Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

Maryland Court Unleashes Canine Profiling

Dog lovers across the country are barking mad over last week’s Maryland Court of Appeals decision declaring that all pit bull-type dogs are “inherently dangerous.” The misguided and overreaching ruling treats all pit bulls and pit bull mixes as a category, rather than individual animals. It could make owners, landlords, veterinarians, kennels, animal shelters, rescue groups, and anyone in custody of a dog automatically liable, regardless of whether they know a dog actually poses a threat.

This is a major step backwards for the state of Maryland, and puts both dogs and people at risk. This sweeping decision is a case of canine profiling. It may force law-abiding citizens to face a painful and life-changing decision—move out of Maryland or give up their beloved dogs. It could increase the number of stray pit bull-type dogs on the streets and euthanized in shelters, turning back progress made by animal shelters and rescue groups over the past few decades.

There are already reports surfacing this week of pit bulls abandoned in the wake of the court ruling, such as two unaltered dogs thrown out on the street in the Southern Park Heights neighborhood of Baltimore when their owner was threatened with eviction. Rather than protect public safety, the court’s fiat has the opposite effect: It has the potential to create packs of free-roaming pit bulls roaming Maryland neighborhoods, rather than living safely as beloved family pets. Taxpayers and municipal agencies will bear the financial burden of addressing public health and safety problems caused by feral dog packs.

The entire decision is misguided, because breed alone is not predictive of whether a dog may pose a danger. A dog’s propensity to bite is a product of several factors including early socialization, a dog’s living conditions and the owner’s behavior. For example, chained dogs and non-neutered dogs are much more likely to bite.

And who’s to decide whether a dog is a pit bull and therefore unwelcome with a cursory visual exam? According to a recent study by the Maddie’s Fund Shelter Medicine Program at the University of Florida, which looked at a group of 120 dogs at four animal shelters, 55 of those dogs were identified as “pit bulls” by shelter staff, but only 25 were confirmed as pit bulls by DNA analysis. Additionally, the staff missed identifying 20 percent of the dogs who were pit bulls by DNA analysis, while only 8 percent of the “true” pit bulls were identified by all staff members. (Even DNA testing is not 100 percent reliable, but it underscores why breed-specific policy is unworkable.) The National Canine Research Council has a clearinghouse of resources demonstrating that breed labels assigned to dogs of unknown origin are usually inaccurate.

Many dogs merely resembling the pit bull-type look will be swept up and punished by this ruling, and there may be expensive court battles over whether a dog is or isn’t a pit bull. With as many as 75 percent of shelter dogs being mixed breeds, this is not an anti-pit bull decision, but an anti-dog decision.

In issuing this ruling, the Maryland Court of Appeals has clearly overstepped its authority. Sound public safety policies should be made by the legislature after conducting appropriate fact-finding and hearings and considering the available science. We will be asking Maryland state lawmakers to immediately pass legislation to clarify the law and overturn this dangerous ruling. Concerned Maryland citizens and dog lovers should contact your state legislators today.

You can also show your support by submitting your favorite pit bull pictures to the “We Love Maryland Pit Bulls” photo album on the HSUS Maryland Facebook page. Or post them with the hashtag #LoveMDpitbulls on Twitter. Let’s show Maryland officials they should punish the deed, not the breed.

NRA Poster Boy Pleads Guilty to Poaching—Again

Ted Nugent, the NRA’s longest-serving board member and a featured speaker at the NRA’s recent convention in St. Louis a couple weeks ago, has pleaded guilty in federal court for transporting an illegally killed black bear in Alaska. He reportedly shot a bear with a bow and arrow, but failed to kill the animal. Four days later, he shot another bear in violation of the law.

It was Nugent’s second poaching crime in just two years. Back in 2010, he pleaded no contest to killing a young deer with the use of bait and not having a properly signed hunting tag in California.

The NRA says in its “code of ethics” that it condemns poaching: “I will obey all game laws and regulations, and will insist that my companions do likewise.” But talk is cheap. Here’s a board member, an NRA national spokesperson, and an annual convention presenter who has been caught poaching twice. If the NRA’s credo means anything, and isn’t just rhetorical window-dressing, it should be applied to Nugent. 

Anti-poaching work largely falls on the shoulders of state and federal wildlife agencies, game wardens’ associations, some responsible hunting groups, and The Humane Society of the United States. Since 2008, The HSUS has offered more than $400,000 in rewards for information in poaching cases, donated equipment and robotic decoys to cash-strapped state wildlife agencies, sponsored an anti-poaching tip line, and launched a network aimed at ensuring that poaching crimes are taken seriously by prosecutors. The HSUS and HSLF have helped to pass laws to strengthen poaching penalties, and block efforts to weaken them or to strip wildlife officers of their powers. We often fight the NRA when we try to strengthen anti-poaching laws.

