America’s New Animal Cruelty Law Ignores 99% of Animal Cruelty

Ari Solomon    News

As an animal activist, I truly want to celebrate any step forward for animals. On one hand, it makes me very happy that President Trump signed the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act into law yesterday. (And yes, it’s difficult for this diehard liberal to admit that Trump actually did something good, but even a broken clock is right twice a day).

The legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously – something truly remarkable in these divided times – expands on the 2010 Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act and increases the punishment for instances of animal cruelty, making them felony crimes.

The new law was heralded by many in the animal protection movement. Kitty Block, the president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, had this to say: “PACT makes a statement about American values. Animals are deserving of protection at the highest level. The approval of this measure by the Congress and the president marks a new era in the codification of kindness to animals within federal law. For decades, a national anti-cruelty law was a dream for animal protectionists. Today, it is a reality.”

Now, like I said, I agree that this is a positive step. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that this new law completely ignores 99 percent of the animal cruelty that routinely takes place every single day in the United States.

According to The Washington Post, the PACT Act “outlines exemptions for humane euthanasia; slaughter for food; recreational activities such as hunting, trapping and fishing; medical and scientific research; ‘normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry, or other animal management practice’; and actions that are necessary ‘to protect the life or property of a person.’”

Of course animal cruelty to dogs and cats by private citizens should be dealt with severely. But what about the billions of animals tortured each year on America’s factory farms? Or how about the tens of thousands of animals, including dogs and cats, who are tested on and mistreated in laboratories?

Can we actually say we’re cracking down on animal cruelty when we still allow SeaWorld to keep cetaceans captive and force them to perform? Or permit insanely cruel practices like fur trapping and bow hunting?

My objective is not to trash Ms. Block or even President Trump on this issue (though Trump’s record on animals is pretty abysmal), but merely to point out that animal cruelty is still animal cruelty, even when it’s done for money or recreation or sport. In fact, we should take those cases of abuse even more seriously because they affect so many more animals. One sick fuck torturing his dog is abhorrent, but what about a business that tortures thousands in a laboratory or a puppy mill?

As society’s view of what constitutes animal cruelty evolves, so will our laws. But, in the meantime, it’s the animals who needlessly suffer day in and day out. Sadly, the PACT Act leaves the overwhelming majority of those animals no better off than they were before.

Main image: Anna Moneymaker / The New York Times 

https://veganista.co/2019/11/26/americas-new-animal-cruelty-law-ignores-99-of-animal-cruelty/

Lawsuit Launched to Protect Minnesota’s Rare Lynx From Trapping

State-permitted Fur Trapping Leads to Illegal Killings, Captures of Wild Cat

MINNEAPOLIS- The Center for Biological Diversity today
<https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/w/documents/31/Lynx_MN_Sec_9_–_NOI_12_
3_2019_to_send.pdf> notified the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
of plans to sue the agency for permitting trapping that harms Canada lynx,
in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

In the past decade, state and federal agencies have documented captures of
16 lynx in traps set for other wildlife in Minnesota, six of which resulted
in death. As few as 50 of the rare cats may remain in the state.

“It’s outrageous that Minnesota’s lynx keep needlessly suffering and
dying in indiscriminate traps,” said Collette Adkins, the Center’s
carnivore conservation director. “The state needs to step up and implement
sensible changes to prevent the tragic deaths of these highly imperiled
cats. Minnesota’s rare animals shouldn’t be strangled in neck snares.”

Trapping of Canada lynx, unless covered by a specific permit from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, constitutes an illegal “take” under the
Endangered Species Act, even if accidental.

Every year in Minnesota, a small number of trappers kill
<https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/trapping/harvest_17-18.pdf
> thousands of bobcats, pine martens and other wildlife, largely to sell
their furs.

In a previous lawsuit filed by wildlife conservation groups, a Minnesota
federal court in 2008
<https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/lynx-07-14-200
8.html> held the state liable for harm to lynx caused by trapping. It
ordered the state to apply to the Fish and Wildlife Service for a permit to
cover its trapping program. But the state never obtained the permit.

