Animals & Politics

Federal Court Upholds Decision to Prohibit Import of Wild-Caught Whales from Russia

There’s a growing public awareness about the suffering of captive whales, especially since the release of Blackfish in 2013, and latest reports indicate that Sea World’s profits have dropped 84 percent. It’s perplexing, then, that some companies would still fight so hard to try to capture wild whales from the oceans and import them into the U.S. for an outdated and failing business model.

Naomi Rose for The HSUS

Fortunately, there was good news on this issue yesterday, when a federal court upheld the National Marine Fisheries Service’s denial of an import permit application from the Georgia Aquarium. The case has critical implications for both the conservation of wild populations of marine mammals and the welfare of whales held in captivity in U.S. exhibition facilities.

In 2012, the Georgia Aquarium (in cooperation with three Sea World facilities and two other aquariums) sought permission to import 18 beluga whales captured from the Sea of Okhotsk near Russia by a company seeking to sell the majestic white whales to an exhibition facility. When the whales were captured in 2010, five of them were less than two years old and were likely still nursing and not yet independent of their mothers (who were not captured). The federal government rejected the permit application, finding that the Georgia Aquarium failed to demonstrate, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, that the import would not likely have an adverse impact on the species and that the import would not likely result in the capture of additional beluga whales.

The court found that the agency’s decision was well-reasoned and dismissed the aquarium’s lawsuit challenging the permit denial. The Humane Society of the United States had filed a brief to provide the court with information about the serious animal welfare and marine conservation concerns inherent in capturing and transporting these highly intelligent and sensitive beings for captive exhibition.

The decision makes clear that the “primary purpose of the MMPA is to protect marine mammals” and “was not intended as a ‘balancing act’ between the interests of industry and the animals.” It’s an important step in the trend toward ending the inhumane and unsustainable trade in wild cetaceans, or marine mammals, by U.S. exhibition facilities—indeed, it has been more than 20 years since the last wild-caught cetacean was imported directly into the U.S. for public display, and even Sea World now claims it would not take the whales if they were imported.

It means the government’s decision to reject these cruel imports will stand, and it reinforces a comprehensive record of protecting marine life during President Obama’s administration. Just last year, President Obama issued an executive order expanding the existing Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to 490,000 square miles—six times its current size—making it the largest marine monument in the world. The sanctuary is expected to protect nearly two dozen types of living marine mammals, along with threatened species of sea turtles.

In addition, the Department of Commerce revised the regulations governing the dolphin-safe label, requiring that all fisheries provide a certification that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the harvesting of tuna. NMFS also finalized rules to restrict fishing gear harmful to endangered right whales and permanently extend speed limits for ships along the east coast to prevent collisions with endangered whales. Most recently, NMFS took a significant step for global protections of marine mammals by issuing a proposed rule aimed at deterring foreign commercial fishing activities from harming these animals.

But there is still much to be done to address the plight of captive marine mammals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture drafted a proposed rule back in 2012 to set improved standards, including space requirements and water quality for marine mammals kept in exhibition facilities, but that rule has been languishing and has not yet been issued for public comment. It’s been more than two decades since the agency began working on this regulation and each day of delay means more suffering for the hundreds of orcas, belugas, dolphins, seals and sea lions used for commercial entertainment and interactive “swim-with” experiences.

Members of Congress are urging the White House to issue its long-delayed proposed rule, with Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., leading the effort in the House, and Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., winning an amendment on the issue in the Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 18 to 12.

The Obama administration has taken major steps forward for whales, but now must finish the job to establish more humane standards of care for captive marine mammals.

OIG Audit Fails to Address USDA’s Cruel War on Wildlife

It’s a government program that’s more than 100 years old, uses outdated and ineffective practices, costs tens of millions of tax dollars, and kills and maims tens of millions of animals, including unintended victims such as endangered and threatened species, and beloved family pets.

No wonder members of Congress and thousands of concerned citizens have urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to address these critical problems with its archaic Wildlife Services program, especially the unacceptable and cruel practices that the program conducts in the name of lethal predator control—using toxic poisons, steel-jawed leghold traps, and aerial gunning of wildlife.

The auditors glossed over the cruel methods that federal agents use, such as leaving animals to suffer in snares, traps, or from poisons. Above, a coyote in a leghold trap.  Photo by Dick Randall

At the request of U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., former Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., and Sen. (then-Rep.) Gary Peters, D-Mich., the USDA’s Office of Inspector General agreed to conduct an audit of the controversial program. The audit was a long time coming, for an agency using a 19th century model of wildlife management and failing to adapt to modern concerns or technologies. In the past decade alone, the Wildlife Services program killed nearly 34 million wild animals, with taxpayers footing a large part of the $1.14 billion bill.

