By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The largest lamb slaughterhouse in the country is located in the Globeville neighborhood of Denver, Colorado. Each year, up to 500,000 young sheep are carted into the facility, and leave as packaged meat. Now, Denver is poised to be the first city in the nation to ban slaughterhouses like this one. Thanks to a campaign spearheaded by Pro Animal Future - a nonprofit organization with tactics backed by research - voters will decide this November whether to allow the facility to continue operations.

Its success or failure could have broad implications for the animal rights movement. While it's certainly not the first time that animal advocates have sought to leverage ballot initiatives - there's currently also an initiative to ban factory farms from Sonoma County, California - the Denver campaign could serve as a blueprint for future campaigns in cities across the country.

Pro Animal Future was started to test out the research generated by their sister organization, Pax Fauna. That research suggested that animal rights activists could garner success by shifting the framing of their work to ask for people's votes instead of personal dietary change - a finding that let to this and another ballot initiative in Denver.

"We had a lot of people sign these petitions, including the slaughterhouse petition, while eating animals," Aidan Kankyoku, who worked on the research and is now spearheading the campaign, tells Sentient.

Though the fate of the slaughterhouse still hangs in the balance, even getting the question on the ballot was an uphill climb. Kankyoku embarked on it in hopes of testing the findings of Pax Fauna's research. So far, those findings are holding up, which may have far-reaching implications for animal welfare groups.

Why Ballot Measures May Be More Effective Than Advocating for Dietary Change

In 2023, Pax Fauna published research, which found that calling meat out as unsustainable or cruel is not very effective for the average consumer - in part because it ignores the large role of corporations and policymakers, and relies too heavily on changing personal choice. Instead, focusing on collective action and civic duty - via voting, for example - appears to be more effective.

Those findings were based upon a series of focus groups, surveys and interviews with over 200 participants, all of whom eat meat. After writing up and publishing their findings, their next steps were clear: the new grassroots framework they had designed needed to be tested. For that testing, they chose Denver.

"This is where we have the most progressive and liberal voters who are going to take the first step and set this precedent to say 'no' to slaughterhouses," says Kankyoku. In November of last year, the team dropped off 10,488 signatures supporting a ballot initiative to ban slaughterhouses from the city - well above the 8,940 needed to get on the ballot. Pro Animal Future ran a fur ban initiative alongside the slaughterhouse ban, which received 11,708 signatures and will also be appearing on ballots in November. Each of those signatures represents a conversation with a campaigner.

A Focus on Deep Canvassing

One of those campaigners is volunteer Alaina Sigler, who runs the nonprofit The Night Sky Garden. "These very meaningful conversations are going to be one of the most important tactics for us to continue to focus on," Sigler says, referencing the deep canvassing technique at the center of the campaign. Deep canvassing relies on having sincere conversations with voters, and offers space for people to express their concerns without judgment. Though the tactic is great for helping people understand an issue, it is time intensive. "It'll be anywhere from three to 12 voters in an hour, if you're walking up to groups," says Kankyoku.

In addition to these conversations, volunteers have been hosting postcard writing parties in collaboration with other local organizations, including nearby Luvin Arms Animal Sanctuary. While most of those writing parties are dominated by people already involved with the campaign, Pro-Animal Future works hard to ensure a welcoming environment for everyone - whether they eat meat or not.

"If you have friends, family members...and they're not vegan, we actively are asking folks to bring them to the social events," Sigler, who has organized several such parties, says.

From Sigler's perspective, the campaign is cause for "immense hope for these initiatives, after not seeing much change occur locally for animals." A longtime grassroots activist, Sigler has years of experience as an organizer for Direct Action Everywhere, standing vigil outside slaughterhouses and canvassing.

She and other volunteers have also been active in another facet of the campaign: flyering the city. "We do have this kind of guerrilla marketing component of the campaign as well," says Kankyoku. In addition to the flyers, volunteers hand out stickers, chalk art and messages around the city and are working with businesses to host events.