The court also ordered the state to better protect lynx by issuing
regulations to restrict trapping in core lynx habitat. But even after these
additional measures went into effect, the rare cats have continued to get
caught in traps.

“Year after year we see sickening reports of lynx getting caught and even
killed by traps, but the state refuses to act,” said Adkins. “Minnesota’s
wildlife managers would rather appease a small number of trappers than
protect these beautiful wild cats. We hope this lawsuit will finally
convince the state to make lynx conservation a true priority.”

The lawsuit will seek additional measures to prevent trappers from hurting
Canada lynx, such as requiring placement of certain traps within “lynx
exclusion devices” that prevent lynx deaths. Conibear traps snap shut in a
viselike grip and have killed lynx on numerous occasions, but the department
does not require trappers to place them within exclusion devices.

Today’s notice letter starts a 60-day clock, after which the Center can
file its lawsuit to compel the state to comply with the Endangered Species
Act.

Background

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) are distinguished from bobcats by their tufted
ears, hind legs that appear longer than front legs, and a pronounced goatee
under the chin. Their large paws work like snowshoes and enable them to walk
on top of deep, soft snows. These cold‐loving cats feed predominantly on
snowshoe hares but may also eat birds and small mammals and scavenge
carcasses.

The lynx was listed as a “threatened” species under the federal Endangered
Species Act in 2000. Its federally designated “critical habitat” includes
northeastern Minnesota.

Trapping, habitat destruction, climate change and other threats continue to
harm the Canada lynx. Although once more widespread, lynx currently reside
in small breeding populations in Minnesota, Idaho, Montana, Washington and
Maine. A reintroduced population also resides in Colorado. Currently,
biologists estimate, 50 to 200 lynx may range in northern Minnesota.

Last year the Trump administration
<https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/canada-lynx-01
-11-2018.php> announced plans to remove federal protection from lynx but has
not yet moved forward with an actual proposal.

<https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/resourcespace/pages/search.php?search=%
21collection531&k=127e8fd67e> Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), Washington Dept
FWS.
<https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/resourcespace/pages/search.php?search=%
21collection531&k=127e8fd67e> Additional photos and video available for
download here.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation
organization with more than 1.6 million members and online activists
dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

<https://biologicaldiversity.org/>

<https://biologicaldiversity.org/news/breaking/> More Press

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-launched-to-pr
otect-minnesotas-rare-lynx-from-trapping-2019-12-03-2019-12-04/?fbclid=IwAR1
XZtGtTp6cKY-SCelXobX1TlYqb3hn3ba53pezgo0dAJsOqOSgJ8XRJg4#.XefF0Mdzx3A.facebo
ok

The Queen has ditched buying fur — here’s what northern trappers think

To some, the decline of the international fur market is a chance to return to traditional ways

Buckingham Palace says new outfits designed for the Queen won’t use real fur. (Johnny Green/AP)

From August to January, it’s hard to find a trapper in the North.

Most are deep in the bush, working traplines that, in some cases, have been in use for hundreds of years.

So they probably haven’t heard the news yet: they’ll have one less customer for their furs this year — and she’s a big one.

Queen Elizabeth, Canada’s head of state, announced last week she would no longer purchase fur.

“Our only comment on this story is as follows: As new outfits are designed for the Queen, any fur used will be fake,” wrote her communications secretary.

The palace said that doesn’t mean fur on existing outfits will be replaced or that the Queen would never wear fur again. “The Queen will continue to re-wear existing outfits in her wardrobe.”

Gordon Zealand, executive director of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, said, “The trappers I know are all out on their lines currently.

“At the same time all would be disappointed with the decision.”

Rosemarie Kuptana, an Inuk former politician and cultural advocate, said she was “somewhat shocked, and then disappointed.

“I think it’s a real departure from the commitment to Inuit as a people … because fur is important to our way of life.”

Decision follows public opinion

The Queen’s decision follows those made by the world’s biggest fashion houses to ditch using fur in their designs — Gucci, Prada and Armani among them.

D’Arcy Moses, a Dene fashion designer with a workshop in Enterprise, N.W.T. who uses fur in some of his work, said the shift has been the result of “pressure … from the really strong anti-fur movement in Europe and the U.K.

