Humane Society Rankings: Two Zeroes (and a 100%) for Virginia

By: Lowell
Published On: 3/15/2008 5:57:13 AM

This is sad:

A leading animal protection group has put a pair of Virginia lawmakers in the doghouse.

Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat, and Rep. Eric Cantor, a Republican, were the only two members of Virginia's congressional delegation to receive a zero this month on the Humane Society's legislative scorecard for their failure to support key animal protection bills in 2007.

At least Sen. Webb had an excuse:

"I appreciate what the Humane Society is attempting to do, but I'm not sure how the organization can offer a fair assessment of a legislator's record when no relevant votes have been cast," Webb's spokeswoman Jessica Smith said in an e-mail.

I sure hope that's all it was; we'll see what happens this year.  As far as Eric Cantor is concerned, however, there is no excuse at all, given that he's been in Congress for years and also given that lots of animal-related votes were taken in the House. Truly pathetic.  Also truly pathetic -- and arrogant -- is the fact that "Cantor declined to comment" when asked about his zero rating from the Humane Society (HSUS) on bills related to horse slaughter, animal fighting, wild horses and sport hunting of polar bears.

On the positive side, congratulations to Rep. Jim Moran (D-8), my Congressman, for his 100% voting record on behalf of animal issues.  Also, kudos to Rick Boucher (D-9) for his excellent 83% rating.  The rest of Virginia's Congressional delegation appears to have a bit (or much more than a bit in the case of Cantor, Drake, Forbes, Goode and Goodlatte), of room for improvement before they get out of the HSUS' doghouse.


Comments



I think giving Webb a zero because he didnt co-sponsor a bill.... (James Martin - 3/15/2008 12:32:57 PM)
or sign onto a letter is ridiculous. Tell me how he actually voted on those bills.


Cantor on Polar Bears (Jack Landers - 3/16/2008 9:53:16 AM)
Personally, I am in favor of extending protections to polar bears at this point, since they are seriously threatened as a result of global warming.

However, I fail to see why, on a 'humane treatment' basis, why allowing the hunting of polar bears is any worse than favoring the hunting of black bears in places like Virginia where they have established excessive populations. Hunting is either ok or it is not ok. I rather doubt that the experience of a black bear being killed is any different from that of a polar bear being killed.  For that matter, you could probably say the same thing about hunting deer. Or putting a lethal mouse trap in your basement. It's all killing and they are all mammals that display similar hallmarks of awareness.

So I think that the polar bear thing is somewhat of a canard in regard to animal rights issues. Hunting polar bears is waved around as this horrible thing, which is effective because people know that polar bears are now endangered in many areas. But the reality is that the animals rights issue and the conservation issue are 2 completely separate things; the two ideologies being more often in conflict than in agreement.