For so many of us, this brought hope that finally the program would be exposed for what it is: a perpetual, irresponsible war on wildlife on behalf of a few private special interests, allowed to operate without transparency, as in the Wild, Wild West. Earlier this year, The Humane Society of the United States released a new white paper, “Wildlife Disservice: The USDA Wildlife Services’ inefficient and inhumane wildlife damage management program.” The paper proposed a series of common-sense reforms, such as incorporating animal welfare and conservation into the decision making process, eliminating the most inhumane and indiscriminate killing methods, such as toxic poisons, and updating the program’s environmental impact statement.

The OIG audit released yesterday, however, answers none of the concerns posed by the lawmakers and citizens who requested the investigation, and offers no pathway for reform. The auditors simply glossed over the extremely cruel methods that federal agents use, such as leaving animals to suffer in snares, traps, or from poisons that did not act quickly. They provided no insight into how more than $1 billion was spent from 2004 to 2013, much of it from federal tax dollars, and whether those funds were used effectively to solve wildlife conflicts.

The main conclusion of the audit is simply that Wildlife Services complied with the law. But arguing that the activities are legal doesn’t mean they aren’t outdated, inhumane, ineffective, and a waste of tax dollars. Our government should be held to a higher standard in conducting its business, and there are better ways of addressing wildlife conflicts than there were a century ago. Legal or not, citizens are demanding less waste, more transparency, and humane treatment.

In an era where cutting federal spending and eliminating government debt is widely encouraged, Wildlife Services lives on as an outlier. It is unacceptable that federally funded wildlife exterminators will continue to freely poison, drown, snare, and shoot wildlife from airplanes and helicopters using the taxpayers’ money and with very little accountability.

There is a legitimate case to be made for a federal agency that helps to solve wildlife conflicts and provides training and research on best practices with an emphasis on innovation and non-lethal solutions.

But Wildlife Services in its current form is a relic of the past. It exterminates wildlife as a government subsidy for private ranchers and other special interests, using inhumane and ineffective methods, and wasting federal funds. We have a right to expect better from our government, especially when humane alternatives are on the rise.

Reform is most urgently needed in order to bring Wildlife Services into the 21st century. Congress should continue to press USDA to adopt a more balanced approach aligned with mainstream American values that support humane, nonlethal methods for wildlife damage management.

Lawmakers Taking a Stand to Protect the Salt River Horses

The U.S. Forest Service has sparked a national outrage with its new plan to remove all of the horses from one of the nation’s most iconic herds—the Salt River horses—from Tonto National Forest in Arizona. 

In 1971, Congress codified the important place horses hold in American life through the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, declaring that horses are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West. The act bound federal agencies to protect and manage wild horses living on our public lands, and noted that where horses were found, they were to be considered an integral part of the natural system. 

A Salt River horse foal
Source: KPHO/KTVK

Shockingly, the Forest Service has failed to acknowledge the horses of the Salt River herd as wild, deserving the protections that Congress intended. Instead, the agency claims the horses have been released onto the land, and designates them instead as abandoned livestock. Removing these iconic horses based on a technical loophole would allow them to be sent to livestock auctions—where kill buyers are waiting to peddle horse flesh to slaughter plants in Canada and Mexico.

One thing is clear: the public is outraged by the Forest Service’s proposed action. 

Tourists come from across the nation to visit and photograph the forest with specific hopes of catching a glimpse of one of these beautiful animals. Their removal could have a great ecological impact on the park, and threatens an economic blow to Arizona and the national forest system. 

Fortunately, federal and state lawmakers are also not taking this action lightly.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has called on the Forest Service to halt its plans to remove the horses from Tonto National Forest. Representatives Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., David Schweikert, R-Ariz., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack noting that wild horses are an integral part of America’s West, and asking for an immediate halt to their removal. Representative Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, also weighed in with a letter questioning the need for immediate removal of the horses, who have been living safely within the forest’s borders for decades. Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., requested that the Forest Service cease all management activities until the public has had a sufficient chance to participate in the process.

