Daily Archives: September 27, 2022

I began my work against the death penalty in the United Statesin 1981. It would be reasonable to suppose that by now, four decades on, I would have seen it all.

Not so. On September 22, Alabama lost a round in a ghoulish battle to execute Alan Miller. Initially, they promised a federal judge that they were ready to experiment with a novel method nitrogen hypoxia (essentially, suffocating him by replacing oxygen in the air with pure nitrogen). The state then had to backtrack, saying they were not sure they knew how to do it, and so they would kill him by lethal injection.

In one of those midnight battles with which I am achingly familiar, the Supreme Court voted five-to-four to let the Alabama executioners go ahead with their ritual sacrifice, but by then it was too late for their probing needles to find a vein. So, Miller is safe for a short while, though doubtless Alabama will set another date soon.

In one sense his close and temporary escape is a metaphor for everything that is wrong with the death penalty. The inspiration for dabbling with nitrogen hypoxia as a new kinder, gentler method of execution is, bizarrely, a television programme recorded several years ago by Michael Portillo, former shadow chancellor for Britains Conservative Party.

In the 1980s, then a member of parliament, Portillo voted to reintroduce capital punishment to the United Kingdom. The bill was defeated. His ardour for executions faded as he learned how many innocent men and women had been sentenced to die. When the subject came up again in the 1990s, he switched his vote. Thankfully, the UK never mustered a majority to step backwards to rejoin the execution governments.

Meanwhile, in 2008, Portillo made a BBC documentarytitled How to Kill a Human Being, focused on making any executions as humane as possible. For his film, he toured around the US considering and rejecting accepted execution methods, each of which he found barbaric. There was the electric chair: Jesse Tafero had a strong claim of innocence (his co-defendant, Sunny Jacobs, was later freed and now lives in Ireland). Taferos head caught fire when Florida electrocuted him in 1990. Portillo illustrated this in his documentary by running 2,400 Volts through a dead pig.

The gas chamber proved no better. The Mississippi Department of Corrections used Zyklon B for their executions. They allowed a BBC crew to film them testing this out on a black bunny rabbit, which died in agony (they were preparing to kill my African-American client Edward Earl Johnson). We sued on the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz to put an end to this barbarism.

Next the proponents of the lethal injection three-drug cocktail claimed it was a more civilised way to kill someone. It was advertised as nothing more than the kind of anaesthetic applied every day in thousands of hospitals.

Yet if there is one rule, it is that the history of executions is full of false promises. They were ignoring an obvious problem: the Hippocratic Oath forbids medical professionals from doing harm. The task of inserting the needle was delegated to technicians who had little skill. Hence even Dr Jay Chapman, who invented the three-drug cocktail, decried botched executions carried out by incompetent people who could not find a vein.

By the way, the three drugs are a sedative, a paralytic and a poison. Why the paralytic? Because it prevents the witnesses from seeing the victim thrash in pain when the sedative fails. Sometimes the paralytic agent failed as well, and the victim thrashed around in pain. All of this became increasingly problematic when the drug companies announced that they did not want their life-saving medicines used to kill people.

In short, none of these methods satisfied Portillo. They were not, he said, humane. Thus far, I can agree with him, having watched six of my clients die in front of me, two executed by each system.

Therefore, Portillo took his quest to an experimental laboratory run by the Dutch air force, where they were studying the hypoxia caused by high-altitude flying. They experimented on Portillo himself: he breathed in pure nitrogen. He described a kind of euphoria as he gradually lost consciousness. All in all, it was a kind way to kill someone, he concluded, as reflected by the calm response of laboratory mice to their euthanasia.

It does not take my 40 years of experience in this dark world to see what nonsense Portillos claim was: experimental mice have no idea that an omnipotent and vengeful government is planning to kill them. A human being, his euphoria replaced by panic, would tear at the gas mask, and howl in terror and we would have to adopt another protocol to protect witnesses from the horror of it all.

Yet it is the extraordinary progenesis of this new form of execution that is most shocking. Surely an American government should not elect to execute its citizens based on a television programme?