The Economic and Political Implications of Banning Slaughterhouses

In addition to being home to the nation's largest lamb slaughterhouse, Colorado also plays host to Colorado State University (CSU). CSU is home to AgNext, (an agricultural research institute that has come under fire for its connections to animal agriculture), as well as Regional Economic Development Institute (REDI), a research center focused on economic development.

In April of this year, REDI released a policy brief arguing that eliminating the slaughterhouse could result in a maximum loss of 629 jobs and over $861 million. Kanyuko says he doesn't believe those numbers are feasible, given that the facility has 160 employees and generates roughly $250 million in revenue annually. "It's just obvious propaganda, if you're going to dig into it a little bit," he says, but "they're using the letterhead of this respected university."

The processes put into the report are standard within economics, says Dawn Thilmany, PhD, who led the team that put together the REDI brief. Analysis was based upon government data run through an economics software program that calculates likely ripple effects.

The analysis outlines three possible scenarios, based upon how much of the lamb industry exits the state of Colorado. Should the initiative pass, Thilmany is concerned that the most drastic of those is the most likely to take place. "It's [likely to be] really hard to get investors to build processing capacity in other parts of [Colorado] because they're afraid the ban is going to get wider than Denver County," she says.

From her perspective working with small producers, the Denver slaughterhouse is unique in that it allows producers to get back their animals following slaughter - a rarity within the industry. For producers who sell meat locally, getting their animals back is essential."Anyone who's selling local[ly], that's what they have to do," she says. "For lamb, I think they're about the only one who can do that, even in the region."

Even if the report's worst-case economic scenario does come to pass, points out Kankyoku, the projected impact of shutting down the slaughterhouse represents only a small fraction of the state's overall economy. In the third quarter of 2023, Colorado's real Gross Domestic Product - a measure of economic activity - was $529.1 billion.

What Comes Next

"What's so exciting about the ballot initiative approach is that we'd much rather be talking to voters than to a few city council members," says Kankyoku. Focusing on voters also means that even a loss is a win, in Kankyoku's eyes. "If we focus all our attention on engaging with the public and connecting with local businesses and building a really strong community around this objective, [even] if the measure doesn't pass, we can still feel very confident that all of that work is setting us up to do better next time, whether it's the same policy or a different policy for the next campaign."

Pro Animal Future's partner organization, Pax Fauna, is already gearing up to launch similar campaigns in cities across the country - starting with Portland.

Even with the growing popularity of ballot initiatives as a means of activism, advocates are restricted to the cities and states that allow them. But with roughly three quarters of cities allowing some form of citizen-supported legislation making, the opportunities for animal advocates are numerous.


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana's Natural Resources Commission will decide this week whether to allow bobcat trapping, giving Hoosiers one last chance to weigh in.

The meeting will be held Tuesday at 10 a.m. at Fort Harrison State Park in Indianapolis and will determine whether the state moves forward with a plan to permit bobcat trapping in 40 southern Indiana counties next fall.

Samantha Chapman, Indiana state director of the group Humane World for Animals, stressed Hoosier voices are critical at the meeting.

"We really want folks to show up and voice their opposition to this proposal," Chapman emphasized. "Indiana's bobcats are still recovering, and we need more data on what the actual numbers and populations are for bobcats in Indiana."

Opponents said the plan is premature. The Department of Natural Resources has released only a siting map, not a full study, raising concerns the species remains vulnerable. Humane World Animals urged residents to demand a zero quota, arguing the proposal prioritizes trappers over conservation.

The plan allows trappers to capture up to 250 bobcats, with each trapper limited to one and required to obtain a special license. Chapman warned trappers will kill bobcats at a time when Indiana must prevent past population declines rather than risk undoing decades of recovery.

"While the commission can legally set a quota of zero, it is instead proposed allowing 250 bobcats to be barbarically trapped, bludgeoned, strangled, stomped or shot," Chapman contended. "This is why we need Hoosiers to speak up at the Natural Resources Commission meeting."