Arizona’s Republican Governor Doug Ducey—who is establishing a solid animal protection record after vetoing the state’s bill to exclude farm animals from the regular cruelty code—is also speaking out for the horses. He tweeted that the Forest Service should leave the Salt River horses alone, promising that Arizona would provide them with sanctuary if the federal government wouldn’t. 

Local citizens have offered to partner with the government to solve this problem, but the Forest Service has rebuffed the offer of assistance. This is the type of public-private partnership, and constructive problem solving, that our government agencies should encourage, not reject. Public officials should encourage citizen participation, not shut it down.

We are grateful to federal and state policymakers for standing up for what’s right, and urging the Forest Service to reconsider its plan to remove the Salt River horses from their home in Tonto National Forest.  Our nation’s horses simply deserve better, and this time they have some powerful advocates making sure they get it.

Please help support the effort by letting the Forest Service know you oppose its plan. »

 

Airlines Take Flight from Trophy Hunting; When Will Congress Get On Board?

The tragic death of Cecil the lion—senselessly shot by an American dentist with a bow and arrow and left to suffer for hours before being shot again—has exposed the pay-to-slay subculture of wealthy people who spend a fortune to kill the grandest, most majestic animals in the world. The public outrage shows no signs of slowing down.  

Virtually overnight, a cascade of major airlines has banned the transportation of spoils from the trophy killing industry—principally elephants, rhinoceros, lions, leopards, and buffalo, or the “Africa Big Five” sought for self-aggrandizement in the Safari Club International record books. Delta, United, American and others are all in flight from the destruction and death meted out by trophy hunters on the African continent.

Cecil the lion with his cubs. Photo by Brent Stapelkamp

But when will Congress get on board?  Even now, there are lawmakers working quietly to appease the bullies and fat-cats of the trophy hunting corps. While most of the world is convulsed over Cecil, some members of Congress are springing into action to grant special favors for one of the smallest and most elite groups of trophy hunters in the world.

Walter Palmer is now a household name. What isn’t so widely known is that there are thousands of ultra-wealthy trophy hunters just like him, and that 41 of them are lobbying Congress for a wholly unprincipled bail-out that would blow a hole in the heart of the Endangered Species Act.

Bills in the House and Senate—the “Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act” sponsored by Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and the “SHARE Act” sponsored by Reps. Rob Wittman, R-Va., Tim Walz, D-Minn., Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., and Gene Green, D-Tex.—both provide a sweetheart deal to help 41 big-bucks, trophy-mad hunters import the heads of rare polar bears they shot in Canada. None of these millionaire trophy hunters, who paid as much as $50,000 each to shoot a polar bear, ate the meat. They just went on a head-hunting exercise in the Arctic, and paid a fortune to do so—all for the head and the hide and the bragging rights that go along with it.

U.S. law bars import of these trophies because polar bears are in terrible trouble with their very survival at stake, thanks to climate change, commercial trade, and over-hunting. These animals were killed during expensive trophy safaris in Canada at a time when the Bush Administration had proposed listing the polar bear as a threatened species—the U.S.’s contribution to conservation. These fat-cat hunters proceeded knowing that the door would be closed to polar bear trophy imports, but confident that they could always call upon friends in Congress to do their bidding and get them an exemption.

Indeed, Congress has several times granted similar import allowances—a de facto repeal of the import ban—sending a message to trophy hunters that they can continue killing imperiled species and eventually exert their influence to get approval to bring home their trophies. The cumulative impact of this corrosive pandering encourages more reckless killing of these animals around the globe.

The whole sordid business is fueled by competitive killing programs that give “hunting achievement” awards and “grand slams” for kills in specific categories. For example, hunters at the Safari Club International compete for the “North American 29” award, which requires killing a minimum of 29 species and subspecies of animals, including the polar bear, in North American habitat. They also strive to earn the “Bears of the World” award, which requires killing five bears, such the polar bear and Eurasian and Siberian brown bears, on a number of continents.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering a rule to list the African lion as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Should all the Walter Palmers of the world seeking the “Africa Big Five” award now rush to be among the last hunters to bag the king of the jungle? That acceleration of killing inverts the very purpose of the law.

These trophy hunters don’t care that African lion populations and polar bear populations are declining fast. They don’t care that time is running out to slow the mortality of these majestic creatures. But Congress should.

How Safe Are You From an Escaped Pet Lion?