“The whole gamut of the industry has done an about-face,” said Moses. “No one wears mink coats anymore.”

Financially, it’s another blow to a Canadian fur industry that appears to be in terminal decline.

Just last month, the world’s second largest fur auction house, North American Fur Auctions — a former subsidiary of the Hudson’s Bay Company with over three centuries of history — went into creditor protection.

It now says wild and farmed fur auctions planned for 2020 are unlikely to go ahead.

Industry assessments show some tanned and taxidermied products remain in high demand at auctions, and Jackie Yaklin, secretary treasurer for the Yukon Trappers Association, said wild trappers are responding by increasingly sending pelts to be tanned out of territory.

But Mark Downey, chief executive officer of Fur Harversters, Canada’s other major fur auction house, wrote in his 2019 wild fur market forecast that “many fur species are selling below acceptable levels” — even if a surge in Chinese interest led to a moderate recovery in prices this summer.

Even beyond the industry impact, the Queen’s rejection of new fur carries an important symbolic weight, ending a centuries-long relationship with northern Indigenous trappers.

It’s a real departure from the commitment to Inuit as a people … because fur is important to our way of life.– Rosemarie Kuptana, Inuk former politician and cultural advocate

“What she wears is very important,” said Kuptana. “She is, after all, a world leader, a monarch” of 16 Commonwealth countries, “and in these … countries, there are Indigenous people who [have a] relationship with the land that requires them to hunt and trap.”

“The fur trade was how Canada was made,” she said. “It’s how Canada was built…. So fur was always a very important aspect of our relationship with the royalty.”

Trading fur ‘to the liking of the colonizers’

Francois Paulette helped found the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories, the precursor to today’s Dene Nation. He also sued the Crown over the treaty rights of Indigenous people in 1972 in a famous case known as the “Paulette caveat.”

Paulette said what the Queen decides to wear is “her business.” But he added that the failure of the fur industry could be grounds for another lawsuit against the Crown.

Francois Paulette, who sued the Crown over treaty rights in 1972, says colonialism built the fur industry, and the Crown could be liable for its failure. (Pat Kane/CBC)

“It was the Hudson’s Bay [Company] … that initiated trapping into our part of the world,” said Paulette. “Trapping became a way of life that never existed.”

Paulette said the meteoric rise of the fur trade fundamentally altered northerners’ relationship to the land and animals.

“Before that … our people, the Dene, lived in balance with nature, and we took what we needed,” he said.

“But something changed, and that was when the Hudson’s Bay [Company], along with the British Crown, came to our lands. From there on, our whole civilization, our way of life began to change to the liking of the colonizers.”

Now, Paulette said, with the bottom falling out of the fur trade, Dene people are left at loose ends, with a marred relationship to nature.

“The Hudson’s Bay [Company], that has taken us down the road, and we have nothing at the end,” he said.

For others in the North, the Queen’s wardrobe could not be a more remote concern.

“That’s her choice and that’s her life,” said Andrew Akerolik, a trapper in Nunavut’s Kivalliq region.

“I’m sure she has no concern for me here.”

Denali wolf sightings hit record low

Denali wolf (Photo courtesy of National Park Service)

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2019/10/25/denali-wolf-sightings-hit-record-low/

Wolf sightings hit a record low along the road into Denali National Park this summer, and that’s driving wildlife advocates to push for a halt of wolf hunting and trapping on state lands along Denali’s northeastern boundary, where park road area wolves often roam, and are sometimes killed.

A report recently issued by the National Park Service, shows only 1 percent of agency wildlife survey trips along the road into Denali National Park this summer recorded wolf sightings.

Park biologist Bridget Borg says that’s the worst number since trained park observers began officially tracking wildlife sightings along the road into Denali in the mid-1990s. Viewing percentages previously ranged from as low as 3 percent and as high as 45 percent. Borg says the currently poor wolf sighting percentage is likely primarily representative of natural factors.

“Just there being a lot of variability in where wolves den, and the size of packs over the years,” she said. “Not to say there aren’t the potential for other things to influence that outside of the park.”