When the NRA won’t even stand up against illegal poaching, it’s no surprise the group is on the side of the most unsporting and inhumane legal practices, no matter how extreme or how reviled by rank-and-file sportsmen. The NRA is fighting against Senate Bill 1221 in California, which passed the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water this week by a vote of 5 to 3, and would ban the use of packs of radio-collared dogs to chase bears and bobcats onto tree branches where trophy hunters can shoot the frightened animals at point-blank range. Judd Hanna, a hunter and president of the California Game Wardens Foundation, provided a litany of cases of poaching and other unethical behavior by houndsmen, in his statement of support for S.B. 1221.

At the federal level, the NRA is now pushing the U.S. Congress to pass a $12 million package that provides a bailout to a tiny group of wealthy trophy hunters who want to import polar bear heads and hides in defiance of current law, mandates hunting on nearly all federal land without regard for the impact on wildlife or other resources, and strips the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to protect habitat, animals, and people from lead poisoning through toxic ammunition exposure. They rammed the bill through the House on the heels of the NRA convention, and now they are targeting the Senate.

It’s time to tell Congress that a group that won’t stand up to poaching has no business asking for a $12 million hand-out from taxpayers to roll back our existing conservation laws. Please call your two U.S. Senators today at (202) 225-3121 and urge them to oppose H.R. 4089.

Senate Subcommittee Hears Bill to End Chimp Research

Just following Earth Day and the release of the Disney Nature documentary Chimpanzee, which features chimpanzees in the wild where they belong, Congress considers the fate of the approximately 950 chimpanzees currently languishing in six U.S. laboratories.

Today, the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, chaired by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., held a hearing on S. 810, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act. The bipartisan bill, introduced by Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., will phase out invasive research on chimpanzees, stop breeding of chimpanzees for invasive research and retire the approximately 500 government-owned chimpanzees to the sanctuary they deserve.

The scientific, economic and ethical evidence has been mounting in recent years—all clearly pointing to the need to end invasive research on chimpanzees and move science forward. An Institute of Medicine report released in December concluded that the vast majority of biomedical research on chimpanzees is unnecessary and didn’t identify a single area of biomedical research that absolutely requires chimpanzee use. The IOM report has changed the dynamic on this issue and helped to build consensus for the policy of phasing out invasive research on chimps.

Dr. Martin Wasserman, a physician and former Maryland State Health Secretary testified in support of the bill today, and he emphasized the scientific advances that have rendered the use of chimpanzees unnecessary and the non-chimpanzee models that are more efficient and effective for advancing human health. We are grateful to Chairman Cardin for holding this important hearing, and to the other subcommittee members, especially Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who spoke in favor of the legislation and the need to protect approximately 200 chimpanzees housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility in his state.

Chimpanzees, because of their size, long lifespan and special behavioral needs, are extremely expensive to use and maintain in a laboratory setting. So, why would we continue to spend money on research that isn’t necessary and on maintaining expensive government contracts with private companies to take care of the chimpanzees? For example, the government spends $4.5 million per year to maintain a group of approximately 175 chimpanzees who haven’t been used in 10 years. Sanctuaries are available and can provide superior care at a lower cost. Ending invasive chimpanzee research and retiring these animals to sanctuary would save the government $300 million over the next decade. With so many lawmakers concerned about the federal deficit and government waste, here’s an opportunity to save money and make government run better.

An undercover investigation into the world’s largest chimpanzee laboratory revealed chimpanzees isolated in small, steel cages for months at a time and psychologically disturbed animals, such as Sterling, who self-mutilated and was deemed ineligible for research yet remained in a concrete enclosure. Sadly, we recently learned that Sterling passed away and never got to live in a sanctuary where he could feel sunshine on his face and grass beneath his feet.

And remember those chimpanzees in the wild who were featured in Chimpanzee? There is a growing body of evidence that exploiting captive chimpanzees in the U.S. impacts the conservation of the species in the wild. And the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is currently considering The HSUS’s 2010 petition to protect all chimpanzees as endangered, no matter where they may be found.

We should be doing all that we can to protect chimpanzees in captivity and in the wild, and Congress now has an opportunity to do so. Take action and urge your lawmakers to pass this legislation, before time runs out for these special animals.

House Votes to Shoot Down Conservation Laws

The U.S Congress has a lower approval rating than polygamy and pornography, and sometimes it’s easy to understand why.  When it comes to creating jobs, passing a budget, and meeting other important challenges for the American people, there is little more than gridlock and partisan bickering. But when it comes to bilking the American taxpayers to benefit special interests such as the trophy hunting lobby, there’s just no stopping them.

