As CNN's Anderson Cooper reports, it's gotten so bad for many of the remaining gorillas that conservationists genuinely fear the entire species might become extinct. They live in east Africa, in a forest that straddles Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a family of gorillas was massacred last summer.
So last month 60 Minutes went to Congo, a desperately poor country, to see why those gorillas were slaughtered, why the surviving gorillas are in jeopardy, and what can be done to save them.
No time for commentary. I'm deeply sorry. I know it's been about a week without a peep, but things are rather busy behind the scenes here at HQ. December will likely be spotty, with a likely resurgence in January. Hang in there!
Gary over at Animal Writings posted the latest in his series of posts about interspecies relationships, and this one I really marveled at. Go check it out. By the way, hippos are herbivores.
I'm having a back and forth with someone in the comments for an article that I'm not linking here (it's just a student news thing about Peter Singer speaking on campus, but the irritating thing is that this person claims to be an animal rights supporter who eats meat (it appears from arguments offered so far that the individual in question may be conflating animal rights with animal welfare). Talk about cognitive dissonance. It reminded me of this annoying article about actor Hugo Weaving:
Hugo Weaving wears leather shoes, owns a cat and is partial to a fish dinner, but the actor is also a passionate advocate of animal rights.
More cognitive dissonance from him. Maybe he's working on it?:
"Both my children are vegetarians … The more I started thinking about it, the more I thought my son's natural, childish reaction was spot on."
Sorry to hit and run, but I am positively buried in projects, so I'm going to drop out for a day or so to get suitably caught up. See you on the flip side!
Here it is again: We encroach on wildlife habitat and kill everything that moves. Once populations recover, it starts all over again. We have no inherent right to expand into every other living being's territory and to kill them because they inconvenience us. Just because we can do it doesn't make it acceptable, or righteous, for that matter.
For rancher Randy Petrich, the removal of gray wolves from the endangered species list — a move that would open up the animals to hunting in the Northern Rockies for the first time in decades — couldn’t come soon enough.
On the same land where it was once rare to see the animal, Petrich has seen fresh wolf tracks almost every morning this fall — close enough to threaten his cattle.
“I believe that any wolf on any given night, if there happens to be a calf there, they will kill it,” Petrich said. “In reality, to help us now, we need to be trapping them, shooting them — as many as possible.”
Of course, in typical fashion, researchers note that wild fish may have personalities, then they decide to grab a bunch of them for their study. Evidently, in their minds, having a personality has no relationship to having an interest in being left alone.
McLaughlin and student Alex Wilson found that the personalities stayed distinct even after the young fish, still just two to four centimetres long, left their natural homes.
For instance, he put the fish in a dark tube in the aquarium. The more active fish were always the ones that emerged into the main body of the tank first. They were more ready to take risks, and less afraid of unfamiliar objects in the water.
"What they do in the field predicts what they do in the lab," he said. "We were getting this sense that they perceive the environment differently, and the kind of things we measured are part of what people are starting to call personality traits in animals."
Is it just me, or do some scientists occasionally act like little children, sort of like pulling the tails off gerbils just to see what happens? And, of course, we tell children not to harm animals...
Maybe this will get easier as more and more people recognize animals as individuals with distinct personalities.
The idea of personalities is starting to spread across our views of the whole animal kingdom, says Rob McLaughlin, the Guelph biologist who ran the study. This seems obvious in the case of dogs or chimpanzees, but less obvious among fish.
Of course it's obvious, mainly because we have more experience with them, but there's also the consideration that some animals seem more neurologically advanced than others. But people need to stop assuming that non-humans and humans do not share certain basic, evolutionarily-developed traits like pain, fear, affection (love) and even personality. The pressures applied to our respective species, and our ability to adapt to them as individuals, result in different outcomes for each of us. Look at the difference between feral cats and house cats for one patently obvious example of how one's environment shapes personality in animals.
The more rational course, in my opinion, would be to work from an assumption that all animals are unique beings with fundamental interests and leave them alone, rather than exploiting them to find out where we are right or wrong. Because, when we're right--when we do research on an animal and find that they do, in fact, experience pain and have personalities--it's at the expense of another being that we now know didn't deserve to be treated like an object.
After some recent lousy news, it's nice to report something positive. According to the Associated Press (by way of MSNBC.com), a nature reserve larger than the state of Massachusetts has been created for bonobos in the Central African country of Congo. Long-term funding is still a question, but it's a start.
The poisons are distributed by the Wildlife Services agency, a misleadingly named division of the USDA that each year kills tens of thousands of predators like coyotes, wolves and bobcats in order to protect commodified animals (which, by the way, are invasive species). Some service to wildlife, right? As part of the Ag Department, they are better described as the Rancher Services agency. Exterminators, really.
Regrettably, this is not a change in policy, merely a course correction to reduce indiscriminate killing and poisoning of water supplies by a couple of nasty biohazards. According to the USDA's website, Wildlife Services:
Provides Federal leadership and expertise to resolve wildlife conflicts and create a balance that allows people and wildlife to coexist peacefully.
Peacefully? Wildlife Services (I can't even write that with a straight face) will continue to kill native animals that threaten the meat industry's profits. Wildlife Services spent 108 million taxpayer dollars in 2006 to kill more than 1.6 million “nuisance” animals, over 200,000 of which were mammals (i.e., beavers, rabbits and raccoons, among others). The balance of animals killed were birds, including blackbirds, owls, hawks, ducks and geese, as well as over a million starlings.
You can add to the public comments on the agency's proposal to end the use of these poisons. Click here and search for Docket ID "EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944"). You will see a comment icon. Click on that, and you will be taken to a comment form. The comment period ends on January 15, 2008.
For the sake of reference, here's the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility's petition for the ban. There's some interesting reading in there on the importance of carnivores in the eco-system, the "sledge hammer" approach to wildlife management, the bio-terrorist threat posed by the ready availability of these substances and so on.
"The damage is so huge it can hardly be evaluated. It can be compared to an ecological catastrophe," Interfax news agency quoted Alexander Tkachyov, governor of Russia's Black Sea region of Krasnodar, as saying.
"Thirty thousand birds have died, and it's just impossible to count the loss of fish," he told regional officials.
It really stinks that, in order to definitively assess whether certain life forms experience pain, we have people intentionally inflicting pain upon them. One can only hope we move beyond this sort of thing sooner rather than later. Why do so few people consider this kind of science barbaric? Sure, it nets you an answer, but by inflicting pain. Sheesh.
The fact remains that animals throughout the web of life share in common the evolutionary ability to feel pain in order to avoid permanent harm and help ensure survival. While shrimp and maybe even lobsters may not have the ability to detach from that pain mentally and think, "Wow, that hurts," should that be our sole criteria when selecting who to avoid harming?
I think not, particularly when we take into consideration the harm that we're causing to our health and the planet by exploiting and consuming these hapless creatures. Especially when we take into consideration that we don't need to kill anyone else to be healthy, vibrant beings.
I've been blogging about the dolphin slaughter for over a year now, doing what little I can to raise awareness of the drive fisheries in Japan that brutally slaughter thousands of dolphins every year.
But nothing gets the attention of the media like a beautiful young Hollywood starlet, so I am glad that Hayden Panittiere has brought the slaughter to American televisions like no other activism has been able to do before:
You may have seen this AP footage already:
But here's the first I've seen of her breaking down and sobbing, and boy doesn't this ever drive home the heartbreak of this slaughter:
Cynics are bound to comment that Hayden Panittiere is an actor but, as an actor myself, my sense is that what most people don't realize is that acting is a process of stripping away the internal censors that prevent us from sharing our feelings openly, so that they become more available to us in the moment, creating a more sensitive person who is in touch with his or her feelings, which are therefore much closer to the surface. This is incredibly valuable when calling on emotions for important scenes when you're lucky to only get one or two takes on a busy TV schedule, but it can be painful when dealing with situations in real life, as you can clearly see from the second video.
I can only hope that Panittiere's reaction was mirrored by the millions of people that have seen the footage this week.
I was invited to contribute a blog as part of PBS.org's Remotely Connected project. They chose an episode of Nature for me to write about, Simon King's "The Cheetah Orphans."
As some of you long-time readers might expect, I ended up putting in something like 1,300 very earnest words, so check it out if you're looking for some fresh animal-friendly content. "The Cheetah Orphans" raises some interesting questions, so maybe you'll give the film a look when it airs this coming Sunday, November 11th at 8pm (check local listings). It gave me the opportunity to write about wildlife issues from the point of view of animal interests in a venue known more for conservation than for animal rights.
And, while you're at it, check out some of the previous posts listed down the left sidebar. I'm a fan of Merlin Mann (43Folders.com), who wrote up a fairly humorous entry that is typical of his work.