Biologist and wildlife advocate Rick Steiner has been trying unsuccessfully for years to get the state to close wolf hunting and trapping on state lands along Denali’s northeastern boundary. Steiner points to the damaging impact loss of an alpha wolf can have on a pack, and makes an economic argument for why the state should care, correlating recent poor wolf viewing opportunity with dips in Denali visitor numbers and spending.

“This is kind of the goose that laid the golden egg for Alaska — if we protect it and help restore it,” he said.

Half a million people visit Denali annually, but there’s state resistance to curtailing boundary area wolf harvest by a few hunters and trappers. Closure requests from Steiner and other Alaskans have been regularly turned down. Commissioner of Fish and Game Doug Vincent Lang recently rejected the second of 2 such petitions submitted since July. Commissioner’s spokesperson Rick Green explains why.

“Data from the Parks Service isn’t a very specified area, and when we manage we manage more of a habitat area — much larger scale — and haven’t seen the evidence to constitute an emergency on the wolf population,” he said.

Green says that means it’s an allocation issue and up to the game board, which has consistently failed to grant requests to re-establish a no wolf kill area, scrapped by the board in 2010. In a July interview, game board chair Ted Spraker pointed to wolves’ resilience, and the potential for wolf viewing to rebound.

“It could all change next year if one of these eastern packs dens close to the road,” he said.

But halting wolf hunting and trapping in the nearby northeast boundary area could also help, according to the Park Service’s Borg. She points to better wolf viewing during a decade long span when boundary area wolf harvest was closed.

“When the area adjacent to the park was closed to hunting and trapping, it was correlated with higher sightings, so we think that bears replication to see if there’s a similar effect,” she said.

The park service and wildlife advocates have submitted separate northeast park boundary no wolf kill buffer proposals to the game board for consideration at a March 2020 meeting, but any change would take place after the wolf trapping season.  Steiner is pushing for an emergency game board meeting prior to the November first start of trapping season.

California to become the first state to ban the sale and manufacture of fur

Gov. Gavin Newsom also signed a bill barring most animals from circus performances.

Forest service revokes grazing permit, fines man who killed a wolf with a shovel

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

By KSL.com Staff, KSL.com | Posted – Jul 11th, 2019 @ 12:16pm

SALT LAKE CITY — The southwest regional forester with the U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided to revoke a grazing permit from Craig Theissen in the Canyon del Buey area near Datil, New Mexico, in addition to fines charged by federal courts.

Thiessen originally pleaded guilty to the killing of a young Mexican wolf through intentionally trapping and bludgeoning it with a shovel in 2015 on public lands, according to Thiessen’s court documents, in which he pleaded guilty. In explanation, Thiessen said that he had caught the wolf in a leg hold trap on his grazing allotment and killed it because he was worried that if he didn’t hit it with the shovel it would kill him as soon as he released it.

“I knew the animal I caught in the leg hold trap was a Mexican gray wolf because it wore a tracking collar affixed to all Mexican gray wolves in the area,” Thiessen explained in the court documents. Further, he acknowledged that Mexican gray wolves are a threatened species.

The U.S. Forest Service has said that failing to comply with federal laws protecting wildlife, especially with those protected by the Endangered Species Act, gives the Southwest regional forester the authorization to revoke a person’s grazing permits, according to the press release. The case was submitted for review by Calvin N. Joyner, the regional forester.

Joyner gave his official decision on the appeal on July 2nd, deciding to revoke Theissen’s grazing permit. He added that this is a situation where the cancellation is appropriate, as Thiessen “admitted to taking an illegal action and violating federal law. He pleaded guilty and he was convicted by a federal court. His conviction is a violation of the grazing permit.”

Joyner added in his official decision that the Endangered Species Act states that criminal conviction under that statute should result in the immediate cancellation of a grazing permit.

“When ranchers violate federal law or break the terms of their grazing permits, the forest service is absolutely right to revoke their permission to graze on public land,” Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, said in the press release. “Mr. Thiessen’s actions violated one of our bedrock environmental laws, shocked and horrified members of the public who want to see wolves recovered, and dealt a blow to New Mexico’s wild [wolf] population.”

Theissen’s livestock will need to be removed from the Canyon del Buey area by the end of August.