This was on full display yesterday in the U.S. House of Representatives—the very day millions of Americans were paying their taxes—when a majority of lawmakers exhibited utter fealty to the NRA and the sport hunting lobby by passing a $12 million package to shoot holes in multiple landmark conservation laws. It was shameless pandering to the NRA, a piece of political theatre staged on the House floor right on the heels of the NRA’s convention in St. Louis.

H.R. 4089, the so-called Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, is an omnibus package that combines several bad ideas into one bill—reopening the imports of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada, encouraging more reckless killing of threatened species; opening millions of acres of federal lands and wilderness areas to sport hunting, regardless of the impacts to the environment and other park users; and halting efforts to switch from toxic lead ammunition to non-toxic alternatives that do not poison wildlife and the environment.

U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., led the effort to protect polar bears by offering an amendment to strike the trophy import language from the bill. The imports have been forbidden since 2008 when the Bush Administration listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, but it hasn’t stopped wealthy trophy hunters and their allies in Congress from putting polar bears in their sights time and again. As Rep. Peters told his colleagues:

The trophy hunting community was aware that the ESA listing would take place for well over a year prior to its effective date, and trophy hunters were warned by federal agencies and hunting associations that the final listing would cut off imports immediately. These individuals knowingly assumed the risk that their trophies might not be approved for importation, and decided to hunt and kill these beautiful creatures anyway. They have also had their day in court; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a federal court have already rejected hunters’ requests to import trophies after the effective date of the listing.

H.R. 4089 will essentially treat these 41 trophy hunters who killed their bears before the ESA listing occurred as though the listing had never taken effect. While it is too late to save these bears, enacting this legislation creates a perverse incentive for trophy hunters to take any species soon to be protected under the ESA because Congress will just bail them out after the fact. 

Unfortunately, the House rejected the Peters amendment by a vote of 155 to 262, with 145 Democrats and 10 Republicans siding with polar bear protection, and the rest siding with wealthy trophy hunters. We are grateful to Rep. Peters for leading the charge to protect polar bears on the House floor, and also to Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Jim Moran, D-Va., who spoke in favor of the amendment. Please be sure to check how your Representative voted, and express your thanks to those voting yes and disappointment to those who voted no.

The final bill passed by a vote of 274 to 146, including the harmful language on sport-hunted polar bear trophy imports, toxic lead ammo, and forcing decisions on hunting to be handed down by Washington bureaucrats rather than local public lands managers. Now the bill goes to the U.S. Senate, and it must be stopped. Please call your two U.S. Senators today at (202) 224-3121, and urge them to oppose H.R. 4089. It will cost American taxpayers $12 million, it only benefits special interests, and it’s an expensive power grab that guts our wildlife conservation laws.

Shoot Down Polar Bear Trophy Hunts and Other Radical Proposals

As early as next week, the U.S. House of Representatives may consider H.R. 4089, the so-called “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012,” a highly controversial omnibus bill that combines several radical hunting proposals into one awful package. Among other things, the legislation seeks to allow importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada; mandate that the Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service open nearly all federal public lands to hunting without regard to the impact on wildlife and other resources; and strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate toxic lead. Each one of these component parts would warrant our vigorous opposition, but to combine all of them into one package, is a disgrace and the House should reject it.

Please call your U.S. Representative today at (202) 225-3121, and follow up with an email, asking him or her to vote “No” on H.R. 4089.

The measure would undermine several current federal wildlife protection and environmental laws, further imperil already threatened species and the environment, and undermine federal agencies’ ability to carry out their wildlife and public lands management obligations.  I want to demonstrate why this bill, in all of its component parts, is such a disaster:
 
POLAR BEARS: H.R. 4089 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow the importation of two classes of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada. First, it would allow import of polar bear trophies taken in Canada before February 18, 1997, regardless of whether the polar bear was taken from an approved or unapproved population. Since prior to 1997 there were approved populations from which U.S. trophy hunters could take bears and import their trophies, only trophy hunters who killed polar bears from unapproved populations would benefit under this provision. We shouldn’t reward these trophy hunters who killed polar bears in contravention of the MMPA and now seek to benefit from their unlawful behavior.
 
Second, H.R. 4089 would allow import of polar bear trophies taken in Canada and only from bears hunted from approved populations before the May 2008 Endangered Species Act listing took effect. In practice, it would treat trophy hunters who killed their bears before the ESA listing took effect as though the listing had never taken effect. The trophy hunting community was aware that the ESA listing would take place for over 16 months prior to its effective date, and trophy hunters were repeatedly warned by federal agencies and hunting associations that the final listing would cut off imports immediately. These individuals knowingly assumed the risk that their trophies might not be approved for importation, and allowing them to import those trophies now would constitute an unfair bailout.
 