25-year-old African elephant Maggie has finally left Alaska after years in a zoo up there, where she was not doing so well. She arrived safely in California to live out the rest of her life in comfort at The Performing Animal Welfare Society Wildlife Sanctuary in Galt, California.
The complicated and dangerous maneuver was carried out courtesy of the Air Force, owing to Maggie's size. Unable to fit her crate in a standard commercial aircraft, she was flown to California in an Air Force cargo plane. Animal activist and retired Price Is Right host Bob Barker contributed the massive sum of $750,000 toward Maggie's care. More background on Maggie's transfer move can be found here.
The World Conservation Union's report was actually released on the 12th of September, but I have been traveling/moving and only just came across this eye-popping slideshow at The Guardian that vividly drives the potential losses home.
The Red List's findings are published every four years. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) allows that their numbers are a conservative estimate, because the Red List has analyzed only 3 percent of the world's approximately 1.9 million species, but the list is widely regarded as the most definitive assessment of species at risk.
For 2007, the Red List of Threatened Species tallies 41,415 species, of which 16,306 are in danger of extinction. 1 in 8 birds, 1 in 4 mammals and 1 in 3 amphibians are threatened.
People, either directly or indirectly, are the main reason for most species’ decline. Habitat destruction and degradation continues to be the main cause, along with the all too familiar threats of introduced invasive species, unsustainable exploitation ("harvesting"), over-hunting, pollution and disease. Climate change is increasingly recognized as a serious threat, which can magnify these dangers.
(From the IUCN press release)
With regard to climate change, Corals are newly added to the list, endangered in part due to climate change, as well as El Niño effects. Yangtze River Dolphins, or Baiji, are "possibly extinct," as their habitat was degraded by over-fishing, river traffic and pollution. Large vultures in Asia and Africa face extinction due to a reduction in grazing animals, drugs that are used to treat livestock and collisions with power lines.
That nearly all of these problems can be traced back to human activities reminds me why I started An Animal-Friendly Life in the first place. Being animal-friendly isn't simply about adopting a pet. It's not simply avoiding the products of their exploitation, it's also becoming educated as to the other activities we may be less individually responsible for, and holding corporations and governments accountable for practices and policies that harm animals and their habitats.
You know, it's funny how crazy the idea of veganism seems to some people. Yet they want to stop slaughtering horses while continuing to slaughter cows, pigs and chickens, among other animals.
I have an idea: Stop interfering with nonhuman animals in the first place. It's the Gordian Knot: If we didn't keep animals in zoos, we wouldn't need to slaughter animals to feed them.
Newsweek asks in its August 13th issue whether animals have rights, touched off by the lawsuit over chimpanzee custody that I wrote about previously a little over a month ago. While it's nice to see the issue covered in a national magazine, they didn't exactly "cover" the issue. It's more like they touched on it in brief, which is surprising, since they often go into greater detail in the magazine.
Frankly, I would have liked someone to dispute Priscilla Feral's contention that "This isn't about establishing rights for animals." If it's not, then it sure as hell should be. What kind of friend to animals are you when you claim to be for abolishing the exploitation of animals, but then to hide it so you can better exert your grip over some chimpanzees? This is behavior befitting an animal exploiter, not an animal rights organization. It's shameful.
This is a good opportunity to write a letter to Newsweek explaining that animals do have rights, that continuing to keep thinking, feeling beings as property disrespects their interests in freedom. Maybe a letter drawing the parallel to animals in factory farming would provide a unique angle to this story as well.
PS - Sorry for the lack of posts this week. On the rare occasions I've had internet access, I haven't had time to post. But look for a new Totally Not Vegan tomorrow.
UPDATE:
The most important aspect of this post, in my mind, was encouraging readers to write to Newsweek about animal rights, and I hope no one lost sight of that when I jumped the gun with middle paragraph above, in which I got swept up in a knee-jerk response to a fairly weak article that managed to only tell a tiny piece of a story that I admittedly knew little about, certainly not firsthand.
Thank you to everyone who understands this and who has been supportive in helping me to get a handle on some of what is going on behind-the-scenes.
Regular readers will know that I have actually been fairly favorable toward FoA at AAFL in the past, so I think it would be appropriate to give the organization an opportunity to respond to this entry in a way that isn't buried in the comments section, and for me to move on.
From Friends of Animals' Lee Hall:
Anyone who really wants to subvert humanity’s property rights over animals would support FoA adamantly in this dispute. The lawsuit brought in by Chimps Inc. of Oregon against Primarily Primates cannot and will not establish nonhuman rights. The Oregon refuge filed a complaint in federal court to state its desire, now that it has helped in a temporary situation, to remain in “possession” of two young chimpanzees, Emma and Jackson. Claims based on the possession of animals are traditional property arguments, not constitutional milestones. Why would Chimps, Inc. be credited with animal rights due to an argument they themselves have filed and based on property law?
Between our species' virtually unchecked population growth and our unsustainable meat-centered eating habits, humans are decimating wildlife worldwide, ensuring a future where the majority of surviving animals are those that serve some human interest as an exploitable resource and are thus "worth" saving. All other species will either be wiped out or reduced to token preservational numbers, domesticated, caged in zoos, or have their DNA kept in some sort of futile sperm bank. Is this the fate we want for our planet?
Reading these articles, it would be all too easy to give up, or worse. But these alarm calls must be the rallying cry for animal-friendly people to draw the line and say, "No more!" (or, in the immortal words of Howard Beale: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!")
Without serious intervention, the world I've described above could come to pass. We don't have to poach the poachers to stop this madness. We need to get at the root of the problems, such as hunger and population growth (here we have clear evidence that human and nonhuman interests intersect), and solve these problems instead of letting them spiral out of control. In addition to providing longer-term security for wild animals, humans who hunt them are easier to assist before things get of hand, too.
So, how can you and and I help? I'll be honest: I'm in over my head on this one, as I imagine are most people. I want to help hungry Africans in the countries where help is needed most, and to protect wild animals from poaching, all without resorting to livestock use and genetically engineered (patented, privately owned) seed technology. How to unpack all that and find the right organizations to support? You tell me. Please, if you have any insights, share them in comments.
In the mean time, food aid is the quickest route available right now to stem the poaching by feeding hungry people. Send an appeal to President Robert Mugabe in care of the Republic of Zimbabwe’s Ambassador to the United States, Simbi Veke Mubako, and ask him to accept the standing offer of international food aid, reminding him that this one decision would not only help his starving people, but could also save Zimbabwe’s endangered wildlife.
His Excellency Simbi Veke Mubako, Ambassador Embassy of Zimbabwe 1608 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20009 202-332-7100 Fax: 202-483-9326 E-mail: zimemb@erols.com
If you wish, send a copy of your letter or communication to the following people:
Representative Christopher H. Smith Chair, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations The Committee on International Relations United States House of Representatives 2170 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Fax: 202-225-2035 E-mail: HIRC@mail.house.gov
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20520 E-mail: Contact Secretary Rice via her web form
Contact the Ugandan government to express your concern over the poisoning of lions and hyenas, and to request that the cattlemen are resettled sooner rather than later, into an area where they are less likely to come into contact with wildlife. While I would prefer these cattlemen didn't own animals to begin with (Poof! Conflict between animals and people gone!), somehow I don't think letters to that effect are going to do much good.
And stay out of Costa Rica! At least until the government (Spanish) protects native species from encroachment due to hotel and condominium development. It's the 1.7 million visitors a year who drive this environmental degradation. By withholding our tourism dollars and letting the embassy know why you've chosen not to travel to Costa Rica, we might be able to influence the development policy in the country, making it more environmentally- and animal-friendly, ensuring Costa Rica will be a paradise worth visiting for generations to come.
Until a disturbing story came along, I had intended to cover the good news that California's Supreme Court unanimously rejected an argument by Adidas that federal law pre-empts a California ban on products made from kangaroos. What this means is they won't be able to circumvent California's law if the pro-kangaroo leather bill S.B. 880 does not pull through. It is currently anticipated that the legislation will arrive on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk by September, so animal groups have been asking their supporters to contact him and ask him to reject the bill. If you'd like to do so, call (916) 445-2841, then press 1 for english (2 for spanish), 2 to voice an opinion regarding legislation, 1 to choose S.B. 880, 2 to oppose. After that, you can hang up.
But, really, I'm not feeling the good news today. I'm outraged.
Four endangered gorillas were murdered in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Virunga National Park. While most definitions of murder confine their scope to intentionally killing other human beings, the difference between humans and gorillas is insignificant when it comes to being willfully deprived of life. Morally, this is murder, and it continues despite efforts to curb the killings. 3 other gorillas were killed earlier this year.
With just over 700 gorillas surviving, not only does each death end the life of another sentient being, it also pushes the entire mountain gorilla species toward complete collapse:
The four were members of a family group known as Rugendo, and the male served as a leader of that group, which the IGCP feared would now be compromised. "Before the killings the Rugendo group comprised 12 individuals," the IGCP said. "Six are confirmed as safe, but two gorillas, a female and an infant, are missing."