If you live in one of five states with no laws preventing the private possession of dangerous wild animals, there’s no telling what kind of safety threats are looming in your own neighborhood. Dozens of Milwaukee residents reported seeing a lion running loose, spurring a media frenzy this week. One blurry image captured on video in a resident’s backyard suggests this could be a young male or adult female African lion. People are so fearful and on edge that one man mistakenly shot and injured a pit bull dog, thinking it was the lion.

Captive wild and exotic animals have unique and extremely complex needs that are difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to provide. Pictured above, an African lion in the wild. Photo by Vanessa Mignon

It shouldn’t take a tragedy before Wisconsin, and the other remaining holdout states of Alabama, Nevada, North Carolina, and South Carolina, enact common-sense laws to prevent reckless people from putting entire communities at risk by keeping dangerous wild and exotic pets.

It’s astonishing, but in some cases, even deaths and catastrophic injuries resulting from captive wild animal attacks have not moved legislators to protect residents. It’s still legal to keep a pet tiger in North Carolina, even after two separate incidents in which a 10-year-old boy was mauled to death by his uncle’s 400-pound pet tiger and a three-year-old boy was critically injured and left permanently blind after his father’s pet tiger crushed his skull.

It’s been three years since two chimpanzees escaped from a backyard cage in a residential Las Vegas neighborhood, yet Nevada still has no law. Police responded to that incident with more than 20 squad cars, diverted motorists away from the area, and warned residents to stay indoors. The chimpanzees ran amok, climbed into cars, pounded on vehicles, and banged on windows of homes. In order to protect the public, police shot and killed the male chimpanzee when he darted toward a crowd of onlookers.

Captive wild and exotic animals have unique and extremely complex needs that are difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to provide. Many of these animals are long-lived species and end up being discarded or released by people who were unprepared to provide decades of costly care. These animals pose a danger not only to their owner, but to children living in the household, visitors, neighbors, and emergency responders such as firefighters, paramedics, and police.

It never turns out well for the animals, and it’s often the taxpayers and nonprofit sanctuaries that bear the burden of paying costs related to escapes, attacks, and neglect cases that are all too often the predictable outcomes when these animals are kept in private hands.

While there are gaps in the state laws, there are problems at the federal level too. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet finalized a rule on “generic tigers,” meaning that private individuals and roadside menageries can keep and breed these animals without the same record-keeping and standards required for professional accredited zoos with conservation breeding programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture allows the public to have direct physical contact with big cats, primates, and other dangerous wild animals dragged around to shopping malls and put on display for paid photo ops, but is considering an HSUS legal petition to close that loophole.  

We hope the situation in Milwaukee is resolved with no deaths or injuries and it triggers state lawmakers to finally ban the private possession of wild and exotic animals. Legislation has previously been introduced and the time to put an end to this dangerous trade is now.

If you live in one of the other states—Alabama, Nevada, North Carolina, or South Carolina—please urge your state legislators to take action and make it a top priority to end the private possession of dangerous wild animals. They shouldn’t wait until the next mauling or fatal attack takes place because of someone’s reckless behavior. 

House Action is a Mixed Bag for Animals

Yesterday was a mixed day of results for animals on Capitol Hill, with some setbacks and some progress on a number of different fronts for companion animals, wildlife, and farm animals. 

What good news there was came in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill that passed the House Appropriations Committee.

A provision of the bill sends a strong message that grisly, taxpayer-funded experiments on farm animals at federal research facilities will not be tolerated. It prevents the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from receiving five percent of its appropriations ($56 million in federal funding) until it certifies in writing to both the House and the Senate that it has updated its animal care policies and that its facilities will be subject to regular inspections.

A provision of the bill sends a strong message that grisly, taxpayer-funded experiments on farm animals at federal research facilities will not be tolerated. Photo by iStockphoto

The New York Times exposed gruesome experiments at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Nebraska, including pigs locked in steam chambers until they died, calves born with “deformed vaginas” and tangled legs, and sheep bred to produce lambs without any human assistance, with the newborns left to starve, freeze, or, get battered to death by hail. The congressional committee, in a report that accompanied the legislation, said that it was “disturbed” to read the Times article and “continues to be deeply disappointed in the department’s response and must take action to ensure the welfare of all animals used in research at ARS facilities.”

In another victory, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., succeeded in including language in the bill to deny funds for USDA’s licensing or relicensing of Class B animal dealers who sell “random source” dogs and cats for use in research, often obtained from animal shelters, flea markets, or “free to a good home” ads (and sometimes from pet theft). The 1966 Animal Welfare Act was intended to stop the illegal sale of family pets for use in experimentation. However, nearly 50 years after the passage of this landmark legislation, the AWA still fails to reliably protect either pet owners or animals from Class B dealers. The animals are routinely deprived of veterinary care, sufficient food, clean water, safe and sanitary cages, and protection from extreme weather, as well as being subjected to experimentation.

