade of this century.
But what does it mean for the millions of people who receive those grants?
The grants provide support for animal care and training programs that could help them stay healthy, secure and happy, but they are also used to fund cruel practices that go beyond the basic needs of animals.
Some of the most prominent examples of cruel and inhumane practices include: “dog fighting,” which includes the killing of animals for food, clothing and toys; “begging” or “puppy mills,” which involve animal farms turning a profit by selling babies, puppies and kittens to owners for human consumption; “dog meat,” which is generally not slaughtered humanely but is often done in the name of religion, particularly in China and India.
The Humane Society says there are more than 100,000 animals killed each year in these cruel practices.
They are also often used to force animals into situations they don’t want to go into, such as breeding dogs that will be used in forced breeding operations, as well as the forced breeding of dogs to make meat and other products.
And they are used to finance “cruelty free” animal research, which means research that can’t be used for human testing or that will not have the potential to cause unnecessary suffering.
The bill’s sponsors have argued that the funding of cruelty free research and the funding for cruelty free education are both necessary to improve animal welfare and that this is why the legislation passed the House but failed in the Senate.
But there are problems with the way the funding is used.
The legislation has been criticized for not addressing the most egregious abuses.
In the end, the money was allocated to training and animal care programs that didn’t address the more severe abuses that have plagued animals for decades, such a: “crueling confinement” — using cages or other confined areas to isolate animals to be abused, including dogs that were starved, chained and had their throats slit.
“pork crates,” which are used for keeping animals in cramped spaces and requiring them to be confined for hours or even days at a time.
“crucial surgery” — the surgical removal of organs, bones, blood or other tissue from animals for the purpose of “rehabilitation.”
“grazing,” in which animals are forced to graze on pasture or a farm without food and water.
And “fenced in yards” — areas where animals are locked up for long periods of time without food or water.
“cage free” — where animals have access to access to grass and other natural vegetation that they would otherwise be confined to a cage, without the need for cages.
The HSUS says that the bill would have addressed these abuses, but the funding has not been allocated to programs that would have been funded in the past and would have taken advantage of the existing facilities.
According to the HSUS, the bill also failed to address the most serious abuses in animal welfare research: “human experimentation.”
Many of these programs are funded in part by animal advocacy groups, but not all of them are.
And many of these facilities are run by groups like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), which has a history of funding cruelty free studies.
“In many cases, the funds used to support research into the use of force, torture and mutilation are used in conjunction with animal advocacy or animal welfare groups to further their agenda,” according to the Humane Foundation.
As a result, research into these abuses can be funded by animal advocates without the Humane Action Council (HAC), which is based in the same building as HSUS.
As the Humane League notes, “it is ironic that the organization responsible for the Humane Research Council (HRC), which oversees HSUS’s research programs, is also the organization that funds the research that has produced the most harmful and harmful effects on animals.”
The Humane Education grants are supposed to be used to help people develop the skills to care for animals and make the transition from animals to people.
But the HSV Foundation reports that most of the people receiving these grants are not trained to care or train for pets, and many of them have had to learn to handle animals on their own.
As we reported last year, these grants have been used to train “animal advocates” who have little to no experience with pets, which they are trained to use as tools to abuse and exploit animals.
These advocates include former police officers and social workers, as many of whom have no background in animal protection and have also received funding from animal advocacy organizations.
They have been given the tools to practice cruelty on animals without any of the training necessary to effectively care for and train for them