The MMPA prohibits the sport hunting of polar bears in the U.S. and it prohibits the import of any marine mammal, including dolphins, whales, seals, sea lions, and walruses. The law should be consistently applied, and we should not have a special carve-out for a few trophy hunters who shot polar bears in Canada, knowing full well that they may not be able to import the trophies under U.S. law. While some argue this is just a small number of trophies, it encourages hunters to continue killing protected species in other countries, store the trophies in warehouses, and simply wait for their allies in Congress to get them a waiver on the imports. It sets a dangerous precedent, and encourages more killing of threatened species and protected marine mammals, which flies in the face of the ESA and MMPA.
 
FEDERAL LANDS: H.R. 4089 would open sensitive and primitive wilderness areas to recreational hunting and shooting activities, despite the fact that these areas have been long protected from invasive human recreational pursuits. Further, H.R. 4089 would open up national park lands to recreational hunting even though such activity is generally prohibited by law.
 
H.R. 4089 would also exempt all federal agency decisions concerning recreational hunting or shooting activities from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. No analysis of the impacts of these activities to target and non-target wildlife, habitats, or any other aspect of the environment would be permitted. These provisions of H.R. 4089 are entirely antithetical to the science-based principles of sound wildlife and federal lands management. 
 
H.R. 4089 explicitly requires federal agencies to facilitate recreational hunting opportunities on all federal lands. This will raise serious safety concerns, and create significant conflicts with the non-consumptive activities, such as hiking and wildlife watching, of other public lands visitors who contribute significantly more to the U.S. economy than hunters. If H.R. 4089 passes, virtually every decision by federal agencies to restrict hunting and shooting activities would be subject to expensive lawsuits as to whether the decision is “necessary and reasonable.”
 
There are millions of acres of federal lands currently open to sport hunters who have the opportunity to participate in recreational hunting on many national wildlife refuges, national forests, and other federal properties. The activities mandated in H.R. 4089 are already disproportionately favored against the interests of other larger outdoor user-groups.
 
LEAD AMMUNITION: H.R. 4089 would also eliminate the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate ammunition, under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already banned the use of lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting—a policy which has been in place for more than two decades yet waterfowl hunting still thrives in this country due to the many forms of non-toxic ammunition available—and the National Park Service prohibits the use of lead ammunition by agency staff and contractors, with both agencies’ decisions being based on the known deleterious effects of lead. Such decisions should be left to the discretion of federal agencies based solely on the best available science on the impacts of toxic substances such as lead.
 
This omnibus measure includes several highly controversial pieces of legislation that would severely roll back federal conservation laws and set a dangerous precedent for the management of wildlife and the environment. Please call your U.S. Representative today at (202) 225-3121, and follow up with an email, asking him or her to vote “No” on H.R. 4089.

House Panel to Vote on Constrictor Snakes

The House Judiciary Committee tomorrow is scheduled to vote on H.R. 511, a bill introduced by Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., to add nine species of large constrictor snakes to the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act. This important bipartisan legislation would ban the import or interstate trade for use as pets of the Indian python (including Burmese python), reticulated python, Northern African python, Southern African python, boa constrictor, green anaconda, yellow anaconda, DeSchauensee's anaconda, and Beni anaconda. The bill addresses the trade in nine species identified in a 2009 report by the U.S. Geological Survey as posing “high” or “medium” risk of becoming established in the wild in the United States as invasive species, and potentially threatening native wildlife and costing the government millions of dollars to address.

In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a rule to ban these nine species of large constrictor snakes identified by the USGS report as posing significant risk. In January 2012, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a final rule restricting trade in just four of the nine species—a helpful step, but one covering just 30 percent of imports of the nine species posing a significant risk to the environment. By including only some species, the trade will simply shift to the other species—including boa constrictors and reticulated pythons which represent two-thirds of the trade, and boa constrictors identified as posing “high” risk—and the threats to public safety, animal welfare, and the environment will continue uninterrupted. That’s the principle reason Congress needs to take action and enact H.R. 511.

While the administration’s rule addressed four of the nine species, the USGS report noted that all nine species present ecological risk, concluding the following (emphasis added): "High-risk species are Burmese pythons, northern and southern African pythons, boa constrictors, and yellow anacondas. High-risk species, if established in this country, put larger portions of the U.S. mainland at risk, constitute a greater ecological threat, or are more common in trade and commerce. Medium-risk species were reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda. These species constitute lesser threats in these areas, but still are potentially serious threats. Because all nine species share characteristics associated with greater risks, none was found to be low-risk."