Conservationists stressed live bobcats generate more economic benefits through tourism than trapping ever could. They urged Hoosiers to turn out in force Tuesday and speak before the commission makes its final decision.


get more stories like this via email

By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

As egg prices continue to skyrocket across the United States, some consumers are looking for alternative ways to secure affordable eggs, including turning to their backyard. Last month, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, penned a commentary outlining her plan to help "lower egg prices." Among her proposals - such as vaccinating chickens and reassessing California's Proposition 12, which tightened animal welfare laws - there was also a nod to raising backyard chickens.

In her commentary, Rollins writes that part of the plan is "to make it easier for families to raise backyard chickens." There was no expansion on this point, however, outside of a sentence in the USDA release of the plan promising to "minimize burdens on individual farmers and consumers who harvest homegrown eggs." A spate of articles also suggests the notion is picking up steam. Yet even though the idea may seem like a potential solution to rising egg prices, research suggests that keeping chickens for eggs may just bring the risks of avian flu to your backyard. In short, because your backyard is not protected from wild birds.

"The more birds that you have, especially when they kind of overlap with waterfowl habitat, for example, the increased risk you're going to have [of bird flu]," Maurice Pitesky, associate professor and expert in poultry disease modeling at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, tells Sentient.

The increased risk applies to industrial egg operations. Nearly 99 percent of farm animals in the U.S. are raised on factory farms - operations where animals are crowded together, often in unsanitary conditions. These settings are breeding grounds for diseases like bird flu, as the density and poor care make it easy for viruses to spread quickly. But it's not just factory farms that are at risk. In the past year, bird flu outbreaks have made headlines across the United States, and backyard chickens have not been immune to its reach.

Backyard Flocks Impacted

Over the last 30 days, 51 backyard flocks across the U.S. have confirmed cases of avian influenza, compared to 59 cases in commercial operations, as of March 3. While the number of affected backyard flocks is slightly lower overall, it's important to remember that the risk to smaller, home-raised flocks remains significant, primarily because the disease is often spread through wild birds - including their droppings and saliva - who can easily get to a backyard flock.

Wyoming recently reported its first human case of bird flu, which is believed to have been contracted from exposure to a backyard flock. The first severe case of avian flu in the U.S. occurred in December 2024 in Louisiana, where it was determined that the person had been exposed to sick and dead birds from a backyard flock. This person also became the first person in the U.S to die from the virus.

"This case underscores that, in addition to affected commercial poultry and dairy operations, wild birds and backyard flocks also can be a source of exposure," the Center for Disease Control has stated about this case.

Bird flu can spread to people through various routes in a backyard farm, according to the CDC, including direct contact with infected birds, their droppings and contaminated equipment.

The Spread: Wild Birds and Backyard Flocks

It's tempting to assume that backyard chickens are safer from bird flu than large commercial farms due to their smaller flock size and less crowded living conditions. But this assumption overlooks the critical role of wild birds in spreading the virus.

The virus is frequently carried by wild birds, many of which are migrating across the country. For backyard chicken keepers, this poses a serious risk, as wild birds can easily come into contact with their flocks, potentially bringing the virus with them.

Benjamin Anderson, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental and Global Health at the University of Florida, told Sentient in an email that wild birds, particularly ducks and geese, are the main carriers that can introduce the flu into backyard flocks. Outbreaks are also more concentrated along migratory bird flyways, Anderson noted, with four major routes across the U.S.

A 2021 study on avian flu transmission pathways found that flocks near or in contact with waterfowl and migratory birds are at a higher risk of infection. Although the study primarily focuses on commercial farms, its insights are also relevant to backyard operations - in essence, the researchers found that the virus can spread more widely when chickens aren't properly isolated from these outside threats. Infected birds can release the virus through their saliva and feces - in other words, exposure doesn't require direct contact with a backyard chicken.

Though backyard chickens are often not as crowded together as chickens raised commercially, birds raised in backyards are vulnerable to bird flu thanks to the lack of strict biosecurity regulations. Unlike commercial farms, which are at least required to follow certain guidelines to prevent outbreaks (such as regular testing and isolating infected animals), there is no oversight or enforcement for smaller, home-raised flocks.