Sign the petition to save our whales

 1003  21

Sign the petition to save our whales

For years the octopus-trapping ropes set up in False Bay have led to a number of marine animals, whales in particular, getting entangled and killed. The recent death of a trapped Bryde’s whale just days after a humpback calf was trapped in the same ropes has pushed the public over the edge.

Members of the community took to social media to share their outrage over the incident and have joined together to see that something is done about these needless and preventable deaths.

An official petition has been created to raise awareness around the harm caused by octopus traps as well as develop safer conditions for marine life.

“We request an immediate moratorium [ban] on all octopus trapping in the False Bay area until such time as stakeholders and concerned citizens are consulted and can agree on a safe operating standard/procedure for the use of traps used in the octopus trapping fishing industry and that the Department uses this period of Moratorium to gather much-needed information on stock levels and the impact of octopus trap fishing on the environment,” the petition reads.

The Bryde’s whale carcass floating on the water’s surface. The whale died after it got caught in octopus-trapping ropes.

For years permits for octopus trapping have been casually issued, and these traps have lead to numerous entanglements and deaths of marine animals.

The community feels the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has approved a number of permits without proper consideration or updated data.

Octopus traps consist of long ropes tied to buoys that float just above the water surface, and are not only a danger to whales but also to dolphins, boats and ships.

The Bryde’s whale carcass was hoisted ashore.

False Bay is home to the South African Navy and octopus traps also often endanger those on board boats in the bay, as the traps no longer include sonar reflectors or lights as they once did.

If a submarine accidentally catches one of the ropes in its propellers, a dire situation could develop.

Recently two whales were caught in the same octopus trap near Millers Point on June 8 and 10, leading to the death of one of them.

The carcass of the Bryde’s whale being towed into the harbour.

The creators of the petition, dubbed “Save our whales: Stop Octopus Trapping in False Bay, Cape Town”, are imploring the Honourable Minister to place an immediate ban on all trapping in the False Bay Area until a safer operating procedure can be put in place. A safer procedure would include compulsory 24-hour monitoring at sea of octopus traps and sufficient visible signalling on the traps’ buoys to avoid endangering any more marine or human life.

The community hopes that the department will also take time to assess the current stock levels and update any information they may need to make educated decision when issuing permits.

Act now to save whales in False Bay by signing the petition here. 

Also Read: Whale caught in octopus trap dies

Picture: Allison Thomson/Facebook

New Poll: New York City Voters Reject Fur

An overwhelming majority of NYC voters support banning the sale of fur apparel in the city, according to the results of a newly released poll<https://friendsofanimals.org/news/poll-shows-majority-of-new-york-city-voters-support-banning-fur-sales/>.

The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research earlier this month, found that 75 percent of respondents support a citywide law to prohibit the sale of fur apparel. The results show widespread support for legislation introduced by City Council Speaker Corey Johnson – Intro 1476<https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3903503&GUID=EBE55293-8737-4620-945A-308ADC3A23DC&Options=&Search=> – that would ban fur apparel sales in the city. The Council’s Committee on Consumer Affairs and Business Licensing is holding a hearing on the bill Wednesday.

“The results show that New York City needs to take action to catch up to what is clearly society’s sentiment, that cruelty is not fashionable,” said Friends of Animals President Priscilla Feral. “NYC can be the ultimate fashion forward role model by passing this legislation. Showing compassion for animals, and all sentient beings, is one of the purest expressions of our humanity.”
Friends of Animals has joined with FurFreeNYC,<https://www.furfreenyc.com/blog/coalition-statement-of-support-for-intro-1476-a-bill-to-prohibit-the-sale-of-fur-apparel-in-new-york-city> a coalition of public interest organizations, to support the fur sales ban legislation. FoA will be showing support for the bill at a Wednesday rally at noon at City Hall and testifying at the hearing as well.

The poll showed that about two-thirds of voters surveyed in every borough supported the ban.

In a statement Monday, Feral noted there has been widespread misinformation about the fur ban bill circulating by opponents. The bill prohibits the sale of any fur or fur apparel including any skin in whole or part with hair, fleece or fibers attached. It does not restrict or prevent residents in any way from wearing fur apparel they have already purchased. The bill does not ban leather; it has exemption for fur worn as a matter of religious custom and for used fur.