Thus it was that this week we found ourselves on the cusp of conducting a human experiment on Miller, who was convicted for shooting three people a senseless tragedy of a nature that takes place far too often in the US. He grew up in extreme poverty in a house overrun by rodents, the family money spent on his fathers drug habit. He was represented at trial by a court-appointed lawyer who made it clear to the jury that he did not want the job.

All of this is, sadly, fairly typical of capital punishment, where those without capital get the punishment.

Perhaps none of this matters to some people. Portillo interviewed New York University law Professor Robert Blecker, wary and wiry, outside a prison. As Portillo outlined his proposal for a supposedly humane method of execution, Blecker exhibited a rising disgust. Punishment is supposed to be painful, he said.The idea of a killer dying easily would be the opposite of justice.

Blecker must be a very superior person to feel comfortable wishing agony on people he has never met, about whom he knows so little.I wonder whether he will one day change his mind, as Portillo did, in the face of the diverse fallibilities that characterise the rest of us.

Regardless, since 1947, the Nuremberg Code (PDF) has stated that no [human] experiment should be conducted where there is reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur. Perhaps we should accept that our grotesque human experiments should be left in centuries past, where they belong.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

See the original post here:

Death in the USA a botched experimental execution - Al Jazeera English

Animal shelters and rescue groups traditionally have breathed the tiniest sigh of relief each year when fall arrives. Although the challenges never fully go away, getting past the nightmare of kitten and puppy season each year is a milestone.

But animal rescue experts fear that those sighs of relief are things of the past.

Shelters are seeing soaring numbers of pets being surrendered due to the economy and the housing crisis, according to the Bissell Pet Foundation.

More stray animals are being brought in every day, no matter the season, and more adoptable pets are being euthanized than they have been in years past because shelters are simply too full to house them all.

Its from that battle-weary perspective that Sand Springs Animal Welfare Coordinator Tracy Arvidson sees the smallest ray of hope the Bissell Pet Foundations fall national Empty the Shelters event.

People are also reading

More than 280 animal shelters in 42 states will offer reduced-price adoptions during the Oct. 1-8 event.

Empty the Shelters is the largest funded adoption event in the country and has helped more than 117,615 pets find homes in 47 states and Canada since its inception in 2016.

Through the Empty the Shelters campaign, the Bissell Pet Foundation underwrites a portion of the adoption fees at participating shelters, leaving adopters to pay no more than $50 per animal.

In the Tulsa area, Sand Springs Animal Welfare is joined by the Humane Society of Tulsa and the Washington County SPCA in Bartlesville in participation.

TheEmpty the Shelters events do well for us, Arvidson said.

She said the Sand Springs shelter is as overfull today as it has been for a number of months.

Twice since mid-June the shelter has sounded the alarm that it was at the precipice of having to euthanize healthy, adoptable pets simply because of capacity problems.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, the euthanasia of healthy, adoptable cats and dogs in U.S. shelters had fallen to its lowest point in history recently, but the Bissell Pet Foundation said in July that the euthanasia rate for homeless dogs was up 22% in the first quarter of 2022 alone.

Although the Sand Springs shelter technically has more cats and kittens than dogs at the moment, its able to house more cats in a single pen because litters of kittens can be kept together.

With the dogs, we have to keep them more separate due to fighting over food, Arvidson said, so we are actually more overcrowded with dogs.

She said before last falls Empty the Shelters event that potential adopters through Sand Springs Animal Welfare complete an adoption contract and are interviewed at the shelter so staff members can try to match them with the right pet.

Plus, adoption through the shelter is pretty much a no-risk proposition, Arvidson said. If by some chance the match doesnt work out, adopters can return the pet to the shelter.

Even mostly successful matches might need a helping hand, though, and thats where the shelters resources come into play.

Besides an adoption package that includes spaying or neutering and vaccinations, a free month of coverage through a pet insurance group and a free week of online behavioral training, shelter staff members can help adopters find resources such as trainers, groomers and other necessities.

Shelter staff members also email adopters periodically to check in and make sure everything is going well, Arvidson said.

Cathy Bissell, who founded the Bissell Pet Foundation in 2011, said this has been a challenging year for our nations animal shelters. The devastating increase in owner surrenders has left thousands of socialized, house-trained and leash-trained pets desperate to find a home.