Tomorrow night, tune in (or set your PVR) for PBS's POV, a documentary series exemplifying a personal brand of storytelling. For 20 years now, American Documentary has been producing the award-winning series, which aims to stimulate a public dialogue about some of America's most important issues.
In this case, director Eric Daniel Metzgar and co-producer Nell Carden Grey's The Chance of the World Changing highlights the plight of endangered turtles by focusing on a would-be savior, Richard Ogust, who cared for 1,200 turtles in his Manhattan apartment at one point, including several species thought to be extinct in the wild. His journey is traced from an awakening at a New York restaurant through to physical and material exhaustion, and some very hard decisions that may have animal activists thinking hard.
Metzgar says, "When one is fraught with immeasurable responsibility, an excess of strength, not gloom, powers the day. And that strength, again and again, in the face of all obstacles, is what we filmed." I think many of us will relate to this struggle.
One of the great things about POV is their award-winning interactive web components, including filmmaker interviews, talkback forums, the ability to ask the filmmakers a question, follow-ups on the films' subjects and more, so take a look. If you watch the documentary, please share your thoughts in the Comments below.
Toronto's Globe and Mailreminds readers that seal slaughtering isn't confined to Newfoundland:
Namibia's seal hunt is the second largest in the world. Ministers in the past have said the seal "harvest" is a vital source of jobs and income, and is necessary to reduce the seal population in order to protect Namibia's fishing industry.
Namibia's Fisheries Minister asks why animal rights activists "are not rallying around the hake or pilchard." It's easy to understand the error. Animal rights activists rally around all animals and want to see all exploitation stopped. However, the larger, deeper-pocketed animal welfare organizations tend to focus their campaigns on specific species and not on animals like fish, which are used for food, perhaps because that could turn off many of their cuddletarian donors.
This does not, however, make Minister Iyambo's argument any more sound. He argues that seals are a marine resource to be exploited like any other (revealing the lie behind the argument that they are protecting their fisheries from seals), but animal rights advocates would disagree. This is not about sustainability. Nor is it about killing the seals in a less inhumane manner. What this is about is one species, which has the collective intelligence and technology to avoid killing animals for food and commerce altogether, exploiting the defenseless members of another species to make an easy buck, and that's wrong.
The mysterious death of Hansa--the 6-year-old elephant held captive at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo--has restoked the controversy over keeping elephants in zoos. Nothing new in this article: Opponents call it cruel to keep elephants in confinement, and supporters claim that such elephants are ambassadors for those in the wild, saying that their programs are doing "real things", like reducing ivory trade and increasing habitat. I have yet to see any quantifiable evidence to support these claims, but it's moot, regardless. This justification for exploiting nonhuman animals is no more valid than keeping an autistic child in a zoo to raise awareness of autism.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Other recent zoo deaths:
6/19: Carol, the Asian elephant, at the San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park (euthanized, degenerative joint disease)
6/21: Mona, the Asian elephant, at the Birmingham Zoo (found down a second time, euthanized, autopsy results not released)
I really wanted to do a bunch of individual updates but, when I get behind from traveling as I did last week, the potential posts add up, especially since I also cross-post at Zaadz, CrueltyFree.com, and MySpace, all of which have their own individual time-consuming idiosyncrasies (I've given up on VeganMySpace and VegSpace for now, as they are even harder to work with, and I barely have time as it is). So, I'll post another digest and endeavor to get back into a more regular routine again. Thanks for your patience!
The Associated Press (by way of Forbes) neglects to tell readers that the EU's newly-banned cat and dog fur is morally indistinguishable from fur torn from the backs of other animals in EU Douses Cat and Dog Fur Trade.
Also from AP, this time by way of The Boston Globe, an Alaska man pleads guilty to illegally selling seal parts. The man, who once agreed to help "conserve" the "depleted" northern fur seals, if you can believe that, faces up to one year in prison and a $20,000 fine for illegally selling "more than 100 seal penises to a Korean gift shop in Anchorage, where they were to be resold for about $100 apiece in the traditional Chinese medicine trade."
Bernard Matthews, the British poultry processor that last year claimed it was committed to the "highest standards" of animal welfare, is back in the news for animal cruelty at one of its plants (Daily Mail: Bernard Matthews worker caught playing football with turkeys), further demonstrating that animals' welfare will never be assured so long as they are commodified. The story includes the damning photos and video.
From MSNBC.com: Japan kicks off whaling season along coast (WARNING: Disturbing photo of a dead whale being flensed at the top of the page). Japanese whalers, who at this year's International Whaling Commission conference found themselves under pressure for their continued whaling under the guise of science, make clear the attitude toward whales, saying that they should be managed like any other natural resource, rejecting anti-whaling arguments that the animals should be protected. This anthropocentric view of animals as natural resources must be countered prominently with the fact that these are sentient individuals suffering at the hands of the whalers, not "resources." If we are to live by our own humanitarian ethics, all sentient beings ought to be protected from such so-called harvesting.
A more positive article I dug up, from DentalPlans.com of all places, is called Taking Animals Out Of Laboratory Research. It originally appeared in Science Daily, which itself adapted a press release from the University of Nottingham, but it still bears reporting. While the piece does suggest that the immediate abolition of animal testing is not possible overnight--a self-perpetuating perspective I find particularly frustrating--it does bring with that message the good news that FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) will be officially opening its new Alternatives Laboratory on July 6th:
Pioneering work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research — and ultimately remove them from laboratories altogether — has received a major boost at The University of Nottingham.
A laboratory devoted to finding effective alternatives to animal testing has been expanded and completely remodelled in a £240,000 overhaul designed to hasten the development of effective non-animal techniques.
Scientists hope that by developing the use of cell and tissue cultures, computer modelling, cell and molecular biology, epidemiology and other methods, they will one day be able to completely remove animals from medical research — while still maintaining crucial work to defeat diseases that affect millions of people.
While I'm encouraged to see efforts to end animal research, that day can't come soon enough for the nonhuman animals who shouldn't be kept in cages and experimented on for our own specious purposes in the first place.
CHICAGO: A judge has extended an order allowing the United States' last operating horse slaughterhouse to remain in business while it challenges a state law that would force it to close.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - Elephants emerged safer and tigers won a vote of support, but sharks and corals failed to win protection at a two-week wildlife trade conference that ended Friday.
The conference also saw a shift in conservation politics, with ministers throwing their weight behind negotiations.
China emerged for the first time as a major player at the triennial meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered species, or CITES, surprising delegates with its activism.
GO VEGAN RADIO is excited to announce that an agreement has been reached with the AIR AMERICA Network to carry "GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" on a weekly basis for a year. Finally, the animals have a voice of compassion coming to the media to advocate for kindness on their behalf, improved human health through complete vegetarianism, and environmental sustainability. The Air America audience, already acquainted with the major problems of the day -- war, violence, world hunger, disease, energy crises, global warming, deforestation, resource depletion -- will now have exposure to the most important solution for all of these -- to GO VEGAN!
"GO VEGAN with BOB LINDEN" will also have greater exposure through five weekly 30 second commercial announcements on other AIR AMERICA programs, ten 60 second commercials during web broadcasts of other AIR AMERICA programs, and a banner ad and page on the AIR AMERICA website.
Now, YOUR work begins. This is a grassroots group effort and you are being asked to do your share. GO VEGAN RADIO is now faced with a $200,000 annual expense for program production and distribution (and no, there is no salary in that figure).
If you made a pledge to make a tax-deductible donation, please send it now.
Make checks payable to GO VEGAN RADIO and mail to International Humanities Center, PO Box 923, Malibu, CA 90265. You may also donate on-line at http://www.GoVeganRadio.org.
If you were only considering a donation until now, please -- now is the time to decide to do it. GO VEGAN RADIO has promised to deliver $50,000 to AIR AMERICA on June 23 and $33,000 every three months after that. It can't be done without your tax-deductible donation NOW! If you pledged to be a "make-it-happen" vegan committed to raising $1000, please collect and send it now. All donations are important - $10, $100, $1000, $10,000. The animals are asking you to get your checkbook now.
You can also support this incredible outreach opportunity by advertising your vegan and cruelty-free products and services. Rates start as low as $300. Advertising opportunities are very limited, with two of available ten already committed. Please email or call (818) 623-6477 if interested in advertising.
Is it publicly acceptable for feeling people to be angry about this yet? Do we honestly want to live in a world where humans and domesticated animals are the only species left in abundance? I certainly hope not. Would nations like the ones below cry foul over sovereignty if there was a Sea Shepherd for primates ("Primate Protectors")? I wonder.
KINSHASA, Democratic Republic of Congo - National park rangers here are battling to save a 2-month-old gorilla found clinging to its dead mother, who was shot dead through the back of the head.