With backyard bird flocks, says Pitesky, "their biosecurity on average is not ideal." There are a number of reasons why that can be the case, including a lack of "adequate fencing." It can even be as simple as the hobbyist may be pressed for time. "People have lives," says Pitesky. To keep backyard chickens safe, Pitesky says, "it takes some time and energy and money."

Backyard chicken keepers may not be aware of the measures they should take to minimize risk of exposure. A 2024 survey study in the UK of 1,550 poultry keepers found that not all backyard poultry owners were following biosecurity measures mandated by the government. The researchers found that some poultry keepers were unaware of what was required of them or faced barriers such as expenses, fewer carers for the birds and other welfare concerns.

The CDC has issued guidelines for backyard chicken owners to follow, such as restricting human access to their chickens, keeping them in enclosed spaces and minimizing exposure to wild birds. But if backyard chicken keepers do not implement these protocols effectively, the birds are left exposed to the virus.

Should You Raise Backyard Chickens During a Bird Flu Outbreak?

Anecdotally at least, Anderson has found that more people are interested in having backyard chickens these days, especially with high egg prices. And though both Anderson and Pitesky see the appeal of having backyard flocks, they also point to the risk associated with keeping them.

It's crucial to understand that keeping backyard chickens during an outbreak requires significant research, preparation and strict adherence to CDC guidelines. The CDC recommends wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling sick or dead birds, cleaning and disinfecting contaminated areas and avoiding stirring up dust or bird waste that may spread the virus. In an email to Sentient, Anderson writes "people should take necessary steps to learn how to raise poultry safely and according to local and state rules."

However, this guidance quickly becomes complicated - some infected birds (especially those that are infected with a low pathogenic strain of bird flu) may not show symptoms. This strain can then mutate into the highly pathogenic version. As a result, flock owners may not realize they need PPE or take proper measures when dealing with asymptomatic birds. They may end up spreading the virus unwittingly.

The Bottom Line

Though the current risk of contracting bird flu remains low for most of the public, the middle of a bird flu outbreak may not be the best time to start keeping backyard chickens. It may sound appealing to be able to source "free" eggs from your backyard, but the reality is that keeping backyard chickens safe from bird flu requires time and money. And ultimately, raising chickens in a backyard doesn't eliminate the risk of spreading the virus, and could even exacerbate the problem if you don't take the proper precautions recommended by the CDC.

As for Secretary Rollins' plan to make raising backyard chickens easier for homeowners, the details remain unclear. Sentient reached out to the USDA for more information on how her plan addresses these concerns, but has yet to receive a response.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

Industrial farming practices could be boosting the spread of bird flu.

Avian influenza has been detected in poultry across the country, including in North Carolina, where 3.3 million birds had to be culled because of the disease at one farm alone in January.

Rania Masri, co-director of the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, said concentrated animal feeding operations used for poultry are a breeding ground for disease.

"CAFOs by design amplify the formation, the mutation and the spread of new viruses," Masri explained. "Which can very simply and quickly transform into a full-blown epidemic."

Masri pointed out industrial farms in North Carolina disproportionately affect low income communities and communities of color. Her organization signed a letter with other public interest groups calling for more transparent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The North Carolina Environmental Justice Network is also calling on the state to be more transparent with its data.

Craig Watts, a farmer and director of the contract grower transition program for the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, said diseases like bird flu at large industrial operations can create bottlenecks, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic when farms did not have workers and had to kill their birds.

"While they're killing those birds in the field, now our shelves are empty," Watts observed. "If you have smaller, more localized, regional, you might have an issue in, say, North Carolina but maybe it wouldn't affect Nebraska like a breakdown in the industrial system will."

Masri believes the control of the industry by a small handful of corporations is bad for democracy.

"The only thing that the industrial farming is good for is the shareholders of these mega-corporations," Masri contended.


get more stories like this via email