Our fall Empty the Shelters will support the adoption of thousands of pets across the country, helping shelters in this critical time, she said. Opening your home to a shelter pet saves a life and creates space to give another pet a chance.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

See the original post:

Sand Springs Animal Welfare officials hoping there's more to 'Empty the Shelters' event than just a name - Tulsa World

Introduction

Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers bison (Bison bison) a non-amenable, exotic species. This designation has been applied because bison were first considered a native wildlife game species under states laws (i.e. public trust doctrine circa 1700s) and most wildlife laws pre-date agricultural laws (see Geer vs. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, 1896: 529530) and (Byrd et al., 2015). However, in 1979, the Supreme Court decision in Hughes vs. Oklahoma (441 U.S. 322, 1979) declared that wildlife were subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, because wildlife inherently move between states. State fish and wildlife agencies are still the de facto regulatory authority for setting bag limits and harvest quotas for each region.

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln established the U.S. Department of Agriculture to promote U.S. agriculture. Shortly thereafter, this agency became the regulatory authority for food safety. However, the food safety mission was fundamentally at odds with the original agricultural promotion mission. The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) of 1906 stipulates that products made entirely from wild game product are not meat and, therefore, are not amenable to mandatory FSIS inspection (P.L. 113-79, 2014).

Since the early 1990s, various attempts have been made to convert bison to an amenable species under the purview of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) instead of under the regulatory jurisdiction of wildlife game meat of the U.S. Department of Human and Health Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This is largely an issue that directly and immediately affects the private sector of the bison management system (BMS), but there would also be indirect effects on three additional sectors of substantial influence for bison management, including: Tribal, non-profit conservation NGOs, and public agencies (Martin et al., 2021). While there may be some considerable benefits to classifying bison as an amenable species (e.g. increased number of commercial facilities approved to receive and slaughter bison), there are also considerable consequences that may outweigh potential benefits. Of primary concern are issues relating to wide selection options for stakeholder harvest systems mobile field harvest versus conventional stationary abattoir. This is an important point, while ante-mortem inspection is currently voluntary for USDA inspection, it is not mandatory effectively allowing for culturally significant traditional and ceremonial kills on tribal lands to occur without inspection and allowing for bison hunts to occur without inspection. Changing bison to an amenable species would compel inspection at every harvest type with limited exceptions (Byrd et al., 2015: 352). Moreover, small meat plants (i.e. less than 25 employees) that are either state-only inspected or custom-exempt-only would lose their competitive place in the market (Byrd et al., 2015). While the USDA FSIS allows for field harvest to be inspected (U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2021), there are few official exotic animal establishments with proper authorization (9 C.F.R. 352, 1985: 3) to process bison, therefore, USDA FSIS non-amenable field inspection is difficult to execute for bison.

Mobile harvest impact on quality of meat and carcasses

One major area of concern for consumers with maintaining status quo is the effect of the harvesting system on meat quality, carcass sanitation and consumer preference. Galbraith (2011) reported that mobile, field harvest systems produce bison meat that was lowest in cortisol (i.e. stress hormone), minimized carcass bruising and maintained normal meat pH that ranked highest in scores of tenderness and palatability compared to conventional, stationary abattoir-produced bison meat. More recently, a report by Janssen (2020) corroborated these findings that harvest system influences cortisol levels (lower with mobile units), and some characteristics of meat and carcass quality, however Janssen (2020) reported that, harvest systems had minimal impact on consumer preference. Scientific evidence supports that mobile field harvest systems are as good as, or in some measures, better than conventional stationary abattoir facilities concerning animal welfare, meat and carcass quality, and meat acceptability to consumers.

Background to Bison Management System (BMS)

The BMS is comprised of four interconnected and interdependent sectors, all acting in concert for the unified goal of restoring bison to their original habitats (Martin et al., 2021). Those four sectors are (1) the private commercial operations/sector with the purpose of restoring bison on private lands, while establishing an economic market for bison meat; (2) Tribal governments and Native producers restoring bison on Tribal lands and providing a sustainable meat source for Native American communities; (3) the non-profit conservation non-governmental organization (NGO) sector, such as The Nature Conservancy and zoos, that restore bison on a mix of trust and deeded lands, and (4) the state and federal public agency sector, including the U.S. Department of Interior agencies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wildlife Refuges and the U.S. National Park Service on National Parks, in addition to several state wildlife agencies, with mandates to protect and restore bison on public lands.