Indonesia's tropical rain forests are disappearing 30 percent faster than previously estimated as illegal loggers raid large national parks, threatening the long-term survival of orangutans, according to a U.N. report released Monday.
Sorry, this is depressing. I know many readers won't have the first idea how to help, and I don't want to leave you hopeless. The best I can think of at the moment is to assist eastern Congo's Virunga National Park, where more than 150 rangers have been murdered in the past decade.
Conservation group WildlifeDirect takes donations (see the donation form in the right sidebar of this page) that pay the salaries of park rangers who protect the endangered apes. WildlifeDirect takes no administration fee for the funds that are transferred through them, so your financial support will go to where it is intended (though I did notice a 3.5% bank transfer fee -- the banks always get you).
Park rangers have extremely dangerous jobs, and need all the help they can get. Last month, Mai Mai rebels attacked patrol posts in Virunga park, killing one wildlife officer and critically injuring three others. According to conservation group, the rebels threatened to slaughter gorillas if park rangers retaliated.
Chicago Tribune: Ruffling feathers "Movement leaders acknowledge that part of the reason animal rights doctrine is becoming more accepted is that the focus now is on education."
One of the more despicable instruments of the Bush Administration has finally been dislodged:
According to the Endangered Species and Wetlands Report, a high-level Bush administration appointee has resigned in the aftermath of a devastating Inspector General investigation, just days before a House congressional oversight committee will hold a public hearing on her violations of the Endangered Species Act, censorship of science, and brutalizing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff.
Julie MacDonald tendered her resignation on April 30, 2007. She was the Department of Interior's Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a position that oversees the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program. As revealed in numerous media exposés and a recent Department of Interior Inspector General investigation, MacDonald used her position to aggressively squelch protection of endangered species. She rewrote scientific reports, browbeat U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, and colluded with industry lawyers to generate lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife Service.
MacDonald's specialty was blocking agency efforts to place imperiled species on the endangered species list, stripping tens of millions of acres from agency proposals to designated "critical habitat" areas and working with industry groups to remove species from the endangered list and thus from federal protection.
It's not all good news, though:
MacDonald's recently hired counterpart, Todd Willens, is equally dedicated to undermining endangered species conservation. Willens spearheaded Richard Pombo's (R-CA) anti-endangered species agenda as lead staffer of the House Resources Committee, then was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks on October 19, 2006. He has since been directly involved in developing sweeping anti-endangered species regulations and efforts to remove the Florida manatee and West Virginia northern flying squirrel from the endangered species list.
No word on whether Willens will also get the boot. Perhaps the May 9th "congressional oversight hearing into the Bush administration's rampant violations of the Endangered Species Act and censorship of endangered species science" will result in further house cleaning.
Dulary the elephant is headed to the Elephant Sanctuary in Hohenwald, TN after 41 years of being held in captivity at Philadelphia's zoo. The event is being used as PR to cover for some rather bad news, it would seem:
The three remaining elephants in Philadelphia will also be sent away in the coming months, to a conservation center in Pennsylvania that will breed the animals for zoos taking a different approach. Instead of closing exhibits, they're looking to expand and improve their elephant habitats.
While I'm cheered to see Dulary end up in a beautiful, spacious sanctuary, this news should push us to fight harder to keep elephants from being bred for captivity. What a sick notion! If you're having trouble understanding why this is a problem, substitute elephants with people, and it becomes obvious just how appalling this is.
Elephants deserve no less consideration than humans. Not only do we need to do a better job of protecting their habitat in the wild, but we must also educate the public as to the inhumanity of keeping elephants in zoos so that people will no longer support the practice.
When reading animal-related stories at The New York Times, I'm finding that 99% of all Dining & Wine articles raise my blood pressure. This one aggravates me more than most, since the headline says that it's possible to eat veal without feeling guilty.
I'm sorry, but the newfound availability of flesh sold from calves who actually got to spend a short span of time with their mothers and were possibly even allowed to graze on pasture (until their lives were cut brutally short), doesn't mean it's suddenly humane to kill animals just because some people like the way they taste. As long as animal-free alternatives abound--and I assure you that, in New York City, they do--killing animals for food is inhumane.
A story from the Science section offers a more animal-friendly view. Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter looks at the "socially transmitted adjustable behavior" seen in chimpanzees that is a hallmark of culture. Unsurprisingly, the writer--and many scientists--base much of their fascination on how similar chimpanzees are to people in terms of their intelligence, pointing out that chimpanzees excel in certain mental tasks where humans have greater difficulty, using the example of a short-term memory test. These researchers seem more interested in discovering "insights into the abilities of early human ancestors." Fortunately, primatologists don't have their heads quite so far up their asses, noting that "these are sentient beings and the closest living relatives of humans, and their survival is threatened."
Is this the best we can offer other species with whom we share the world (regardless of how closely related to us they are)? The threat of extinction in the wild or a life of providing insights in a lab? What insights have we really gained, if this is how we behave toward non-human animals?
Coming from George Monbiot, this is first and foremost an environmental commentary. But ultimately, without coming straight out and telling his readers that they should stop eating sea animals, his critique does speak to our eating habits. People that eat fishes* are, in effect, responsible for the clear-cutting of our world's oceans, destroying important eco-systems as they are ruthlessly and greedily plundered for every last animal that can be commodified. Take sharks:
In terms of its impact on both ecology and animal welfare, shark fishing could be the planet’s most brutal industry. While some sharks are taken whole, around 70 million are caught every year for their fins. In many cases the fins are cut off and the shark is dumped, alive, back into the sea. It can take several weeks to die.
Monbiot goes on to observe the devastating chain reaction this has on the eco-system.
He notes that
If these animals lived on land there would be a global outcry. But the great beasts roaming the savannahs of the open seas summon no such support. Big sharks, giant tuna, marlin and swordfish should have the conservation status of the giant panda or the snow leopard. Yet still we believe it is acceptable for fishmongers to sell them and celebrity chefs to teach us how to cook them.
It is clearly symptomatic of humankind's moral schizophrenia and socially ingrained speciesism. This isn't to say that at one point in time, fishing wasn't more environmentally sustainable, much less necessary.
But these days there is no need to eat sea animals, despite the common recommendation to eat fishes for Omega-3s. These nutrients are available where the fishes get them, from algae, and in convenient pill form if you prefer. We can grow our own algae without disturbing the ocean. Other sources include delicious flaxseed meal, hempseed (I bought my first carton of hemp milk the other day, and it is the best non-dairy milk I've ever had), and other products that are also becoming more widely available.
So,
Why do we find it so hard to stand up to fishermen? This tiny industrial lobby seems to have governments in the palm of its hand. Every year, the European Union sets catch limits for all species way above the levels its scientists recommend. Governments know that they are allowing the fishing industry to destroy itself and to destroy the ecosystem on which it depends. But nothing is sacred, as long as it is underwater. In November the United Nations failed even to produce a resolution urging a halt to trawling on the sea mounts at the bottom of the ocean. These ecosystems, which are only just beginning to be explored, harbour great forests of deepwater corals and sponges, in which thousands of unearthly species hide. But we can’t summon the will to stop the handful of boats that are ripping them to shreds.
Only if fishing is banned entirely do these ecosystems stand a chance to recover. But governments will support industries until they are no longer sustainable, which leaves this task up to consumers. If everyone banned sea animals from their diets, the oceans would eventually recover, but this has to happen soon, or the destruction will be permanent:
A study in this week’s edition of Science reveals the disastrous collapse of the ocean’s megafauna. The great sharks are now wobbling on the edge of extinction. Since 1972 the number of blacktip sharks has fallen by 93%, tiger sharks by 97% and bull sharks, dusky sharks and smooth hammerheads by 99%. Just about every population of major predators is now in freefall. Another paper, published in Nature four years ago, shows that over 90% of large predatory fishes throughout the global oceans have gone.
In the western Atlantic, notes Monbiot, the decimation of predatory animals has allowed the rays there to multiply tenfold, wiping out "all the main commercial species of shellfish". As we have also seen, at our present rate of consumption, the world's "fisheries" will be depleted in about 40 years, and our oceans will be unrecognizable.
Off the coast of Namibia, where the fishery has crashed as a result of over-harvesting, we have a glimpse of the future. A paper in Current Biology reports that the ecosystem is approaching a “trophic dead-end”. As the fish have been mopped up they have been replaced by jellyfish, which now outweigh them by three to one. The jellyfish eat the eggs and larvae of the fish, so the switch is probably irreversible. We have entered, the paper tells us, the “era of jellyfish ascendancy”.
It’s a good symbol. The jellyfish represents the collapse of the ecosystem and the spinelessness of the people charged with protecting it.
*An Animal-Friendly Life uses the rarer pluralizations for animals in order to emphasize their individuality.