The ecological havoc wrought by invasive snakes is worse than anyone anticipated. A January 2012 report by researchers with the National Academy of Sciences found that Burmese pythons, in a little more than a decade of colonizing the Everglades, have wiped out 99 percent of raccoons, opossums, and other small and medium-sized mammals, and 87 percent of bobcats. A great American ecosystem has been put at grave risk because of this invasive species. By having such an impact, it will inevitably harm the ability of Florida panthers, one of the most endangered animals in our nation, to survive. We must act now in order to prevent large constricting snakes from colonizing other ecosystems and having such a devastating impact on them, too.

It’s not only biologically reckless, but fiscally reckless, too. The U.S. Department of Interior expected to spend $100 million in 2011 controlling invasive species, including the pythons breeding wild in Florida. We must prevent these problems from developing in the first place, and not spend taxpayer dollars to clean up problems we should have anticipated. It’s fiscally reckless to allow these impacts to continue.

Additionally, the threats to public safety, and to the welfare of the snakes themselves in the trade, call for a comprehensive response. Constrictor snakes have killed 15 people in the United States, including seven children, with reticulated pythons accounting for the largest share of attacks. The tragic death of a Florida toddler in 2009 put a fine point on why the private ownership of these animals is just not worth the risk of children or adults being killed by them. Passage of this legislation would spare thousands of animals the suffering and neglect of the exotic animal trade. These animals die during collection, transport, trade, and in private ownership. Many people who acquire them know little about proper care or housing for these animals.

The reptile trade opposed listing any of these species as injurious under the Lacey Act. We’ve seen the effect of their obstructionism, and it can be found in the depopulation of native wildlife from the Everglades, which our nation has invested billions of dollars to protect. The economic impact analysis by the reptile industry is wildly exaggerated and false, and these are the very people who have created the problem and have cost taxpayers millions of dollars. The House Judiciary Committee, and the full Congress, should act favorably on H.R. 511 and adopt this science-based and fiscally responsible policy for conservation, animal welfare, and public safety.

If you live in one of the districts of the House Judiciary Committee members, please be sure to call them today and ask them to support H.R. 511:

Sandy Adams, R-Fla., 24th District (202) 225-2706
Mark Amodei, R-Nev., 2nd District (202) 225-6155
Howard Berman, D-Calif., 28th District (202) 225-4695
Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, 1st District (202) 225-2216
Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, 3rd District (202) 225-7751
Judy Chu, D-Calif., 32nd District (202) 225-5464
Howard Coble, R-N.C., 6th District (202) 225-3065
Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., 9th District (202) 225-3265
John Conyers Jr. (Ranking Member), D-Mich., 14th District (202) 225-5126
Ted Deutch, D-Fla., 19th District (202) 225-3001
J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., 4th District (202) 225-6365
Trent Franks, R-Ariz., 2nd District (202) 225-4576
Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., 24th District (202) 225-5811
Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, 1st District (202) 225-3035
Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., 6th District (202) 225-5431
Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., 4th District (202) 225-6030
Tim Griffin, R-Ark., 2nd District (202) 225-2506
Darrell Issa, R-Calif., 49th District (202) 225-3906
Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, 18th District (202) 225-3816
Hank Johnson, D-Ga., 4th District (202) 225-1605
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, 4th District (202) 225-2676
Steve King, R-Iowa, 5th District (202) 225-4426
Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., 16th District (202) 225-3072
Dan Lungren, R-Calif., 3rd District (202) 225-5716
Tom Marino, R-Pa., 10th District (202) 225-3731
Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., 8th District (202) 225-5635
Mike Pence, R-Ind., 6th District (202) 225-3021
Pedro Pierluisi, D-Puerto Rico (202) 225-2615
Ted Poe, R-Texas, 2nd District (202) 225-6565
Jared Polis, D-Colo., 2nd District (202) 225-2161
Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., 3rd District (202) 225-3361
Mike Quigley, D-Ill., 5th District (202) 225-4061
Dennis Ross, R-Fla., 12th District (202) 225-1252
Linda Sánchez, D-Calif., 39th District (202) 225-6676
Bobby Scott, D-Va., 3rd District (202) 225-8351
Jim Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., 5th District (202) 225-5101
Lamar Smith (Chairman), R-Texas, 21st District (202) 225-4236
Maxine Waters, D-Calif., 35th District (202) 225-2201
Mel Watt, D-N.C., 12th District (202) 225-1510
 

Another Pet Snared in Cruel Federal Trap

It’s rare for a family pet to survive a close encounter with one of the deadly predator control devices set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program. In fact, over the past few years, I’ve shared several heart-breaking stories about dogs like Bea, a young American Brittany spaniel, who, in May 2008 suffered a terrifying, excruciating death during a hiking trip on public land in Utah, when she sniffed and licked a sheep carcass that had been laced with highly toxic Compound 1080 poison. And just this past December, I told you about a border collie in Oregon named Maggie who was strangled after being caught in a body-gripping kill trap set by Wildlife Services just 20 feet from her family’s property line. Bea, Maggie and countless other animals have suffered and died as a result of this agency’s outdated approach to solving wildlife conflicts and its indiscriminate killing and maiming of non-target species.