Commercially, the bison industry started in the 1960s, but the interconnected relationships of each sector trace their roots to the early 1900s between private conservationists, such as Charles Goodnight, James Scotty Philip, C.J. Buffalo Jones, as well as public servants, such as President Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, William T. Hornaday, to name a few. In parallel, Native producers and Tribal governments have been restoring bison on their lands since the late 1800s, working in concert with several public agencies and innumerous private operations (Shamon et al., 2022). While these sectors have seemingly conflicting interests, this perspective is grounded in a zero-sum mentality at odds with reality of a unified mission to restore bison on lands regardless of land ownership and tenure.

Definitions, Codes, Rule, and Regulations

Exotic Species

Currently, under U.S. Codes and Federal Regulations (hereafter, referred to as CFR), bison/North American buffalo (Bison bison) are defined as an exotic or rather, undomesticated species (21 C.F.R. 110, 1986). However, bison are technically a native wildlife species to North America, and their status as a wild game species (i.e., native wildlife) predetermines their undomesticated status. Therefore, bison are considered exotic under the USDA.

Non-amenable Species

Meat produced from wild game species, exotics, remain under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (21 C.F.R. 110, 1986) including those game species raised in captivity on game farms/ranches.

Voluntary Inspection

Exotic species, including bison, are not subject to mandatory meat inspection; though, they are eligible for voluntary inspection under USDA FSIS (9 C.F.R. 352, 1985). If inspected and passed, products will bear the triangle mark (9 C.F.R. 317.3, 1970) (Figure 1).

USDA FSIS meat inspection stamp. For a description of this graphic, please call SDSU Extension at 605-688-4792.

Figure 1. Example triangle mark of passed voluntary USDA FSIS meat inspection.

Ante-Mortem Inspection

Prior to slaughter (i.e. antemortem), inspection is only conducted occasionally for non-amenable and exotic species under the FDA, as shown in the following excert:

shall, where and to the extent considered necessary by the Administrator and under such instructions as he may issue from time to time, be made on the day of slaughter of an exotic animal, in one of the following listed ways or as determined by the Administrator. Humane handling of an exotic animal during ante-mortem inspection shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in (9 C.F.R. 313, 1979: 2). Immediately after the animal is stunned or killed, it shall be shackled, hoisted, stuck and bled (9 C.F.R. 352.10, 1985).

Moreover, for all exotic species being slaughtered under voluntary inspection of the USDA FSIS, animal ante-mortem inspection shall adhere to regulations listed under 9 C.F.R. 309 (1970) and USDA FSIS Directive 6100.1 (2020).

Killing and/or Stunning

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recommends euthanasia by gunshot in close proximity under restraint at a stationary abattoir (9 C.F.R. 309, 1970; 9 C.F.R. 352, 1985: a; 9 C.F.R. 313.16, 2022) with a center-fire rifle that has greater than 1,000 feet-pound muzzle energy (e.g. higher caliber center-fire rifles, such as .30-30, .270, .30-06 and similar (AVMA, 2020: 67)). Note: the majority of handguns produce muzzle energy too low, well below 1,000 feet-pound, thus are inappropriate for euthanasia of mature bison (National Farm Animal Care Council, 2017). The preferred target site for gunshot euthanasia is on the forehead, approximately 1 inch (2.5 cm) above an imaginary line connecting the bottom of the horns (Figure 2). The angle of entry should be perpendicular to the skull (AVMA, 2020). However, USDA FSIS allows captive bolt euthanasia (9 C.F.R. 313.15, 1979), but AVMA recommends against captive bolt (AVMA, 2020).

For field kills at a distance, AVMA recommends similar high-caliber gunshot muzzle energy to those stated above, but the target may be the frontal head (Figure 2), lateral head behind the ear, or heart shot to the thorax (9 C.F.R. 352.10a, 1985; AVMA, 2020).

