NEWSBYMARTIN MATHENY

One area of public policy where animal advocates have seen some success in recent years is in ending the use of gas chambers as a means of euthanasia in animal shelters. Last year, five more states passed laws banning mass gas chamber euthanasia, including West Virginia and Georgia, two states not exactly known for being progressive when it comes to animal policy.

Now, there's every chance that we can add Alabama to the list of states that are going to ban gas chambers in favor of euthanasia by injection, a more humane option. This year, legislators are considering two companion bills, HB 147 in the House and SB 172 in the Senate.

Before we get deeper into this, let's make one thing clear. The best euthanasia is no euthanasia whatsoever. But, until we get to the point where every adoptable animal is adopted, animal shelters have a moral duty to make putting animals down as humane and comfortable as they possibly can. It's been proven time and time again that gas chambers are not a humane option.

Hey, here's a brilliant idea. Take an environmental disaster on the scale of Deepwater Horizon, except instead of the Gulf of Mexico, let's watch it happen in one of the most remote, inaccessible, and wildlife-rich areas on the globe. That's exactly what could happen if some oil companies, led by Shell Oil, get their way. They're putting the screws to the White House to open up areas in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for new drilling.

It's obviously a terrible idea, and if you don't trust me, then trust Defenders of Wildlife, who has a proven track record of standing up on issues like this.

Chances are, if you're reading this, I don't need to tell you why this is a horrible idea. But, just in case we've got a few Big Oil execs slumming on the progressive, social change side of things, I'll sum up. (Don't worry, oil guys, I'll try to use small words, because apparently you haven't had much success understanding the big scientific ones.)

There are a few things you ought to know about keeping primates as pets. They are long-lived, and they need care and nurturing every day for a lifespan that could stretch into decades. There's at least some risk of disease transmission to humans. Most importantly, they are wild animals, not suited to be pets in just about every case, and, being wild animals by nature, they can also be dangerous to their owners and others.

Those, of course, are just the human-centric reasons why people shouldn't keep primates as pets, omitting the (still being researched) harmful effects on the primates themselves.

Arkansas legislators seem to be getting that, and earlier this week, the Arkansas Senate passed a bill banning the ownership of primate as pets. That bill, SB 901, is up before the Arkansas House for consideration.

If you're looking for the poster children for bad and bullheaded breed-specific legislation, it's hard to find better examples than Denver and Aurora, Colorado. Both cities passed pit bull bans years ago, drawing the ire of pit bull owners (as well as a handful of other breeds selected for the same more or less arbitrary reasons.)

Let's be clear about one thing. Dog bite statistics, at least the ones that purport to tell you how "dangerous" a particular breed is, are horribly unreliable. They're so unreliable, in fact, that the Centers for Disease Control, who knows a little something about public health statistics, refuses to even consider breed information in compiling bite stats.

Another federal agency that doesn't buy into the junk science behind breed-specific legislation hype is the Department of Justice. The DOJ last year revised the Americans with Disabilities Act to allow any breed of dog to be considered a service dog, including pit bulls. That, of course, put Denver and Aurora's local pit bull bans directly at odds with federal law; their ordinances ban pit bulls, no exceptions.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund is pushing Kentucky legislators to approve some much-needed animal care reform before the March 22 deadline for new legislation to be voted on.

State Representatives Ron Crimm, Tom Riner, and Joni Jenkins introduced HB 277 last month, but with the legislative clock ticking, it's time for anyone who cares about animals to step up and make their voice heard on HB 277.

It's a good bill. First of all, it changes the name of the agency overseeing the state's animal shelters from the Animal Control Advisory Board to the Animal Care Advisory Board. Is the name change a big deal? Maybe so, according to ALDF.

It's no secret that, over the past couple of years, state legislators have had to produce leaner budgets in this economy. In a lot of states, heads of various agencies are told to cut 4 percent, 8 percent, or more out of their budgets so that the state can keep the lights on for another twelve months. And, as a result, a lot of good social programs have seen pretty drastic cuts.

One of the more radical (and less intelligent) budget solutions lately comes from North Carolina, where Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler is actually thinking about eliminating his department's entire Animal Welfare Division, in order to make his budget numbers work out.

It goes without saying that animal welfare activists are flabbergasted by this. The Humane Society of the United States calls it, "a devastating blow not only to the animals but to the men and women who care for them." North Carolina Voters for Animal Welfare is pushing its stakeholders to make their voices heard in Raleigh, and you can join the effort.

Who needs democracy anyway? Certainly not Missouri politicians, it seems. The Missouri State Senate today gave the thumbs up to a proposal that would put puppy mills back in business just a few months after a majority of Missouri voters approved the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, also known as Proposition B.

With the passage of SB 113 in the Missouri Senate, that bill joins HB 131 in the Missouri House. It's not worth going into the details of the differences between the two bills. Both are terrible, both would turn the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act into a joke, and by time the politicians are done, they could probably be merged into a single bill.

Suffice it to say that, if these guys get their way, breeding dogs wouldn't have to be examined by a veterinarian (a visual inspection would replace it), there would be no set requirements for how much space or access to the outdoors a dog was required to have (SB 113 punts those regulations to the state's agriculture department), and — you guys are going to love this — SB 113 completely strips out a provision saying that a dog's water has to be free of algae, feces, and other things that don't belong in a water bowl. (For a really good breakdown of SB 113, check here.)

A few days ago, Change.org's Stephanie Feldstein told you about a proposed Florida law which would make it illegal to photograph or film inside (or outside) any kind of "legitimate agricultural facility." The bill is a pretty transparent attempt to put a stop to undercover investigations of animal abuse at factory farms.

Now, Iowa legislators have got something similar up their sleeves. A bill moving through the Iowa General Assembly right now could put you in prison for ten years, just for taking pictures or shooting video of livestock being mistreated.

Now, there are two ways to look at this kind of bill, and they're not mutually exclusive. Clearly, it's a direct jab at groups like Mercy for Animals, which has been responsible for a number of undercover exposes on factory farm cruelty. They're the guys who blew the lid off Willet Dairy in New York and Conklin Dairy Farms in Ohio. (Warning, the video is graphic and disturbing.)

Animal advocates in Henderson, Nevada are calling on the city's police chief to re-open the investigation into the death of King, a German Shepherd, who was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer. Becky Rooks alleges that King, who had escaped from his owner, was about to attack her boyfriend, Scott Salkoff, also an off-duty police officer.

According to the police report, Salkoff's older son ran into the house, "screaming" that King was about to attack his seven-year-old brother. Other witnesses say that King knocked the boy off his bike. Salkoff rushed outside, and Rooks grabbed her gun. Salkoff, armed with a shovel, backed King into the street. King allegedly charged Salkoff, and Rooks shot the dog  — once in the torso, once in the head — from a range of five to seven feet away.

Cole Brothers Circus will be coughing up a big chunk of cash soon, thanks to a complaint by In Defense of Animals. The circus' nearly $160,000 in fines comes after four years of investigation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

That investigation determined that Cole Brothers and their owner, John Pugh, violated the Endangered Species Act when they sold two elephants to trainer Will Davenport.

An ESA violation is nothing to sneeze at, and Cole Brothers got what they deserved. Those two elephants, Tina and Jewel, were used by the Circus (after the sale to the trainer, Davenport) for several years. By the time the U.S. Department of Agriculture, after numerous complaints from In Defense of Animals, seized Jewel in 2009, both elephants were dangerously underweight and suffering from foot abscesses and dental issues. Will Davenport voluntarily surrendered Tina to the USFWS after Jewel was rescued, and today both elephants are recovered and living a better life at the L.A. Zoo.