The House committee bill also contains good news for animals in terms of funding for critical animal welfare laws. Thanks to strong bipartisan support, funding for USDA to enforce and implement these key laws was sustained and even modestly increased in some cases. In such a tough budget climate with so many programs competing for finite dollars, we are pleased that lawmakers understand it’s possible to achieve macro-level cuts while still taking care to ensure that specific small and vital accounts such as these have the funds they need.

Here’s a rundown of what the House committee bill provides for key programs:

• Animal Welfare Act: $28,410,000 ($400,000 increase) for USDA enforcement of the important law that sets basic standards for care of animals at more than 10,000 sites across the country—including puppy mills, research laboratories, roadside zoos, traveling circuses, and airlines.  The increase is designated for inspections and oversight of USDA’s Agricultural Research Service facilities involved in research on animals.
• Horse Protection Act: $697,000 (current funding level) for USDA enforcement to end the cruel practice of “soring” Tennessee walking horses and related breeds  (deliberately inflicting severe pain and cooking chemicals into the horses’ legs and feet to make it hurt for them to step down, so they will exaggerate their high-stepping gait and win prizes). 
• Investigative and Enforcement Services: $16,224,000 (current funding level) for this USDA division whose responsibilities include investigation of inspectors’ findings regarding alleged violations of the AWA and HPA and the initiation of follow-up enforcement actions. 
• Office of Inspector General: $95,643,000 ($617,000 increase) for this office that handles many areas, including investigations and audits of USDA’s enforcement efforts to improve compliance with the AWA, HPA, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and regulations to protect downed animals.
• Humane Slaughter: Helpful committee report language (restated from previous years) directing the Food Safety and Inspection Service to ensure that funds provided for Humane Methods of Slaughter Act enforcement will be focused on overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and stunning areas, and that all inspectors receive robust national training.
• Veterinary Student Loan Repayment: $5,000,000 (current funding level) for this program that helps ease the shortage of veterinarians practicing in rural communities and in government positions (such as those overseeing humane slaughter, AWA, and HPA rules), by repaying student debt for those who choose to practice practice in underserved areas and in the vital government divisions devoted to veterinary inspection and oversight.

Without adequate funding for enforcement, the laws and rules we work to enact are mostly just exhortations. The HSUS and HSLF have been steadily working to build the enforcement budgets for these and doing this work provides a critical service to the broader movement to protect all animals. Over the past 17 years, for example, we’ve succeeded in boosting the annual funding for enforcement of the AWA by 205 percent (a cumulative total of more than $157 million in new dollars to the program). Today, there are 123 AWA inspectors, compared to about 60 during the 1990s, to help ensure basic humane treatment at thousands of facilities with animals under their care.

There was a major setback in this same committee, however, when it failed to adopt an amendment to prevent the slaughter of horses for human consumption on U.S. soil. The amendment, offered by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., resulted in a tie vote, 24-24, with the measure not passing. Several longtime Republican supporters of this provision reversed their votes in committee and instead sided with the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

We will not waver in our efforts to protect American horses. Photo by The HSUS

The fight is not over, as we prepare for similar amendments on the House floor and in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we will not waver in our efforts to protect American horses. The horse slaughter industry is a predatory, inhumane enterprise. They don’t “euthanize” old horses, but precisely the opposite: they buy up young and healthy horses, often by misrepresenting their intentions, and kill them to sell the meat to Europe and Japan.

In other bad news, the Interior Appropriations bill which was on the House floor this week, includes harmful riders that would block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from any rulemaking to address the ivory trade and elephant poaching, and would force the removal of wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming from protections under the Endangered Species Act. Congressman Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., offered an amendment to strike the ivory rider, and Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., sponsored one to block the weakening of the Endangered Species Act for wolves and other species. Both amendments unfortunately failed on largely partisan votes.

It’s shameful that so many lawmakers pandered to the NRA and sided with ivory sellers and elephant poachers, when close to 100 elephants are being butchered every day for their tusks. There is an epidemic of elephant poaching in Africa, claiming as many as 35,000 elephants each year throughout their range, and threatening extinction of the species. The biggest ivory-selling markets in the world are in China and the United States, and these sales are fueling the slaughter of elephants thousands of miles away.  African armed militia groups massacred hundreds of elephants with the sale of the animals’ tusks financing murderous activities of al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Janjaweed, so this is a national security issue as well as a humane issue.