Bella narrowly survived an encounter with a snare.
Photo: Robert Norie

Fortunately for a beautiful husky named Bella and her owner, forester Robert Norie, her encounter with a snare set by federal agents did not end in death. She survived the ordeal, but as you will read, Bella still paid a horrible price when she came across these landmines of the natural world largely financed by our tax dollars.

In August 2010, while accompanying her owner on a trip to conduct a tree survey in Boise National Forest in Idaho, Bella wandered into a snare set for wolves by Wildlife Services and nearly died after struggling in the trap for more than eight hours. When Norie found her, Bella’s whole body was hopelessly tangled in the wire snare. She was caked with blood and had almost completely chewed off her right hind leg in a futile attempt to free herself from the cable. Norie and his coworkers managed to release Bella from the snare, and despite being in a remote area, Norie was able to get Bella to a veterinarian in time to save her life, but not her leg. Norie also suffered blood poisoning and had to spend four days in the hospital for treatment from a bite inflicted by an injured and terrified Bella while he was working to cut the cable away from her body.

While Bella survived the ordeal thanks to the heroic efforts of her devoted family, others like her are much less fortunate—left to languish in these traps for days, if not weeks, before finally succumbing to their injuries, dehydration, starvation or exposure.

Apparently, such is the case at Oregon State University where we have just learned that for several years now, Wildlife Services has been using the same types of cruel, indiscriminate snares that maimed Bella to injure and kill animals who wander into them near the school’s sheep farm. According to eyewitness reports from a family whose property lies adjacent to the sheep farm, deer fawns, raccoons and coyotes are routinely captured and left to suffer for days, if not weeks, in snares set by Wildlife Services along the farm’s fence line. The property owner says that one day she found a dead coyote who “had completely wrapped itself in and out of the wire fence in a struggle to get free. The other hind foot was missing entirely. I later learned that undoubtedly this coyote had formerly been caught in another trapping device and had chewed its foot off in order to escape.” On another day, she found “a live raccoon dangling on the fence, caught by the rear leg in the same type of snare trap as the coyote. This raccoon had similarly woven itself through the fence, trying to escape the snare's unyielding grip. I took video and photos of the struggling raccoon that had haplessly gotten caught in a snare set to catch another animal.”

Please send a polite message to Edward Ray, the president of OSU, asking him to suspend Wildlife Services' indiscriminate and inhumane trapping practices at the school, along with its contract, until an independent and public review is completed.

This tragedy is compounded by archaic state regulations that allow trappers as many as 30 days to check traps set for certain types of traps, similar to the one that nearly suffocated and killed Kiera, a Wheaten terrier, just 10 days ago while walking along the Metolius River in Oregon. It’s high time the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopt new rules to prevent animals from languishing interminably in these cruel and barbaric devices.

The federal program, too, is in need of reform. Wildlife Services has been killing animals for more than 80 years, using inhumane and indiscriminate methods, catching endangered species and family pets in the crossfire, with taxpayers footing a large share of the bill. It’s time for our government to do better, and find a new way forward.

Ask Your Lawmakers to Cosponsor Key Animal Protection Bills

A new HSUS investigation released last week exposed Purebred Breeders LLC (PBB), thought to be the nation’s largest online seller of puppies, peddling sick dogs to unsuspecting consumers. The company owns nearly 800 Web domains for the purpose of leading online shoppers to believing that they are dealing with responsible local breeders. But the dogs often come from large-scale commercial puppy mills around the country, where they are stacked in cramped wire cages, with no exercise, veterinary care, socialization, or human companionship.

Puppy mills selling directly to the public, such as through Internet brokers like PBB, exploit a loophole in the federal Animal Welfare Act regulations to avoid being licensed or having to meet basic standards of care under federal law. It’s past time that the federal government close this loophole, and crack down on the worst puppy mill abuses in the country.

That’s one reason HSLF has made the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act one of our top congressional priorities, and it’s one of the bills we are counting for cosponsorship in the 2011 Humane Scorecard. As the first session of the 112th Congress comes to a close, we will evaluate lawmakers on their performance on animal protection issues by scoring a number of key votes, but also their support for adequate funding for the enforcement of animal welfare laws, and their cosponsorship of priority bills. Building the number of cosponsors on a bill is an important way to show that there is a critical mass of bipartisan support for the policy, and it provides much-needed momentum for these bills to move forward in the second session in 2012.