Additionally, while opponents contend fur is environmentally sustainable, the fur industry likes to ignore studies that have found real fur to be the most harmful of all fabrics. The production of real fur is significantly more harmful than other types of fabric in 17 out of 18 areas including climate change, in part because of chemicals used to prevent the skins from decomposing and decomposing of mink feces, according to a study by CE Delft. Increasingly, faux fur manufacturers and fashion houses are using innovative, sustainable fabrics.

“The fur industry is trying to divert attention and scare the public,” said Feral. “But New York City residents understand the issue and want to see an end to the cruelty.”
***
Friends of Animals, an international animal protection organization founded in New York in 1957 and headquartered in Darien, CT, advocates for the rights of animals, free-living and domestic around the world. It has been a decades-long leader in the anti-fur movement. Friends of Animals is proud to be a woman-founded and led organization.

Fran Silverman

Letter on The reality of trapping

A suggestion for recreational trappers to help people understand their sport: have interactive activities this Saturday at the Wild N.H. event in Concord.

Set up a demo area (fallen log, etc.) where kids can suggest where to put a trap and bait. Say for a fox or coyote. Then let a dog loose near the trap and see if the setup works. If the dog steps on the trap, its screams of pain and fear would bring people running – instant audience.

The trappers could then show the kids how to bludgeon the dog to death without damaging its coat. Or, at this family event, show how today’s traps allow the release of a trapped animal with little injury. Let the dog go, and point out: no broken bones, no blood, just a slight limp. No need to mention the dog’s broken teeth from its frantic biting at the trap.

No one should cause this much pain to animals as recreation. Some trapping is necessary – usually targeted at individuals. And set for a quick kill, not for hours in a trap. Manage predator populations? Not unless you measure population size and increase trapping when numbers are high, decrease it when low.

Note: What I describe above is not going to happen at Wild N.H. Day. There will be many fun and interesting exhibits. Come and bring the kids. But know that the table of beautiful furs set up by the trappers rests on a dark, cruel reality.

Concord

Morrissey Launches Protest Against Canada Goose Ahead of Canadian Tour

Morrissey Launches Protest Against Canada Goose Ahead of Canadian Tour

Morrissey is just days away from starting his Canadian tour, but he’s now taking aim at one of the country’s best known brands, Canada Goose, and urging Canadians to join his protest against the company.

The divisive Smiths singer has joined forces with PETA to call on the Canadian clothing brand to stop using fur and feathers in its products. In a newly posted open letter, Morrissey states that will be gathering fans’ signatures during the tour for a petition against Canada Goose. He then aims to deliver this to CEO Dani Reiss at the end of his Canadian tour.

“I’m writing to urge Canada Goose to act more like its namesake (e.g., smart, brave, and willing to fly off in a new direction) by making the bold ethical choice to remove coyote fur and down feathers from its parkas,” Morrissey begins in his letter.

“Canada Goose has almost singlehandedly revived the cruel trapping industry, in which animals can suffer for days and try to gnaw off their ensnared limbs before the trapper eventually returns to bludgeon them to death. No hood adornment is worth that. And geese are confined to cramped cages and trucked hundreds of miles to slaughter in all weather conditions before they’re hung upside down and their throats are slit—often while they’re still conscious — so that their feathers can be stuffed into (and poke out of) jackets.”

He adds: “I’d be the first to celebrate a cruelty-free Canada Goose coat by wearing one proudly. Until then, I’ll be collecting signatures during my Canadian tour calling for Canada Goose to stop killing animals for coats.”

Of course, this isn’t the first time Moz has taken aim at Canadian business practices. In fact, he hasn’t stepped foot on Canadian soil since launching protests against the country’s seal-clubbing policies more than a decade ago.

As previously reported, Morrissey will also be embarking on Canadian tour this weekend with a pair of concerts in Vancouver. You can see his entire Canadian tour schedule over here.

Morrissey’s new album California Son is due out on May 24 via his BMGimprint Etienne.