Where knowledge and science meet ethics and compassion

Wildlife Position Paper

Wildlife Position Paper
08-17-2006
Many Americans value and appreciate the wildlife. A 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey found that 66.1 million Americans (31 percent of the population) fed, observed, or photographed wildlife (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 2001 Survey). A further indicator of the public’s interest in wild animals and birds and their environment is the National Park System’s report of 266,099,641 visits to its parks in 2003 (National Park Service Social Science Program, Public Use Statistics Office). Notwithstanding the widespread public interest in wildlife, the development of public policy on wildlife issues rests almost exclusively with pro-hunting and commercial interests, although these factions constitute only a small percentage of the population. Some state wildlife agencies require their members to have occupational or organizational affiliations; seven states require that their wildlife commissions include hunters, trappers, and anglers ("State Wildlife Management: The Pervasive Influence of Hunters, Hunting, Culture, and Money"). This bias results in regulations and laws that protect the exploiters – not the exploited – and position wildlife as a manageable and renewable resource to be harvested. Not surprisingly, public debate and innovative practices, including nonlethal methods of population control, are rarely considered by these agencies. As the number of hunters declines (from 14,063,000 in 1991 to 13,034,00 in 2001) (“A Dying Sport” published by The Fund for Animals, part two, p. 2) and public awareness of hunting as a cruel and ineffective method of population control increases, the management of federal and state wildlife agencies must be expanded to represent all sectors of society and primarily to serve the wild animals and birds themselves. Other important factors in the development of effective wildlife public policy include the current trends in human population growth, urban sprawl, and environmental devastation. The U.S. population is projected to increase from 293,752,942 to 419,854,000 in 2050. The animal advocacy community believes that “smart growth” public policies that include coexistence with wildlife and protection of their habitat must be developed and implemented. To minimize displacement and alleviate some of the worst effects of suburbanization in areas where development encroaches upon habitat, the animal advocacy community promotes zoning and land use policies that establish substantial and contiguous habitat corridors which allow wildlife to migrate for food and mating without having to cross highways or housing developments. Wildlife road crossings help to reduce animal/vehicle collisions. Since the 1980s, for example, the network of 22 underpasses, two overpasses and 11 miles of fencing along the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park has reduced the death rate of deer and elk by 95 percent and the overall wildlife death rate by 80 percent (Blaine Harden, “Saving Lives of Moose and Men,” The Washington Post May 3, 2004). Establishing a system of underpasses, overpasses and strategically placed fencing will not only reduce highway deaths but will also effectively connect wildlife habitats. The animal advocacy community is increasingly focused on ensuring that wild mammals and birds enjoy the legal protection that they deserve, by challenging: Lethal wildlife “control” methods (poisons, snares, leghold traps, Conibear killtraps, aerial gunning, etc.) Mistreatment and killing of wildlife for recreation, entertainment, and advertising Killing of wildlife for consumer products Private possession of exotic mammals and birds Erosion of wildlife habitat The effective enforcement of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and international treaties such as CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna) and the International Whaling Commission are critical to the protection of indigenous and non-native wildlife. The animal advocacy community is alarmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempts to weaken the ESA with a proposed rule change that will allow and encourage the commercial use of endangered and threatened species in the name of “conservation.” The U.S. Supreme Court observed in its landmark decision TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978) that the ESA is “the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.” The statute protects endangered and threatened species worldwide by prohibiting import, export, “taking” or commercial use of these species. Exceptions are limited to permits for “scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species,” 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (a)(1)(A). The proposed rule change (68 Fed. Reg. 53327 [September 10, 2003]) would weaken the ESA by allowing permits to import, transport, and take endangered species from foreign countries, in exchange for giving money or other unspecified actions based upon a finding that the “net effect” “will likely be beneficial” to the conservation of the species. Further, the proposal has no mechanism to ensure that the foreign governments will actually spend the money for conservation. This proposed rule change will further commercialize endangered species and threatened wildlife, thereby setting a precedent that the U.S. approves the purchase of wildlife for sport hunting, clothing production, entertainment, exhibition, the pet trade, traditional medicines, and other enterprises. As a result, there will be less incentive for countries to protect habitat and develop industries (such as ecotourism) that provide long-term benefits to the economy and the animals. The animal advocacy community asserts that our relationship to wildlife is one of guardianship, not ownership. We therefore call on all levels of government to recognize the intrinsic value of wild animals and birds as a public policy issue by committing financial and other resources to partnerships with the privately funded, not-for-profit animal advocacy community in a long-term strategy to successfully address the following issues. The Animal Welfare Act (the Act), which was originally passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, and 2002, is the only federal law that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, wholesale pet trade, and by dealers. The Act has not lived up to its promise of animal protection because of lax enforcement and exclusion of many species. It has been used as a shield by the industries it was intended to