The Canadian seal slaughter began bright and early on Monday morning, and IFAW was there to capture some disturbing video of the massacre that is laughably called a "hunt." Though, honestly, I can't laugh. It's simply revolting to watch these killers motor along in their bloody vessels and hook live, defenseless seals off their tiny ice floes and beat them to death on the deck of the boat.
Frankly, this diabolical butchery is emblematic of all animal exploitation, and a reminder that it's the very defenselessness of animals against human greed that demands their rights be protected by our own laws, laws that are ostensibly meant to guide our behavior.
I just finished watching the last 25 minutes of Martyn Colbeck's remarkable documentary on African elephants and his own eye-opening journey learning about the magnificent animals over nearly two decades. Colbeck is a photographer whose film and still photos capture the many facets and details of pachyderm life, enriching our view of them far better than the most elaborate zoo exhibit could ever hope to achieve. Unlike animals held captive in a zoo, these elephants can be seen in their natural environment for free on public television.
If you didn't get a chance to see Unforgettable Elephants, I hope you'll try to catch the documentary the next time it airs on your local PBS affiliate. In the meantime, you can enjoy a video preview available at PBS's site.
Sixteen buffalo, relocated from the National Bison Range in northwestern Montana, were released Saturday morning in an enclosed 1,400-acre section of the former Rocky Mountain Arsenal, near where nerve gas and other chemical weapons were once manufactured.
This site is barely 10 miles from downtown Denver, and already there has been an incident with one buffalo, though it's unclear from this paragraph what relation the event had to the relocation:
Later in the day, residents of Lakewood, a suburb west of Denver, literally had that opportunity. A pet buffalo escaped. Police had it corralled for awhile but it escaped and it had to be put down, said Lakewood police animal control officer Michael Brogran. He said the young animal had done minor damage to a couple of cars but no one was hurt.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, contacted in Washington, D.C., said the new policy would allow them to focus on protecting species in areas where they are in trouble, rather than having to list a species over its entire range.
One activist's response:
Kieran Suckling, policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, said the new policy was a sophisticated effort by the Bush administration to gut the Endangered species Act by ignoring the loss of species from their historical range, making it easier to deny endangered species listings.
If upheld by the courts, Suckling estimated the new policy would remove 80 percent of the roughly 1,300 species from threatened and endangered lists — because most species have at least one stronghold where they are doing well.
"It's just so clearly illogical and anti-wildlife that I can't wait to get this before a federal judge," Suckling said. "They are rewarding industry for driving populations extinct. Because as soon as you drive a population extinct (in a certain area) it is no longer on the table. It no longer counts toward whether a species is endangered."
The Tasmanian Devil, a rare carnivorous marsupial found only on Australia's southern island state of Tasmania, faces extinction in 10 to 20 years without a cure for the facial cancer now decimating the population.
With half the population of this fierce, black furry animal now wiped out, leaving less than 75,000 devils, Professor Hamish McCallum at the University of Tasmania is battling to establish offshore colonies of healthy devils.
It's easy for most of us to forget that our ancestors lived much more closely with wildlife from day to day. But the fact is that many people still do. And, as the human population continues to grow and expand, we will see more stories about habitat conflicts between human and non-human animals.
As that occurs, everyone should bear in mind this vital quote from Jenni Trehowen of Baboon Matters:
"You don't have to like baboons. You certainly don't have to like bears or coyotes like you've got in America, but if you could learn to accept that they are here, and they have a right to be here."
She added, "What small steps do we need to adjust in our lives so that we can actually all enjoy the planet together, rather than thinking we are the dominant species therefore we own it all."
It's a heavy animal news day, and I barely have time to break out one story, much less all of these, so I'm just going to turn you on to them for the sake of information, and you can feel free to respond to the ones that grab you the most:
At Animal Person we have a blog entry called Cognitive Dissonance at the Niman Ranch that intelligently deconstructs the linguistic gymnastics employed by Niman Ranch's Nicolette Hahn Niman in a New York Times Op-Ed.
The Guardian also has an important piece, Film shows neglect of pigs, turkeys and ducks sold under ethical label, that further exposes the sham that is "humane" meat (ThisIsLondon.co.uk also covers the story, with Undercover film shows a farmer punching a duck). The articles, published yesterday, refer to footage that aired on a program last night criticizing the RSPCA's popular "ethical" Freedom Food labelling scheme meant to reassure consumers of high animal welfare standards. The video (included with the ThisIsLondon.co.uk story) depicts scenes of neglect and, yes, ducks being punched, kicked and thrown around by staff. There's your "humane" foie gras...
Perhaps this will give pause to people in the U.S. hoping to assuage their guilt over consuming animal flesh by purchasing products labeled Animal Compassionate or the like. After all, as this story amply demonstrates, comfier cages and labeling are not enough. If you want to avoid contributing to animal suffering and exploitation, the clear choice is to simply not consume them.
If you're interested in promoting a flesh-free lifestyle, it's not too late to look up local Meatout events and plan how you're going to spend your Meatout Day this coming Tuesday, March 20th. For all things Meatout 2007 (it's no longer just the Great American Meatout, haven't you heard?), visit FARM's meatout.org website.
Speaking of lifestyle changes, New Scientist reminds us that a popular pastime (skiing used to be one of my personal favorites) is not so good for wildlife, in Snowboarders may be stressing alpine wildlife. Appears we're stressing out the native species, with numbers declining by up to a half in some areas close to ski resorts. Of course, nobody's doing this on purpose, but it's one of those side effects that comes with encroaching into natural habitats. This article is certainly more incentive to find less impactful ways of enjoying nature. After all, if you're destroying nature while you're enjoying it, there won't be much left to enjoy for long.
I'm out of time, so I'm just going to bang out these last few links from MSNBC that got my attention:
Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced today that 46-year-old African elephant Ruby will finally be moved from the L.A. Zoo to the 75 acre Performing Animal Welfare Society's (PAWS) Sanctuary in San Andreas.
Huge thanks to the activists that helped push this decision, including the tireless Catherine Doyle and the unsung Chris DeRose, and to donors Patty Shenker, Bob Barker and others who will help pay for Ruby's upkeep at PAWS. Applause is also due to Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), who fought for Ruby's release as well.
The fate of Billy, a 22-year-old Asian bull, appears to be sealed as he remains on display while the elephant exhibit is expanded at a cost of $39 million dollars, despite his unusual behavior. In recent years, major zoos in San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and New York City have made the decision to stop exhibiting elephants altogether, as they find homes for some or after the deaths of others already held there.
UPDATE: Last Chance for Animals sent out an email bulletin this afternoon, taking a much dimmer of view of today's news, and I can't say that I disagree with most of what I read. After all, Ruby had to leave the L.A. Zoo at some point because, as an African elephant, she isn't exactly a perfect fit with the expanded Asian elephant exhibit.
I tried to find this on the LCA website, but it seems their bulletins are not posted there (unless I missed it), so I am quoting it for you below:
The Los Angeles Zoo announced today that they are sending Ruby, the African elephant, to a sanctuary. However, the zoo has not bothered to announce that the plan for the new exhibit is to house as many as eight elephants; making the new $39 million exhibit smaller in comparison to the old exhibit.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was on hand to make sure he didn't miss the photo opportunity and to pat himself on the back for the zoo's decision, but was no where to be seen last year as this very same topic was up for vote in the City Council. Villaraigosa was also not on hand when Gita, the zoo's Asian female, died at an early age last year. In fact, despite the Mayor's numerous statements that "a zoo is not an appropriate place for an animal as large as an elephant," he wasted no time praising the zoo's $39 million proposed elephant exhibit that will be outdated even before construction is complete.
While some see the zoo's announcement as the end of a long fight for the elephants at the L.A. Zoo, Last Chance for Animals, a non-profit animal rights organization in Los Angeles, cautions the public not to celebrate.
"This is the darkest day for elephants in captivity. One elephant has been moved out, but at least 8 more will be moving in once the new exhibit is completed. This is not a success story; elephants should not be in captivity, period!" stated LCA President Chris DeRose. "The L.A. Zoo exhibit should be closed down permanently so no more elephants have to suffer and die there. We cannot lose our focus - the fight isn't about the welfare of one elephant, it is about the rights of all elephants in captivity."
Last Chance for Animals warns Ruby's departure will set a dangerous precedent: zoos will view sanctuaries as a way to get their "surplus" and "problem" elephants off their hands while continuing to breed more elephants, instead of realizing that zoos are the problem - the small spaces, the concrete floors and the unnatural social groupings are slowing driving the elephants insane while their feet and bodies deteriorate before our eyes.
"I want to make this clear; LCA is committed for the rights of all elephants, not just the welfare of one. We wanted to see Ruby and Billy move out of the zoo as much as anyone, maybe more (we've been fighting for this for almost 20 years), but the focus should remain to close the elephant exhibit once and for all. Today's move is nothing more than clearing out old inventory to make room for the new," stated DeRose.