It’s also shameful that lawmakers continue to try to punch holes in the Endangered Species Act, and strip protections from wolves, with the public and the courts being shut out of the process. They would hand over wolf management to states in which more than 1,700 wolves have been killed in the last few years with the aid of leghold traps, snares, packs of hounds, bait site, clubs, and firearms. If members of Congress can dictate wolf management by legislative fiat, it opens the door for any politician or special interest group to do the same for a species they don’t like.

See how your U.S. representative voted on the ivory amendment and the wolf amendment. If they voted “aye” please thank them for standing up for animals, conservation, and national security, and if they voted “no” please let them know how disappointed you are. Also, please ask them to oppose the final passage of the Interior bill, which includes these harmful provisions.

We will continue to watch the appropriations process closely and keep you posted on the fights over horse slaughter, ivory trade, wolves, and other critical animal issues. 

Congress Needs to Act Both at Home and Abroad to Protect Elephants from Poaching

Today the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed H.R. 2494, the Global Anti-Poaching Act, sponsored by Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., and Ranking Member Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.

istock.com

This is a meaningful step forward in the effort to crack down on global wildlife trafficking and the poaching of imperiled species, including elephants and rhinos.

We are grateful to Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for spearheading this legislation, and we hope the House will take it up and pass it this summer.

The bill takes a multi-step approach to combat the international poaching rings. It:

• requires the Secretary of State to identify the foreign countries determined to be major sources, transit points, or consumers of wildlife trafficking products—those countries that have “failed demonstrably” to adhere to international agreements on endangered or threatened species will receive a special designation, and the Secretary of State will be authorized to withhold certain assistance from them;
  
  
• puts wildlife trafficking on a level playing field with other serious crimes like weapons trafficking and drug trafficking, making it a triggering offense for higher penalties under money laundering and racketeering laws, and requires that any fines be used for federal conservation and anti-poaching efforts;   
  
  
• authorizes the President to provide security assistance to African countries for counter-wildlife-trafficking efforts;
  
  
• takes a multi-country, regionally focused approach by expanding wildlife enforcement networks (WENs) to help partner countries strengthen coordination and share information and intelligence on illegal wildlife trafficking; and
  
  
• supports increased training of partner countries’ wildlife law enforcement rangers on the front lines of the fight against poachers, who are often armed with night-vision goggles, heavy weaponry, and even helicopters.

There is an epidemic of elephant poaching in Africa, claiming as many as 35,000 elephants each year throughout their range, and threatening the viability of the species. Much of the killing is done by terrorist groups, with the sale of the animals’ tusks financing murderous activities of al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Janjaweed. 

The destruction of elephants is not only a threat to international security and to the very survival of elephants as a species, but it also jeopardizes billions in commerce generated from ecotourism—a bulwark of the economy for so many African nations.

Unfortunately, the House may also take a step backwards on the issue when it begins consideration of the Interior appropriations bill later today. A harmful provision in the bill would block any rulemaking by the Obama administration to crack down on the ivory trade. 

It’s hard to reconcile the idea of the Congress advancing the Royce-Engel bill today, but other lawmakers seeking to stymie domestic efforts to reduce demand. If we are to be successful in the effort to end the poaching crisis and save elephants from extinction, we must take action both at home and abroad.  That’s why we at HSLF will be fighting to strike the rider that would block further federal restrictions on the ivory trade in the U.S.

The biggest ivory-selling markets in the world are in China and the U.S., and these sales are fueling the slaughter of elephants thousands of miles away. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is set to propose a carefully balanced rule for public comment to crack down on the domestic illegal ivory market, while protecting legal owners of antique ivory.

The Interior bill would prematurely kill that rule before it is even released, short-circuiting a policy that will benefit global security, economic development, and conservation and animal welfare, and also subverting a sound process that has included key stakeholders. The rider preventing Fish and Wildlife Service action on the ivory-trafficking issue must be struck from the bill.

Please contact your U.S. Representative, and ask him or her to support an amendment that would strike the Interior rider that enables elephant poaching.

