Inside This Issue:
- Economics, Backyard Chickens, and Animal Rights
- Endangered Species Act Amendments Act Introduced
- The Cane Toad War Escalates to Gene Editing
- News Bites: Animal Parts Mystery Solved (Maybe); The Ethics of De-Extinction; Cats and Their "Gifts"
Economics, Backyard Chickens, and Animal Rights
How many chickens live here, and how long do you think it took them to lay all those eggs?
When egg prices hit a staggering $6.23 per dozen in March 2025, nearly triple what Americans paid just two years ago, Petco offered a classic – if unconventional by modern standards – solution: DIY egg production. The pet supply giant has launched a pilot program selling female chicks at its Commack, New York location for $5.99 each, and has already sold out of its first two shipments of birds! Four other Petco locations have joined in the program as well. The timing of this coincides with the USDA's $1 billion comprehensive strategy to combat highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) – a crisis that has forced the culling of over 30 million chickens across nine states this year alone.
Now, a lot of folks love the idea of keeping backyard chickens, but it rarely moves beyond a “Wouldn’t it be nice to raise our own chickens?” level of daydream. After all, researching things like how to build a secure and safe enclosure, the cost of feed and vet care, and the daily time commitment of owning chickens can be a cold – and sometimes necessary – splash of water to the face. But perhaps the confluence of last month’s record egg prices and anxiety over bird flu and other issues has pushed some backyard chicken fence sitters into action – much to the delight of Petco.
But naturally, not everybody is delighted by the idea of backyard chickens. While many Americans are pushing for expanded "right-to-farm" laws amid food security concerns, numerous municipalities restrict backyard chicken keeping, citing concerns about disease, noise, odor, pests, and waste management, and in some cases, fears about illegal cockfighting operations. Local animal rights activists, who don’t want people to have chickens at all, are delighted to piggyback on legitimate concerns municipalities may have about nuisances, public health, and responsible animal ownership. They also love distorting and amplifying problem cases, while acting like nearly everybody who gets backyard chickens is bound to neglect, abuse, and eventually abandon them.
Petco – as corporations are wont to do – has tried to appeal to mainstream shoppers while appeasing animal rights groups for decades, and is now feeling the familiar sting of trying to have it both ways. PeTA is making hay, slamming Petco’s chick program as a violation of the company’s own “adoption-only” policies that it pledged to PeTA. In this case, PeTA may be correct in its accusations, though we’re not terribly bothered by that. We’re mostly troubled with Petco’s apparent belief that they could work with PeTA in any legitimate capacity beyond “PeTA writes a nice article about you and leaves you alone for the six months.” Unfortunately, this is something a lot of corporations never seem to learn.
Annnnnyway, back to the backyard: the reality of chicken keeping is far more complex than what it may seem from the outside looking in. But it’s definitely not something you need an advanced degree or technical training to do, and there are valuable resources both on the internet and through local Ag extensions that are available to folks in need of advice. Handled with responsibility and a sense of honor, backyard chickens – and other animals – are a fantastic way for people to connect to their food sources and reintegrate the keeping of animals into our communities. And it’s something many of us have been missing for decades. It’s no surprise Petco’s pilot program is off to such a fast start!
Endangered Species Act Amendments Act Introduced
Northern spotted owl. Beautiful animal and bête noire of the Pacific Northwest logging industry .
The Endangered Species Act Amendments Act of 2025 (H.R. 1897), introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, aims to reform an environmental law that critics feel has strayed from its original conservation purpose.
For decades, American industries and property owners (particularly in sectors like logging, commercial fishing, and energy production) have distrusted the ESA, viewing it not as a law that primarily protects endangered species and ecosystems, but rather a legal cudgel that is often used against them by special interests and activists. The new bill addresses longstanding issues by prioritizing real-world conservation data over theoretical studies. It requires the consideration of economic impacts and national security implications before species listings – a crucial change from previous policy that ignored these factors.
Importantly, the legislation empowers state and local governments by recognizing their on-the-ground research and expertise, rather than relying solely on academic theories that have historically been used to justify sweeping restrictions. A key reform limits excessive litigation by capping attorney fees, addressing how environmental groups have used lawsuits to hamper American industry. This practice has contributed to the offshoring of critical resource production to countries like China, where environmental standards are often lower.
The bill also provides regulatory certainty for private landowners engaged in conservation efforts, moving away from the punitive approach that has historically discouraged voluntary species protection measures. By requiring comprehensive impact assessments and encouraging state-led recovery strategies, the amendments aim to create a balanced approach to species protection – considering both conservation goals and economic realities.
Source: House Natural Resources Committee considers the Endangered Species Act Amendments Act of 2025
The Cane Toad War Escalates to Gene Editing
Look into my eyes.