Harsh words indeed for the L.A. Zoo, but not entirely undeserved.
The damage from a fire on the Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru has curtailed the country's whaling program for the season, falling 352 whales short of their goal of 860, prompting this head-shaking quote:
"This is the first time in 20 years that we've had to cancel our research," said Takahide Naruko, the head of the Fisheries Agency's Far Seas Division. "We are very disappointed."
Has anyone actually seen any actual scientific data come out of this alleged research? Not that it would make the slaughter any more acceptable, but if we could pierce the lie and confront these killers, maybe we could stop this senseless annual massacre.
The story says that the next "hunt" will occur in May, with the goal of killing another 350 whales. What a noble goal... Can someone tell me how killing 350 whales out at sea (in addition to the 508 they killed on this go around), flensing them, and turning them into cuts of meat benefits science? Everyone knows the research excuse is a facade. It's time for international opposition to put a firm end to this farce.
I'm saddened at the loss of both the human and the jaguar in this incident. The deaths could have been avoided by not keeping wild animals locked up in cages for amusement, money and, allegedly, education. If there's anything to learn here, it's that wild animals belong in the wild, and we should leave them alone.
UPDATE:
A new story from Fox31 Colorado goes into more depth, featuring such telling quotes as the follwing, from Mara Rodriguez, an instructor at the Exotic Animal Training and Management Program at Moorpark College in California:
"Regardless of the handling, the hand-rearing, the years of captivity, that animal is still a jaguar," she said. "Any predator is a predator and it will always have that instinct. They are looking for opportunities to be themselves."
(italics mine)
Zoos don't exactly give them those opportunities. Shouldn't we be questioning the validity of institutions that purport to be working in the best interests of animals if they don't even allow animals to live according to their own interests?
I've covered the plight of Indonesia's orangutans before, but an article at MSNBC.com yesterday indicates the situation is even worse than previously thought.
Without urgent action, 98 percent of remaining forests on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo could be gone by 2022, with serious consequences for local people and wildlife including rhinos, tigers and elephants, the U.N. report said
U.N. Environment Program experts, convening on the fringes of a major environmental meeting in Kenya, called the situation a conservation emergency, blaming a "shadowy network of multinational firms for increasingly targeting Indonesian national parks as one of the few remaining sources of commercial timber supplies."
This comes back to supply and demand (and greed). China, the U.S., and the EU are the three largest markets for Indonesian timber. In order to end this devastation, Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesia's environment minister, has appealed "to the conscience of the whole world: do not buy uncertified wood."
He said illegal logging was ravaging 37 of his country's 41 national parks, and now accounted for more than 73 percent of all logging in Indonesia.
"It is not being done by individual impoverished people, but by well-organized elusive commercial networks," said Achim Steiner, head of the UNEP.
These networks hire well-armed mercenary thugs against which under-funded and under-equipped response ranger teams are no match.
While the U.S. has already agreed to a pact ensuring Indonesian imports are all legally acquired, the EU is only just getting started in negotiations, and China has yet to come to the table. But time is of the essence:
The U.N. report, which was compiled using new satellite images and Indonesian government data, said orangutan habitat was being lost 30 percent quicker than was previously feared.
It was estimated in 2002 that there were about 60,000 of the shaggy ginger primates left in the jungles of Borneo and Sumatra. Some ecologists say the number has now been halved and others say the species could be extinct in 20 years.
Please, do not buy uncertified wood or palm oil products unsustainably produced in Indonesia. These things are not necessary to us, but that habitat is important to the orangutans and other species, including the local people.
It's been widely-feared among animal lovers that if northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list, they would be hunted back down to the verge of extinction once again. This The New York Times piece drives the concern home:
In Idaho, the governor is ready to have hunters reduce the wolf population in the state from 650 to 100, the minimum that will keep the animal off the endangered species list. “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself,” Gov. C. L. Otter said, according to The Associated Press.
Such an attractive sentiment from the governor of one of the last remaining "unspoiled" states. Sadly, the state is not as unspoiled as one imagines, due to federally-subsidized grazing on lands that ought to left untouched for wild species. Attacks on livestock fuel the passion for killing wolves in these rural areas.
But if we did not permit ranchers to encroach on wildlands with their cattle, we wouldn't see this problem occur in the first place. In other words, this conflict is man-made. As is too often the case, financial interests are being put above the lives of animals. Perhaps the governor of Idaho should pay attention to one economist's projection that wolves in Yellowstone are responsible for $35 million in annual revenues.
That 650 wolves can be seen as an acceptable population for any animal species is, to me, mind-boggling. Consider, for instance, Idaho's population of 1.3 million people (to say nothing of their companion animals and livestock).
Is this what we've come to? Turning our wilderness areas into tightly-"managed" gene pools, just shy of extinction? Doesn't that more or less turn the natural world into some kind of pathetic outdoor zoo?
One can, of course, reduce one's impact on the wolves by avoiding the consumption of these ranchers' products. This is one of the easiest solutions, considering that a reduction in the demand for animal products would likely ease the introduction of these domesticated animals into areas where they come into contact with predators. No other solution presents so direct an opportunity to help.
But obviously not everyone is going to stop eating these products overnight. So, in addition to voting with one's fork, what can one do?
According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, comments from the public are encouraged on the proposal to delist these wolves. You can send your comments via Email or via post to:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wolf Delisting 585 Shepard Way Helena, MT 59601
All comments must be received within 60 days of the proposed rule's publication date in the Federal Register (I believe that was 01/29/2007).
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service maintains a web page on gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, including news, information, recovery status and reports.
Photo credit: Jim and Jamie Dutcher/National Geographic — Getty Images
Not that intentional whale kills aren't a problem, but this story refers to the incidental deaths of extremely vulnerable western grey whales caught in the nets of Japanese fishermen:
In January, fishermen found the dead body of a juvenile female in fixed fishing nets in Yoshihama Bay, northeastern Japan. It was the fourth such whale to be found trapped, entangled and drowned off the Pacific coast since 2005; all of them have been female.
Can I just point out that this is one more good reason not to eat fish? In addition to plundering our oceans beyond their capacity to reproduce fish for the human population to consume, the process of commercial fishing affects countless other species as well.
Unfortunately, this critically endangered species doesn't have a lot of help, as of yet. While fishermen are not compensated for their damaged nets from these accidental captures, it is not yet illegal, and there are no methods in place to avoid trapping whales (other than not fishing with nets anymore, of course).
Toshio Kasuya, a retired researcher in Tokyo who specialized in marine mammals, says the government should take more initiative. They should call for a greater effort to get whales out of traps alive, he says, and develop technologies to prevent whales from getting trapped in the first place. Kasuya says nets that produce warning beeps may be one way of doing this.
"So far, we don't have technologies that could work effectively," Kasuya says. "And the government's efforts are far from enough."
Special thanks to my wife for making sure I saw this story!
You know, it's one of those strange situations. As I understand it, Ed Boks, the general manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, is not too terribly popular among L.A.'s more militant animal rights activists, but he is certainly one of the few government officials I've ever heard on the radio or read in the paper that sounds like an advocate for animals himself.
In an Op-Ed piece in The Los Angeles Times, Boks cautions residents not to be too hasty in their opinions of coyotes, two of whom were spotted right in the heart of one of L.A.'s hipper urban enclaves recently:
Some people, who believe we can isolate ourselves from our wild surroundings, find such wildlife a nuisance that should be removed. But it's not that easy. California regulations say a trapped coyote must be either euthanized or immediately released on site. Remarkably, the rules allow sick or injured coyotes to be taken for rehabilitation, but healthy ones must be killed if not released then and there.
Given the unusual circumstances of our midtown coyotes, Los Angeles Animal Services has asked the California Department of Fish and Game for a special dispensation to allow us to attempt to trap this pair and release them back into the wild.
Animal Services has a unique no-kill policy toward wildlife, including coyotes, and for good reason. Killing coyotes has the unintended consequence of producing more coyotes, not fewer. Mother Nature provided them with a powerful survival mechanism: Smaller social group size increases the food-per-coyote ratio, and this food surplus biologically triggers larger litters and higher litter survival rates.
Even if we wanted to trap or kill all the coyotes in a designated area, history shows the vacancy won't last. Coyotes, like the rest of nature, abhor a vacuum. Larger litters rebuild the population and, with no rivals to keep them at bay, coyotes from the surrounding areas move right in. The end result of these futile eradication efforts is always the same: The area is quickly overrun with new, and often more, coyotes.
Coyotes — once largely confined to the northwestern corner of the continental U.S. — can now be found in L.A.'s Griffith Park and New York's Central Park, in snowy Alaska and sultry Florida. Threatened by human expansion, they find new homes wherever it is convenient.