regulate, who are able to claim that they are in compliance with its provisions. Because of its purported wide scope, it has served as a benchmark of minimum acceptable standards for other laws, policies and guidelines pertaining to animals. The Act is an ineffective tool for animal advocates. Unlike the Endangered Species Act, it does not allow citizen suits, which makes it much more difficult for advocates to sue on behalf of animals. Many suits have been dismissed because plaintiff individuals and animal organizations lack legal “standing.” This is a matter of fundamental importance to establishing legal protection for wildlife. The animal advocacy community is committed to lobbying the U.S. Congress for amendments that provide a private right of action to enforce the provisions of the Act. Future amendments to the Act must include: Significant increases in funding and staffing for effective enforcement Addition of citizen suit provision General strengthening of the provisions to improve effectiveness in protecting the animals covered by the act Worldwide, conflicts between humans and wildlife are increasing because of expanding human populations and development and, in some areas, growing wildlife populations recovering from centuries of extreme misuse. In the U.S., animal advocates are challenging a deeply ingrained tradition of killing wild animals who come into conflict with humans. For example, conflicts between carnivores and agricultural interests are still addressed primarily with leghold traps, snares, poisons such as Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide, aerial gunning, and “denning” (the killing of coyote pups in their dens). From 1996 to 2001, the USDA’s Wildlife Services division (formerly “Animal Damage Control”) killed 13.7 million animals to benefit agricultural interests (Treves, A.R. Woodroffe, and S. Thirgood. 2004. "Evaluation of lethal control for the reduction of human-wildlife conflict" in press in R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom). In 2002, Wildlife Services killed close to 100,000 native carnivores, including coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, bears, badgers, and foxes (Statistics obtained from USDA’s Wildlife Services’ Annual Tables: “Number of Animals Taken and Methods Used by the WS Program, FY 2002” .8 Private ranchers kill untold numbers of native carnivores each year. Moreover, increasing conflicts between people and wildlife in urban areas and along the urban/wild lands interface have led to a growing business of “nuisance” wildlife damage control. Many former fur trappers have moved into this lucrative enterprise. As with predator conflicts, urban wildlife conflicts are often addressed with lethal methods, despite the long-term inefficiency of this approach. Growing public appreciation and respect for wildlife provide animal advocates with solid ground on which to promote and lobby for nonlethal solutions. We call on federal, state and local governments to recognize the growing demand for nonlethal, alternative approaches to wildlife conflicts and to commit financial and other resources to partner with the animal advocacy community in a long-term strategy to successfully address the following issues. Prohibit the use of inhumane and indiscriminate wildlife control methods to address human-wildlife conflicts, including leghold traps, neck snares, aerial gunning, and poisons Eliminate federal and state subsidies for lethal predator control Increase research and use of humane, selective, and effective methods for human-wildlife coexistence Increase public education and awareness campaigns about ways to avoid or mitigate human-wildlife conflicts Require that state natural resource agencies be representative of the population as a whole Implement a licensing system for commercial wildlife control services that includes standards of care and operation The animal advocacy community is working to end government-funded hunting activities on all public lands and to outlaw hunting, shooting, or trapping animals for sport. While trends suggest that these long-term goals will be realized, the animal advocacy community is currently focused on the most egregious hunting practices – particularly canned hunts (the killing of an animal in an enclosed area to obtain a trophy), bear baiting (setting out human food or animal carcasses to lure bears and then shooting them), and hunting with the aide of radio-collared hounds. We believe state and federal governments must fulfill their responsibility to end the most indefensible hunting practices by partnering with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objectives. Ban canned hunts (Canadian provinces Manitoba and British Columbia prohibit hunting wildlife in captivity. Ontario also proposes to implement a similar ban. Prohibit the removal of indigenous and non-native animals from the wild and their importation into the U.S. for the purpose of canned hunts Prohibit the sale of animals from zoos and other commercial “entertainment” industries for the purpose of canned hunts Prohibit bear baiting and trapping on public and private lands Prohibit the stocking of non-native bird species for hunting purposes Prohibit the use of wild animals for training coursing/hunting hounds Mandate that no one under the age of 16 be eligible for a hunting license Wild animals are killed for nonessential products, such as the trapping and farming of furbearers and the killing of seals for pelts and other products (e.g., aphrodisiacs). In the long term, the animal advocacy community is working toward a ban on the sale and importation of skins, pelts, and other products obtained from furbearers, whether trapped or farmed, and a prohibition on commercial fur farming and trapping within the United States. We believe federal, state and local governments must address the inhumane and frivolous production of fur and other products by partnering with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objectives. Prohibit the use of body-gripping traps to capture animals for profit/recreation Prohibit the sale of fur and the interstate commerce of steel-jaw leg hold traps or fur from animals caught with these cruel devices Prohibit fur farming or, at a minimum, the practices of neck-breaking and anal/vaginal electrocution to kill farm-raised furbearers Prohibit interstate or foreign commerce of bear viscera (including gallbladders, bile, and paws) or products that contain them Prohibit the removal of indigenous animals from the wild and their importation into the U.S. for the production of fur and other products (e.g., aphrodisiacs) Close the loophole in