There are just a couple weeks left in 2011, and I am asking you to call your U.S. senators and U.S. representative and urge them to cosponsor the three animal protection bills in the Senate and four in the House whose cosponsors we're counting, in order to receive credit on the 2011 Humane Scorecard, which is mailed to all HSLF members and distributed online. (The animal fighting bill was just introduced last week in the Senate, so it won’t be counted on the scorecard this year, but it’s still a great idea to ask your two senators to cosponsor this new bill.) You can look up your federal legislators here, and then call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to ask them to join as cosponsors of the following animal protection bills. If they’re already cosponsoring all these bills, you can thank them for their strong support.

Puppy Mills—Cosponsorship of S. 707 and H.R. 835, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) Act – introduced by Sens. Durbin and Vitter, and Reps. Gerlach, Farr, Bill Young, and Capps – to crack down on abusive “puppy mills” in the United States, where breeding dogs are often stacked in wire cages for years to produce litter after litter. The legislation will close a loophole in the Animal Welfare Act regulations by requiring that commercial breeders who sell 50 or more puppies per year online and directly to the public be licensed and inspected, just as breeders who supply to pet stores already must be.  It will also require that dogs used for breeding at commercial facilities be provided the opportunity to exercise daily.
 
Chimpanzees Warehoused in Laboratories—Cosponsorship of S. 810 and H.R. 1513, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act – introduced by Sens. Cantwell, Collins, and Sanders, and Reps. Bartlett, Israel, Reichert, Langevin, and Towns – to phase out use of chimpanzees in invasive research, retire the approximately 500 federally-owned chimpanzees to sanctuary, and make the current NIH moratorium on government-funded breeding of chimpanzees statutory.  Chimpanzees have proven to be poor research models for human diseases, so at any given time, about 80-90% of chimps in U.S. labs are not used in research, but simply warehoused in barren and costly laboratory cages at taxpayer expense.  It’s much less expensive to care for chimpanzees at sanctuaries (where they live with other chimps in a natural setting) than to warehouse them individually in labs; this legislation is estimated to save American taxpayers $300 million over ten years.  
 
Animal Fighting Spectators—Cosponsorship of S. 1947 and H.R. 2492, the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act – introduced by Sens. Blumenthal, Kirk, Cantwell, and Brown, and Reps. Marino and Sutton – to establish misdemeanor penalties for knowingly attending an organized animal fight and felony penalties for bringing a minor to such a fight.  While Congress has strengthened federal animal fighting law in recent years, this bill will close a remaining gap:  prohibiting spectating, as 49 states have done, and helping take the profit out of animal fighting.  Spectators are more than mere observers at animal fights.  They are participants and accomplices who enable the crime, paying hundreds or thousands of dollars in admission fees and gambling wagers, and helping conceal organizers and handlers who try to blend into the crowd when a raid occurs.  
 
Horse Slaughter—Cosponsorship of S. 1176 and H.R. 2966, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act – introduced by Sens. Landrieu and Graham, and Reps. Burton and Schakowsky – to prohibit the transport (including export) of horses for slaughter for human consumption.  More than 103,000 American horses have been purchased so far this year by “killer buyers,” who often outbid legitimate adopters and rescue groups.  They are then trucked long distances to a cruel death in slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada that cater to the palates of European diners.

Obama Obstructionism: Procrastinating on Pythons

A bipartisan group from Florida’s congressional delegation is calling on President Obama to finalize a long-delayed rule barring the trade in dangerous giant snakes. A letter from U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and a House letter led by U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-16th,  and co-signed by Reps. David Rivera, R-25th, Ted Deutch, D-19th, Richard Nugent, R-5th, Vern Buchanan, R-13th, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-20th, and Allen West, R-22nd, urge the White House to stop dragging its feet on a rule to add nine species of deadly snakes, including pythons, anacondas, and boa constrictors, to the list of prohibited “injurious species” under the Lacey Act. 

Every day that goes by, more snakes are dying in the trade, more people are put at risk, there is more destruction of our natural resources because so many of these snakes have been turned loose in the wild, and more money is being wasted trying to control these animals who thrive as invasive species. This policy has been in the works for five years, and has been the subject of much scientific research and public comment.

Here’s the timeline:

• June 2006: South Florida Water Management District petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting the listing of Burmese pythons as injurious under the Lacey Act.


• January 2008: USFWS published a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register asking the public for information on several large constrictor snakes.


• October 2009: U.S. Geological Survey issued a report finding that large constrictor snakes pose an invasive species risk and threaten the stability of native ecosystems.


• March 2010: USFWS issued a proposed rule to list nine large constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act.


• March 2011: The White House Office of Management and Budget/Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs received the final rule from USFWS (the review process is usually 90 days).