Because our expanding cities keep eating up habitat, we're destined to live with the urban (or suburban) coyote. But that shouldn't be too much trouble. Coyotes are afraid of humans and almost never attack them. The most reliable estimates assert that there have been fewer than 300 recorded coyote attacks that resulted in human injuries, most involving small children. There are about 3 million children bitten by dogs every year, so a child is considerably more likely to be hurt by the family pet.
That family pet might also lure coyotes — either as prey or as a mate. Unspayed female dogs in heat will attract male coyotes, and likewise unneutered male dogs can be lured by the scent of a female coyote. There have been cases of such a lothario being killed by males in the coyote pack. Fixing your dog fixes this part of the problem. But small dogs and cats are particularly vulnerable to attacks by hungry coyotes and should be kept indoors whenever feasible.
Coyotes are smart, fast and agile — they can sprint up to 40 mph and have been known to scale chain-link fences. They will take what they can get — pet food, garbage, even fruit that's fallen off trees — day or night.
If you don't like your local coyotes, remember this: An area with coyotes is never overrun with rodents — a lesson learned by Klamath County, Ore., in 1947. After attempting to eradicate their coyote population, they soon found themselves infested by rodents, experiencing the poetic truth that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.
In a world where humanity continues to encroach upon animal habitat, we need to learn better how to be better neighbors and stewards. So, I don't know about you, but I found this to be an encouraging read, and I sent off a letter saying as much.
NRDC urges us to write the British Columbia government to reject the Cline open-pit coal mine proposal and protect the wildlands of the Rocky Mountains' Flathead River Valley:
If constructed, the mine would destroy this unspoiled wilderness by degrading water quality, killing migratory trout species and jeopardizing threatened grizzly bear populations.
The Flathead Valley is a key migratory corridor for Rocky Mountain wildlife. This region supports the highest density of grizzly bears in the Rockies and is therefore crucial to ensuring the long-term recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states. The Flathead also lies at a geographic crossroads, creating a rich diversity of plant species from the Canadian Arctic and boreal region, the prairies, the Pacific and the U.S. Rockies.
Click through the link above in order to quickly send a letter.
London-based Africa Conservation Fund reports that rebels in Eastern Congo have agreed to stop killing mountain gorillas and permit government rangers to recommence patrols.
While Virunga's senior park warden, Paul Ngobobo, called the agreement one small step and urged continued international pressure to prevent killings from occurring again in the future, this turn of events is certainly a win for diplomacy and offers some hope of survival for the nearly 400 hundred gorillas living in the area.
I've previously bemoaned the endangered state of so many animal species, and I find it particularly troubling that the 700 remaining mountain gorillas on our planet continue to be pressured by human forces such as war.
In this case, rebels in eastern Congo have killed and eaten two of the few surviving mountain gorillas. If not comparable to cannibalism, and I think it is, this is most certainly a most murderous act.
Unfortunately, Virunga's park patrols are not as reliable due to rebel attacks that have led to abandoned posts. Conservationists fear that, in this climate, more endangered gorillas in the area may well have been killed.
What pains me most is that the gorillas trusted humans, allowing the killers to get close enough to easily seal their fate.
Paulin Ngobobo, a senior warden at the park where the gorillas were found dead, wrote about the most recent killing at his blog:
His name was Karema, another solitary silverback that had been born into a habituated group (meaning that he had grown to trust humans enough to let them come to within touching distance). Above all, we learned that the remaining gorillas are extremely vulnerable - the rebels are after the meat, and it’s not difficult for them to find and kill the few gorillas that remain.
It's an awful situation, fraught with conflict and danger.
At his blog, Ngobobo has described being shot at and beaten by the military when trying to persuade them to stop cutting down the forest. And in Virunga alone, some 97 rangers have died on duty in the past 10 years, according to Africa Conservation Fund. The park has been decimated by poachers and deforestation over the decade, much of it spawned by the 1994 Rwandan genocide that drew millions of refugees into Congo.
Gorillas are not the only species endangered by the rebels and militias. The last remaining hippos in Congo are located in Virunga and are also on the brink. According to conservationists, more than 400 hippos were killed last year, primarily for food. The 900 remaining hippos represent a massive plunge from the 22,000 recorded in 1998.
The MSNBC story reminds us that the endangered animals in Virunga and elsewhere need our help:
Richard Leakey, a conservationist credited with helping end the slaughter of elephants in Kenya during the 1980s, said: "the survival of these last remaining mountain gorillas should be one of humanity's greatest priorities. Their future lies with a small number of very brave rangers risking their lives with very little support from the outside world."
Sadly, only 8 of about 20 dolphins stranded in a shallow cove off Long Island, New York have been returned by rescuers to Northwest Harbor, giving them a shot at surviving back out at sea. 6 others have died, and there remain about 4 more stranded in the cove. It is believed that the dolphins may have followed fish through an opening to the cove that allows boats in and out.
There have been a number of unusual dolphin strandings this year, including a recent beaching in Boston, along with 31 other dolphins that have been stranded along the coast of Massachusetts since the beginning of the year. According to Charles Bowman, president of the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation, above-average winter temperatures in the Northeast United States have caused some marine life, including dolphins, to linger closer to the shore than usual.
Animal-friendly thanks to the nearly 80 rescuers and 10 marine biologists that worked to return the dolphins back out toward the Atlantic.
Seeing more Japanese dolphin slaughter stories in print lately... Much respect to Ric O'Barry for pushing so hard to get the media to cover the issue, and thanks to Jeff Bryant for making sure I don't miss a single update. This particular article covers the dolphins that aren't violently slaughtered every year in drive fisheries (excerpt):
"Leading aquariums and swim-with-dolphin dealers are subsidising the Japan dolphin slaughter by paying £25,000 or more for a few 'show' dolphins from the catch," said Ric O'Barry, a former US Navy diver who trained the dolphin star of the 1960s television series before turning against dolphin captivity in 1970.
Ocean World Adventure Park - a million-pound tourist resort in the Dominican Republic where visitors spend more than £60 a time to swim with captive dolphins - has placed a £300,000 order for 12 bottlenose dolphins. The dolphins, dubbed the "Taiji 12", were taken in what he says is one of the most violent and brutal captures that he has ever seen.
A report released last year by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society reveals that dozens of dolphins captured in Japan's annual "drive fisheries" - and then spared - have ended up in aquariums around the world.
Thank the editors of the Independent for their continued positive coverage of important animal issues. And use the opportunity, if you will, to condemn not only the incarceration of these magnificent beings, but also their decimation. E-mail your responses, providing your postal address and telephone number.
You know, people are suckers for pandas. After all, they're so cute! But that doesn't mean they should remain in captivity just to please us. Of course, it's commonly argued that certain captive animals are being bred in order to repopulate protected areas and stave off extinction. We find plenty of examples to demonstrate that we're better off protecting the populations in the wild, along with their habitat, instead.
After millions of dollars in expenditures to finally breed pandas successfully in captivity, the Research and Conservation Center for the Giant Panda made good on its mission to place Xiang Xiang, a captive-bred panda, into the wild. Unfortunately its first attempt has not exactly been a huge success. Wonder of all wonders, Xiang Xiang is pretty clueless out in the cold, cruel world, and the Center has already had to bring him in once to treat him for an injury related to a run-in with a wild panda. Another encounter left him with a likely broken leg, though they haven't seen him since the incident. Doesn't it make you want to just shake your head?
But, true to form, researchers have the best intentions:
"We did not want to keep Xiang Xiang because that would have shown our experiment had failed."
With hubristic attitudes like this one, I prefer people keep their mitts off animals altogether. Not to slam all scientists, but few people are willing to admit failure and have to go find some other source of funding, much less a different career.
But Panda numbers have actually rebounded somewhat in China after the government set aside a protected area for them, obviating any apparent need for continuing the expensive failure of a program. In fact, Xiang Xiang's misadventures lend credence to the belief that wild animals should be left to their own devices, with lots of room to live their lives out naturally, and that captive breeding programs are generally a lost cause for all but the most dire scenarios.
David McNeill is to be congratulated for getting the word out. First Japan Focus, now the UK's The Independent:
This paragraph is particularly telling:
The fishermen, who consider dolphins just big fish, like tuna, are bewildered that anyone would find this cruel, and describe the protesters as extremists. "If you walked into an American slaughterhouse for cows, it wouldn't look very pretty either," says one, who identifies himself only as Kawasaki. "The killing is done in the open here, so it looks worse than it is." Most of the fishermen are descended from families that have been killing and eating the contents of the sea around Taiji for generations, and reject arguments that dolphins are "special". Says Kawasaki: "They're food, like dogs for the Chinese and Koreans."
There's so many ways to pick apart that paragraph, from the notion that dolphins are somehow not mammals (as if that matters in whether or not they should be slaughtered so senselessly) to the comparisons to slaughterhouses and dogs served up as food.
