Guest columnist Wayne Pacelle: Ensign merits praise for animal protection

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 | 2:12 a.m.

Recently, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released its annual Humane Scorecard -- providing an accounting of Congress' work on animal protection since January 2003.

Some members of Congress have little sympathy for animals, and their records reflect their attitudes. One of the most hostile legislators is Louisiana's Chris John, a four-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives. At almost every opportunity, John voted against animal protection legislation -- opposing bills to protect downed livestock and Yellowstone's bison and even voting against bills to combat bear baiting and cockfighting.

A couple of years earlier, John established himself as the go-to guy in Congress for the cockfighting community. When anti-cockfighting legislation came up before the House Agriculture Committee, John did not hedge: "I strongly support the cockfighting industry in Louisiana." He described cockfighting, in an interview with the Baton Rouge Advocate, as a "cultural, family-type" activity and "an industry that is very important to America."

While there is arguably no member of the House or Senate more hostile to animal protection than John, there is another John who takes a different approach on public policies relating to animals -- John Ensign, U.S. senator from Nevada.

Ensign translated his childhood love of animals into a career in the service of animals. He went to Colorado State University, obtained a degree in veterinary medicine, and opened a small animal clinic in Las Vegas.

The HSUS has named Ensign as one of Congress' top animal advocates, largely because of his leadership in introducing and fighting for legislation to protect animals. During this 108th Congress, Ensign is co-author of three animal protection bills: S. 269, a measure to ban the interstate transport of big cats for the pet trade; S. 736, a bill to make it a felony to move fighting dogs or fighting birds in interstate or foreign commerce; and a third measure, soon to be introduced, to ban the interstate transport of horses for slaughter for human consumption.

On the exotic cats bill, Ensign teamed up with Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont to shepherd the legislation to passage. The bill gained momentum as big cat incidents captured headlines; only a day after Roy Horn, of Siegfried and Roy, was severely injured by one of his performing tigers, Antoine Yates was injured by the 400-pound pet tiger he had sequestered in the kitchen of his Harlem apartment.

It was one thing for an experienced handler like Roy Horn to keep a big cat, but it was an entirely different matter to have novices like Yates keeping dangerous big cats as pets. Clearly, the big-cat craze had gotten out of hand, and the bill by Ensign was the right antidote to the burgeoning trade.

Ensign had expressed an even greater disdain for the barbaric and inhumane practices of dogfighting and cockfighting, and federal legislation he introduced sought to upgrade penalties for interstate transport of fighting animals. Ensign has methodically built support for S. 736, which now has 52 cosponsors in the Senate, and he worked to pass his bill as an amendment to an unrelated bill dealing with forests and fires. Unfortunately, the House worked to jettison the provision in a conference committee, but Ensign has vowed to pass the legislation in 2004.

Most recently, Ensign has pledged to introduce legislation to protect horses. Every year, tens of thousands of horses are transported long distances to U.S. slaughterhouses in Texas, where they are killed, packed, and shipped to France, Belgium, Italy, and Japan for human food.

With the approval or demise of any animal protection measure, there are key legislative actors. Some, like Ensign, are leaders on animal protection, and fight hard for strict laws to curb abuse and exploitation.

Others, like Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, are stand-outs for their consistent and reliable support for animal protection. And some others are indifferent or even inclined to align themselves with groups that profit from animal cruelty.