As Sen. Nelson wrote: “The rule was sent to OMB nearly nine months ago. In total, the rulemaking process has taken almost five years and in that time, over 100,000 more giant constrictor snakes have entered the U.S. And until these animals are listed as injurious, they will continue to flow into the country unabated. Further delay is unacceptable and the consequences could be lethal.”

Rep. Rooney and the House members added, “In addition to the safety threats and havoc the snakes are inflicting, there is a very real economic impact of their invasion. We are spending billions of dollars to restore the Everglades and if additional invasive snakes are allowed to establish themselves, the native wildlife will be decimated. Our local water management district, the State of Florida, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Everglades National Park have already dedicated time and resources to eradicating these invasive snakes. Their funding and ability to continue eradication programs, while still performing their core missions, would be unsustainable.”

It begs the question: What’s the hold up? There should be no lingering doubts about the merits of this policy, especially after a two-year-old toddler was killed by a pet python, and adult deer are being gulped down whole by snakes in the wild. Nearly every major newspaper in Florida has weighed in urging the White House to stop delaying the snake rule, including the Gainesville Sun, Lakeland Ledger, Orlando Sentinel, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and Tallahassee Democrat.

But officials in the Obama administration appear to be weak-kneed simply because they’ve been hearing some complaints from the reptile industry lobby—the very people who have cost the nation hundreds of millions of dollars, given the government control efforts that have been initiated, and have peddled high-maintenance dangerous predators at flea markets, swap meets, and over the Internet to unqualified people. It’s much more humane and fiscally responsible to deal with the problem on the front end through prevention. Why should U.S. taxpayers shoulder the financial burden for a few people who make selfish and reckless decisions?

Some observers believe the python industry lobbyists are not the only ones peddling influence at the White House to kill agency proposals. As Ari Shapiro reported this week on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” a new study says OIRA “has served as a killing ground for protective rules” and that President Obama is watering down or undoing more proposed agency regulations than his predecessor did. 

When it comes to dangerous giant snakes, we can’t let politics trump science or animal welfare. Please take action today and urge the White House to finalize the rule to stop the importation and interstate movement of these deadly snakes as pets. Enough is enough, and we must move forward without delay.

Resolve on Reptiles

As the recent tragedy in Zanesville, Ohio so painfully illustrated, there’s no good reason for individuals to keep dangerous predators as pets, and the outcome is inevitably disastrous—for the people who are put at risk, for the wild animals themselves who are confined in unnatural settings that fail to meet their complex needs, and, in this case, the animals who met such an untimely and violent death. Another news story that broke this weekend—a 76-pound adult female deer was found intact inside a 16-foot-long Burmese python in the Everglades—shows that when these exotic pets are released or escape into the wild, they are capable of wreaking ecological havoc on our natural resources.

Burmese pythons, like the one pictured here, have colonized the
Everglades and have now become a dominant predator in this
storied American national park.

That’s right, a giant snake swallowed a deer whole. Burmese pythons have colonized the Everglades—with an original group of snakes set loose by pet owners or escapees during a hurricane—and have now become a dominant predator in this storied American national park. People often purchase wild animals, like snakes, when they are young and manageable, but there are very few options for placement when the animals grow too dangerous to handle and are no longer wanted. These exotic predators are now fighting with alligators and killing untold numbers of native animals for food. It’s only a matter of time before one of them kills a highly endangered Florida panther or Key deer.

It’s no surprise that the U.S. Geological Survey recently released a report documenting potential environmental harm from the trade in large constrictor snakes. The 300-page study should erase any doubt about whether these giant creatures belong in the pet trade. All nine species of large pythons, anacondas, and boa constrictors studied pose either medium or high risk to our natural resources. Three of the species are already reproducing in Florida, where “a very large number of imperiled species are at risk from giant constrictors.”

Take Action: Urge the White House to finalize a rule to stop the importation and interstate movement of these deadly snakes as pets.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has rightly proposed a rule to ban the trade in these nine species of giant snakes, but the Obama administration has been delaying action. There’s no good reason for the White House to be weak-kneed simply because they’ve been hearing some complaints from the reptile industry lobby—the very people who have cost the nation hundreds of millions of dollars, given the government control efforts that have been initiated. It’s much more humane and fiscally responsible to deal with the problem on the front end through prevention. Why should all U.S. taxpayers shoulder the financial burden for a few people who make selfish and reckless decisions?

When you add in the threat to humans, and the suffering that the snakes themselves endure in the trade, then the case for a trade ban for these giant snakes is overwhelming. Please take action today and urge the White House to move forward and finalize a rule to stop the importation and interstate movement of these deadly snakes as pets. Every day we wait compounds the danger to public safety, animal welfare, and our natural resources.