Diagram showing preferred target site for bison euthanasia.a Target mark is on the forehead of the bison between the bisons horns and eyes. For a description of this graphic, please call SDSU Extension at 605-688-4792.

Figure 2. The preferred target site for bison for gunshot euthanasia is on the forehead approximately 1 inch (2.5 cm) above an imaginary line connecting the bottom of the horns. The angle of entry should be perpendicular to the skull (AVMA, 2020).

Post-Mortem Inspection

After slaughter, as outlined in the following excerpt:

Post-mortem inspection of reindeer, elk, deer, antelope, bison and water buffalo shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in 9 C.F.R. 310 (1970) or as determined by the Administrator. The post-mortem examination of field ante-mortem-inspected exotic animals must occur in the shortest length of time practicable and on the day that field ante-mortem inspection is performed to minimize the changes in the carcass which can affect the post-mortem examination, disposition and wholesomeness of the carcass and its parts. The post-mortem veterinarian shall inspect and make the disposition of all incoming U.S. Suspect tagged exotic animals. (9 C.F.R. 352.11, 1985).

Moreover, for all exotic species being slaughtered under voluntary inspection of the USDA FSIS, post-mortem inspection shall adhere to regulations under USDA FSIS Directive 6100.2 (2016).

Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) Program

Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) provides an opportunity for approved state-inspected meat and poultry processors to ship their products across state lines. Under the CIS agreement, States may inspect meat in approved establishments for shipment throughout the United States. The CIS program is limited to establishments located in the 27 states that have an established Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) program. To be eligible to participate in the CIS program, state MPI programs must meet a number of criteria to demonstrate that the inspection that it provides to state-inspected plants will be the same as the inspection that FSIS provides to official federal establishments. For instance, a state must demonstrate that it has the necessary legal authority to administer and enforce requirements that are the same as the FMIA and applicable regulations. In addition, the state must collect regulatory samples at the same frequency and use the same analytical methods at laboratories that meet the same level of accreditation as the FSIS laboratories. The assigned state inspectors may remain as the establishments onsite inspectors, provided they have the same training and inspect the plant under the same as regulatory standards as their federal counterparts in FSIS-inspected establishments. FSIS provides ongoing oversight of the CIS program to ensure that participating states maintain and operate their same as programs in a manner that complies with all applicable federal statutes and regulations and follows FSIS directives and notices. FSIS reimburses the states for 60% of their costs associated with providing this interstate eligible inspection service.

The CIS program was created by the 2008 Farm Bill, but it was launched in 2012 under Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Currently, 9 states (Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin) participate in the program to promote the expansion of business opportunities for state-inspected meat and poultry establishments. Under CIS, selected state-inspected establishments that comply with federal inspection requirements are permitted to ship their product in interstate commerce. For more information, visit the Cooperative Interstate Shipping Program website.

3% Rule

Processed products that include both wild game and amenable meat or poultry may be subject to mandatory FSIS inspection. Processed products generally are amenable to mandatory inspection if they contain as little as 3% raw or 2% cooked meat from an amenable animal (e.g. beef, pork, chicken, etc.), together with other safe and suitable ingredients. If produced in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, any product subject to mandatory inspection will bear the round USDA mark of inspection (Amann, 2013; Byrd et al., 2015). For example, a meat product containing three percent beef and 97% bison, is subject to mandatory USDA inspection and will carry the mandatory, round inspection mark. Because it has been federally inspected, it can be sold and shipped across the United States, even though it could contain 97% of state-inspected meat (Byrd et al., 2015).

Conclusion

In conclusion, while status of amenable vs. non-amenable species seems confusing and complex, there are associated benefits and consequences for each definition. Considering that there are multiple pathways for transporting and marketing bison and bison products across state lines, this creates many pathways and avenues for innovative and creative ways for producers to deliver bison and bison products to consumers, especially for small and medium-size bison operations.

SDSU Extension

More:

Are bison amenable or non-amenable? How does the definition of bison affect harvest systems and quality of meat and carcasses? - Tri-State Livestock...