the fur labeling law to require that fur items valued at more than $150 be labeled as real and identify the species Apply political and economic pressure on foreign governments to end the commercial seal hunt and maintain the integrity of the Marine Mammal Protection Act The private possession of exotic animals creates serious problems for the animals and their caretakers, as well as public health and safety concerns. Exotic animals have special requirements, including behavioral and psychological needs, a healthy nutritional diet, appropriate climatic conditions, and security precautions to protect humans and other animals. The animal advocacy community asserts that exotic wild animals are not “pets” and should be allowed to live in conditions appropriate to their needs free from human intervention. We believe that federal and state governments must ensure the safety and wellbeing of people and exotic animals by partnering with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objective. Expand the federal law that prohibits the interstate transportation of large cats for pet purposes to include other exotic animals, including nonhuman primates Prohibit at the local and state levels private possession of specific exotic animals (native and nonnative) as pets Increase public education and awareness campaigns about the unsuitability of exotic animals (native and non-native) as pets Prohibit the sale of unweaned birds Enact stronger restrictions and protections for birds and reptiles that are commonly kept as pets Human development (population growth and urbanization) and such practices as logging and mining have resulted in habitat destruction and displacement of increasing numbers of wild animals. The animal advocacy community envisions a world which recognizes the intrinsic value of wildlife and their habitats, and we are committed to working with the environmental protection movement toward this goal. We also believe that such an appreciation must be fostered and maintained through education and legislation. We believe state and federal government must take all necessary steps to end the erosion of wildlife habitat and partner with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objectives. Preserve and expand protections provided under the Endangered Species Act Provide permanent funding for programs to conserve and protect wildlife habitat, open spaces, and natural resources Establish public education programs that celebrate wild animals and encourage mutually beneficial coexistence Support projects to protect great apes from the bush-meat trade, habitat destruction, and other threats Work with government environmental agencies and not-for-profit environmental protection organizations to pursue legislation that protects wildlife habitat and highlights the benefits for wildlife Promote zoning and land use policies that establish substantial and contiguous habitat corridors Encourage highway overpasses, underpasses and fencing to reduce highway deaths and further serve as vital bridges connecting habitat for all wildlife Rodeos, circuses, zoos, “swim with dolphins” programs, fighting, racing, and other forms of “entertainment” involving animals (most of whom are captive wildlife), frequently result in their suffering, neglect, and death, and always in their mistreatment. Moreover, adults and children have been attacked and killed by animals used for these purposes. Animals who are put on display in zoos, forced to perform unnatural acts in circuses, or encouraged to fight each other suffer severe physical and psychological abuse. Media undercover investigations routinely document the wholly inadequate law enforcement provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. Notwithstanding claims of “tradition” or “family entertainment,” the educational value of these practices is suspect. The inherent degradation of animals in entertainment limits the ability to respect and appreciate them as individuals. There is a growing consensus in America that the use of animals for any form of fighting is immoral and objectionable. State legislatures have enacted various bans on activities associated with animal fighting, specifically cockfighting. While only two states (Louisiana and New Mexico) legally sanction cockfighting, the Animal Welfare Act bans all interstate transportation or export of cocks for fighting purposes. Cockfighting is a felony offense in 30 states and the District of Columbia; 30 (different) states prohibit the possession of cocks for fighting; and 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit attendance at cockfights. The animal advocacy community opposes any form of entertainment that forces animals to perform. We support replacing live animal “actors” with animatronics and other technological alternatives. We also advocate converting zoos, wildlife parks, aquariums, and similar facilities into sanctuaries for rescued animals. We agree with the IRS, which defines “sanctuary” a 501(c)(3) federal tax exempt, not-for-profit organization which operates a facility that is a place of refuge where abused, neglected, unwanted, impounded, abandoned, orphaned or displaced exotic animals are provided care for their lifetime or released back to their natural habitat and is a facility with the following characteristics: No commercial activity involving animals occurs including, but not limited to, the sale or trade in animals, animal parts, animal by-products or animal offspring, or the sale of photographic opportunities involving animals No propagation/breeding of animals occurs in the facility No unescorted public visitation or direct contact between the public and exotic animals is allowed We call on federal and state governments to recognize animals in entertainment as a public policy issue by committing financial and other resources to partnerships with the privately funded, not-for-profit animal advocacy community in a long term strategy to successfully address the following issues. Ban cockfighting in Louisiana and New Mexico Criminalize as felonies cockfighting, the possession of cocks for fighting, and attendance at cockfights Ban the keeping and display of animals in circuses, roadside zoos, photo opportunities, and similar attractions where animals are on exhibit or forced to travel to entertain Prohibit the removal of animals from the wild for the purposes of public display and entertainment Criminalize animal fighting as a felony Increase public education and awareness campaigns to inform people why animals should not exhibited and used in entertainment

Your Name
Your Email
Receiver's Name
Receiver's Email
Subject
Extra Comments