Who's Afraid of Big, Bad Policy? War on Wolves Wages On

Some anti-wolf politicians in Congress are once again pushing to force the removal of wolves from the Endangered Species Act and to block wildlife biologists, the courts, and so many members of the public from having anything to say about it.  It’s the worst kind of back-room deal-making, and we need your help now to stop it.

Alamy

Both the House and Senate versions of the Interior appropriations bill include noxious provisions to completely strip wolves of their Endangered Species Act protections in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

They would hand over wolf management to hostile states in which more than 1,700 wolves have been killed in the last few years with the aid of leghold traps, snares, packs of hounds, bait site, clubs, and firearms.

These politicians talk a good game about scientific wildlife management, except when they don’t like a certain species and want politics to trump science.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service already has the tools to delist or downlist wolves, and the public and the courts have an opportunity to examine and weigh in on those proposals.

If members of Congress can dictate wolf management by legislative fiat, it punches a hole in the Endangered Species Act and opens the door for any politician or special interest group to do the same for a species they don’t like.

Fortunately, many lawmakers are speaking out and injecting some common-sense into the wolf debate.

“This rider is a tremendous overreach that would interfere in the federal listing of endangered species,” said Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. “Our committee’s role is to appropriate the necessary funds to allow the expert staff of scientists and professionals to do their jobs working to protect endangered species. This bill should not be mandating which species do or do not require protection.”

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., the ranking member of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, also panned the “new language that overrides court rulings requiring that specific populations of gray wolves must maintain protections under the Endangered Species Act.  This provision circumvents the scientific and legal process established to protect imperiled species.”

Eighty members of Congress have written to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urging them to adopt a compromise position: a petition filed by The HSUS and dozens of other conservation and wolf protection groups to list the wolves as threatened in the lower 48 states.

That policy would likely prevent any sport hunting or commercial trapping of wolves, while allowing state agencies to selectively remove wolves in the rare circumstance that they pose a threat to farm animals or human safety. This is the current policy in Minnesota, and it gives farmers and government officials more tools than they have now in Michigan, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and other wolf range states.

Lawmakers should look for practical solutions to problems and find a reasonable pathway forward to settle contentious policy issues when possible.

This proposal does just that, and it balances federal oversight and protections for wolves with more flexibility to manage wolf conflicts, including the depredation of livestock. A threatened listing would allow more management without ceding control entirely to state agencies that have consistently demonstrated an overreaching and cruel hand in dealing with wolves.

In a broader sense, it’s clear that wolves provide an enormous economic and ecological benefit. People will trek to wolf-inhabited forests precisely because they are there, boosting tourism-related commerce. 

Wolves also limit deer and moose populations, depressing crop depredation and shrinking the number of collisions between these animals and cars. Through their killing of the weak, sick, and older deer and moose, beavers, and other animals, they have a broad, balancing, and beneficial impact on ecosystems.

Please contact your members of Congress, and tell them to keep their paws of the Endangered Species Act. Ask them to oppose wolf delisting and other dangerous anti-wildlife riders.

Wildlife Disservices

Longtime wildlife advocate Congressman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., led a briefing today to expose the annual, irresponsible killing of millions of wild animals on behalf of a few special interests.

John Harrison

The USDA’s century-old “Wildlife Services” program is a little known, taxpayer-funded effort to deal with wildlife conflicts, but the agency principally focuses on the outdated and inefficient model of lethal control.

And that killing routinely utilizes shockingly inhumane and indiscriminate methods, such as toxic poisons, steel-jawed leghold traps, and aerial gunning.

In Fiscal Year 2014 alone, Wildlife Services spent more than $127 million—more than half of it from federal, state, and local taxes—to kill more than 2.7 million animals, including some endangered species and family pets.

These animals  were poisoned, gassed, shot from the ground and from aircraft, and killed in painful traps and snares to benefit clients like industrial timber operators, commercial fish farmers, and private ranchers grazing their livestock on public lands.

Today’s briefing was co-hosted by The HSUS and a coalition of wildlife and conservation groups and included a screening of "Exposed", an award-winning documentary by Predator Defense. Attendees heard from a number of panelists, including Denise Kavanagh, whose dog, Maggie, was killed by a Wildlife Services trap just steps from her backyard.

The HSUS also today released new research that identifies how Wildlife Services is misusing public funds. The HSUS report recommends seven critical reforms to the program that would help foster more humane and effective coexistence between people and wildlife. These include removing the financial incentive to kill, ending the use of inhumane management techniques, and ensuring nonlethal control is the preferred practice. 