Cane toads may be the most famous example of the unintended consequences of introducing a “helpful” species into an ecosystem. Originally brought to Queensland, Australia in the 1930s to eat the cane beetles that were damaging farmers’ crops, the toads quickly proved ineffective at their intended job. However, they did demonstrate a remarkable proclivity for out-of-control breeding and for poisoning local animals. Some of these animals include beloved pets, as well as goannas – native lizards that were already providing farmers with a small measure of pest control against crop-munching cane beetles and rodents. Whoopsie!
Efforts to stop the spread of this fecund foe have been unsuccessful thus far. The cane toad lacks native predators and most of the local animals that try to eat it meet unpleasant fates. It has also proved resilient against traditional containment methods, providing the toad with an aura of invincibility – or at least inevitability. But a group of Australian scientists think they may have crafted the cane toad’s ultimate opponent: itself.
Editing the cane toad’s own genes, scientists have created hyper-cannibalistic “Peter Pan” tadpoles that eat gobs of toad eggs and never, ever grow up. Could this be the key to controlling the cane toad population? We won’t know until we try! Of course, using gene editing to add the trait “hyper-cannibalistic” to a much-maligned invasive species is bound to raise some eyebrows – and quite possibly the hairs on the back of your neck if you’re a fan of ecological horror films. The scientists are acutely aware of this, however, and will have to demonstrate that their Peter Pan tadpoles pose no threat to native wildlife prior to conducting any wild release. The growing interest in gene editing puts a lot of eyes on this project, and you can be sure nobody wants to go down in history as the bonehead who made this bad situation worse.
News Bites: Animal Parts Mystery Solved (Maybe); The Ethics of De-Extinction; Cats and Their Many "Gifts"
Outdoor cats can wreak havoc on local wildlfe.
Remember last week when those unidentified mutilated animal parts showed up in a Fremont, California train station? What the heck! Was it abuse? Ritual animal sacrifice? People were flummoxed, angry, and very grossed out. Over the week, rumors swirled and authorities investigated, but a DNA test and police investigation has revealed a far more mundane answer: the animal parts were from a common breed of sheep, and there doesn’t appear to be any sort of nefarious or “ritualistic” behavior behind the appearance of these animal parts. In other words – this was a gruesome, yet perfectly legal discovery. Online commenters feel differently than the police, however, and the man who runs the train station says he found an upside-down cross drawn on the ground near one of the sheep heads, adding fuel to the belief that these findings are part of a crime or conspiracy of some sort. Now that the official investigation is over, will this story fade away, or is this the start of an urban legend?
We covered gene edited cane toads earlier in this roundup, and a few weeks ago, we covered the “de-extinction” of Dire Wolves, so this New York Times opinion piece will only get a blurb. But it does ask a ponder-worthy question regarding current and future efforts in bringing back extinct animals: “should we applaud the achievement or be wary?” And the answer to this, at least for most people who aren’t rabid ideologues, is… “Yes.” Excitement and caution are both perfectly normal, non-mutually exclusive reactions – as is a desire to see science advance while also placing ethical and legal limits on extraordinarily powerful tools like genetic tinkering.
Every year, someone answers the age-old question "Why do our cats bring us dead animals?" And it looks like 2025 is Live Science’s turn. If you’re ready for a quick recap, the reason cats hunt is evolutionary. We knew that part. But as far as why they bring their owners “gifts,” there are competing theories. One theory is that our cats view us, in a maternal sort of way, as family members who might need a little help learning how to hunt. That's a sweet, and perhaps mildly insulting way of framing the behavior. Another view is less interesting, but makes perfect sense: our cats simply feel safer and more comfortable at home, so why not bring that sparrow or field mouse home to snack on later? It would be great if we didn’t have to ask this question year after year. If people kept their feline friends indoors when unsupervised, it would prevent cats from killing local wildlife and returning home with weird diseases and parasites; it would increase the cat's life expectancy, too!
Also in the News...
★ Vienna to outlaw feeding deer and other wild animals (Population Management; Please Don't Feed the Deer)
★ 2 Charged After Neglected, Dead Animals Discovered In Sterling: Police (Possible Hoarding; Poor Conditions; Malnourished & Dead Animals)
★ Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signs law that mandates adoption of test animals before euthanasia (Research & Adoption)
★ Concerned neighbors rally to relocate animals from drained pond (Local Conservation Efforts)
★ ‘Sharktopus’ wasn’t the first. These animals also hitchhike on other animals. (From the Phoresy Files)
★ Man accused of leaving dogs to die inside Pittsburgh-area home (Major Neglect; Dogs Have Been Rescued)
★ 9 animals that change colour (Paint the Lists Silly; Two Cephalopoda & Invisible Spiders)
Click here to see what is happening legislatively