But in order to become more humane and more effective, it’s critical that Wildlife Services as an agency also become more transparent. To date, the program has refused to provide significant information about spending even when directly requested by members of Congress.

People in communities where Wildlife Services is working now are often uninformed about the program’s activities, even when they and their beloved pets are at risk. Revelations about employee misconduct and negative media reports include a series of exposés that uncovered brutal and indiscriminate activities, fiscal irresponsibility, and environmental harm.

It’s time to hold Wildlife Services accountable for its actions and use of federal dollars. We are grateful to Rep. DeFazio and other members of Congress who have called for more transparent, humane, and balanced management, requested an audit of the culture within Wildlife Services and protested the use of poisons as a lethal control method.

There is a legitimate case to be made for a federal agency that helps to solve wildlife conflicts and provides training and research on best practices with an emphasis on innovation and non-lethal solutions.

But Wildlife Services in its current form is a relic of the past. It exterminates wildlife as a government subsidy for private ranchers and other special interests, using inhumane and ineffective methods, while the U.S. taxpayers foot a large share of the bill.  We have a right to expect better from our government, especially when humane alternatives are on the rise.

Now it’s your turn to speak up. Please contact USDA Secretary Vilsack, and ask for meaningful reform now. Taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to bankroll a wildlife management program that makes reckless killing its default option. 

Anti-Horse Slaughter Bill Hits the Senate

Many animal protection issues and challenges are not resolved quickly—they involve long-term fights that take years. The slaughter of horses for human consumption is one such example.

We and our allies have been working to block horse slaughter plants from opening in the U.S.; to stop the long-distance transport of these companion animals in cramped cattle trucks, bound for a brutal slaughter in Canada and Mexico; and to close down export markets for horse meat in the E.U.

istock.com

Our legislative adversaries, fearing to tread on this ground, don’t attempt to provide an outright defense of these extreme abuses of animals.

Instead, they try to cast this business—the business of slaughtering horses to profit from the animals’ exported meat—as some kind of altruistic act that helps the horses.

Today, a quartet of Democrat and Republican senators have introduced a bipartisan bill to end that cruel and archaic practice and put an end to the charade of its defense. In a recent blog, I wrote about the reintroduction of the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act, H.R. 1942, in the House of Representatives.

This legislation would save horses from the cruelty of slaughter—a fate that is nothing short of a complete betrayal of an animal who has stood by us throughout history and is revered as a symbol of the American West.

Now U.S. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Susan Collins (R-ME) have introduced a companion bill in the Senate, S. 1214, to completely end the slaughter of American horses for human consumption. 

The effort to end horse slaughter has consistently garnered tremendous support with both the public and lawmakers. Polling shows that 80 percent of Americans oppose horse slaughter, and when horse slaughter plants attempted to reopen on U.S. soil in 2013, the public fought back. We don’t slaughter dogs and cats to ship their meat to other countries, and we’ll never accept the idea of slaughtering our horses so they can end up on a foreign dinner plate.

The horse slaughter industry and their financial backers should see the writing on the wall and recognize that they are swimming against the tide of public opinion.

Congress has spoken on this issue as well. For the past two fiscal years, it has rightfully prevented the use of tax dollars for horse slaughter inspections, effectively preventing horse slaughter plants from opening here. And when the House version of the SAFE Act was introduced last month, it gained 71 cosponsors within the first week and a half after the bill was introduced.

Now we have a bipartisan group of leaders in the Senate coming together to put the final nail in the coffin and end horse slaughter for human consumption, once and for all.

In 2012, New Jersey became the most recent state to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. Senator Menendez, the senior senator from the Garden State, has been a strong proponent of animal protection and has championed reforms to protect horses from horrific abuses such as slaughter, inhumane transport, and soring.

Senators Graham, Mikulski, and Collins have also been strong voices for humane values, and—as Senate Appropriations Committee senior members—are well placed to help horses. They will be at the forefront of efforts to make sure that the language preventing the funding of horse slaughter inspections is retained yet again so that no horse slaughter plants can open here while the SAFE Act is pending.

The horse slaughter industry is a predatory, inhumane enterprise. It doesn’t “euthanize” old horses but precisely the opposite: scurrilous players buy up young and healthy horses, often by misrepresenting their intentions, and kill them to sell the meat to Europe and Japan.

It’s time for Congress to pass the SAFE Act and end horse slaughter for human consumption for good. Please take action today, and ask your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative to cosponsor the SAFE Act.