Many Japanese do not even know about the dolphin hunt. But when they find out, they often do not agree with the fishermen:
"I'm shocked," says Keiko Shibuya, from Osaka. "I couldn't imagine eating dolphin. They're too cute."
Sadly, cutetarians could be the best ally we have against the dolphin slaughter. Many people will happily munch away on a hamburger while condemning dolphin sashimi, despite the hypocrisy. While it would be nice if such individuals turned from eating all animals, those of us motivated to end the dolphin slaughter lose nothing by leveraging cutetarians' sensitivity to the animals they have come to love.
I encourage you to read the entire article. While I have covered the subject before, McNeill keeps it fresh with this new piece.
David McNeill interviewed Flipper trainer-turned-activist Ric O'Barry a couple of days ago, so go check that out. You learn a fair amount about the man, why he went from dolphin trainer to animal activist, and why the dolphin slaughter continues.
It's a shame the major media isn't covering the senseless dolphin slaughter and international outrage that comes with it. It's hard not to think, as Ric suggests, that they are instead helping to cover it up. As I was recently reminded, corporate "cover-ups" sometimes are less about malfeasance, and more about laziness or negligence. But, either way, I'm happy to do my part to keep Japan's ugly secret out in the spotlight.
Thanks to Jeff Bryant for making sure I knew about this interview.
"We are bulldozing the Garden of Eden, and the first large animal has fallen." -- Robert L. Pitman, NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem Studies Program
Most people look at the environmental movement as a whole separate ball of wax from the animal rights movement. You often see major environmental organizations working to rescue and preserve entire species of animals for various reasons typically having little to do with the notion that animals rightly deserve to have their natural habitats left unspoilt for their own use. Often we hear about the role of predators in the ecosystem and those sorts of rationales. But all animals would appear to have as much of a stake in their own environment as we do, perhaps more so, owing to their inability to adapt their environments as radically as we have.
Animals born in the wild depend on their environments being somewhat preserved to what they are adapted to inhabit. To protect these ecosystems, we can create protected areas, we can "manage" populations, and we can try to regulate individual cases, treating some species as endangered or threatened, for instance. Or, we can examine what gives us the impunity to toxify their rivers, raze their forests, build back yards in their hunting grounds, and encroach on their lives in so many other unspeakable ways.
If we recognized the inherent right of animals to live free from the artificial interference of humanity, and enforced that right, we might well have averted our present environmental disaster. Now we're just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You know it's late in the game when the environmentally-backward Bush administration finallyproposes listing the polar bear as threatenedunder the Endangered Species Act.
It is horrifying to me that we can allow hundreds of species to wind up in such a precarious position in the first place, and that--in some cases--this is considered a good thing. I mean, why is it okay to "manage" the numbers of some species into the low hundreds, as in the case of North American wolves? Well, the answer to that is: Because our expansion into the wilderness brought with it conflicts between our economic interests and the survival instincts of indigenous wildlife, as if that somehow justifies destroying our environment.
We permit ourselves to expand our species as much as we want, projected to grow beyond 9 billion in the next 30 years or so, but some of the most recognizable species in the world are limping along with our "protection." There is nothing remotely sustainable about this. If we can't figure out a way to live without decimating our fellow inhabitants, then we are bad planetary stewards indeed.
This rant was inspired by the above-linked polar bear article, mountain lion action alert (thanks, Deb), and word from The New York Times that rampant economic development has rendered species like the baiji dolphin "functionally extinct":
Locally, the Yangtze River is in serious trouble; the canary in the coal mine is dead. In addition to baiji, the Yangtze paddlefish is (was) probably the largest freshwater fish in the world (at least 21 feet), and it hasn’t been seen since 2003; the huge Yangtze sturgeon breeds only in tanks now because it has no natural habitat (a very large dam stands between it and its breeding grounds). The whole river ecosystem is going down the tubes in the name of rampant economic development. There is a huge environmental debt accruing on the Yangtze, and baiji was perhaps just the first installment.
...Nobody eats baiji and no tourists pay to see it — there were no reasons to take it deliberately, but there was no economic reason to save it, either. It is gone because too many people got too efficient at catching fish in the river and it was incidental bycatch. And it is perhaps a view of the future for much of the rest of the world and an indication that the predicted mass extinction is arriving on schedule.
For the Chinese, I think that losing a half-blind river dolphin and a couple of oversize fish was a fair trade for all the money that is being made there now. China is an economic model envied by most of the rest of the world, and I think that many other (especially third world) countries will be confronted with similar decisions of economic development versus conservation of habitats and animals, and the response will be the same. From now on we will have to choose which animals will be allowed to live on the planet with us, and baiji got cut in the first round. It is a sad day. I know it is their country, but the planet belongs to all of us.
I have to run out right now, so I can't comment on this as thoroughly as I'd like, but pay close attention to the wording used in the article to justify imprisoning elephants, for instance the lie that pachyderms in zoos are "ambassadors" for those in the wild, or the false notion that zoos "provide an avenue for Americans in urbanized areas to appreciate nature so they can better understand the world's grand-scale environmental problems." Because zoos spend sooo much time focusing on visitor education...
The only learning that goes on in zoos is how we use force to dominate and demean our non-human cousins and, for the more sensitive onlookers, how sad it is to see them in captivity. Pathetic.
(Sheri) Speede has removed gunshot pellets from chimps and extracted embedded ropes from apes' waists. (In villages captive chimps are often leashed with ropes knotted in such away that they tighten if the chimp struggles, Speede said. Also, some chimps are tied up for years and grow "around" the ropes, she said.)
Perhaps her most painstaking procedure was a six-hour surgery to save a female with a twisted colon—performed over a split log, with no veterinary technicians.
Further complicating matters, Speede was pregnant at the time, with her belly obstructing her view and movement.
But the surgery was a success...
She has also coordinated armed raids to rescue primates and has even survived being robbed at knifepoint.
The sanctuary Speede built, Sanaga-Yongre, employs 23 Cameroonians full time, while still more work part time in construction and cleanup. The sanctuary also stimulates the local economy by purchasing produce from nearby villages.
On top of this, she is one of precious few professionals with medical knowledge located within miles of the facility and serves as sort of an informal doctor for the locals, delivering babies and mending bones, among other services.
Sanaga-Yongre buys textbooks and other supplies and pays the teacher's salary at the local school, no doubt making a huge difference in the lives of the children who learn there.
"We need to develop more social programs," Speede said, "because you can't go into a community as impoverished as that ... and not do anything for the people and expect them to embrace you.
"I didn't know that when I went in, but I know it very well now."
I imagine when you're trying to change attitudes and values (about, for instance, bush meat), this comes in very handy.
According to Doug Cress, executive director of the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance,
"We use to say that every chimpanzee in a sanctuary represents another ten dead in the wild," Cress said in an email. "But I think Sheri Speede's work may have turned that equation inside out.
"Now, I'd say each chimpanzee in a sanctuary could represent another ten in the wild that we can still protect."
Sheri Speede reminds us just how much of a difference one dedicated person can make in the world.
Like you, that headline sure grabbed my attention. Unfortunately, it's misleading. Only "canned hunts" will be banned. That is, "hunts" involving animals bred in captivity specifically to be shot down in cold blood. But at least it will outlaw an ugly practice. Now to have this enforced once that ban goes into effect...
...as if more evidence were needed at this point. (And let's not go into how they got this information to begin with today, shall we?)
The violent, unnecessary killing of any animal is barbaric. The more we learn about whales, the more it becomes apparent that whaling itself is particularly egregious, owing to what appears to be a heightened sense of self-awareness seen only in big-brained mammals like cetaceans and great apes (perhaps in some elephants, too?).
Patty Shenker demonstrates outside the zoo to get Ruby the elephant transferred to a sanctuary. Ruby has been alone since her longtime companion Gita died five months ago. Elephants are highly social animals. (Robert Gauthier / LAT)
The L.A. Zoo elephant saga continues, with no relief in site for Ruby, and it looks like Billy will be rocking back and forth for the foreseeable future as well.
The zoo's director, John Lewis, confirmed his desire to see Ruby continue to be kept at some zoo, though it seems apparent she will not be staying at the L.A. Zoo. In the meantime she's in limbo, since Lewis won't send her to the Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) sanctuary outside Sacramento, despite their offer to take Ruby in.
Even L.A. Zoo Commission President Shelby Kaplan Sloan said she thought Billy should be transferred to a sanctuary temporarily until the new enclosure is completed. It's obvious that the L.A. Zoo is inadequate for any elephant, and that both animals should be moved to more spacious, elephant-friendly accommodations.
Thanks to Carla Hall and the Los Angeles Times for keeping the spotlight on Ruby at the L.A. Zoo.
I find it ironic that Ruby is being kept out of sight, yet zoo director John Lewis seems to think she might find a place in the public eye again at another zoo.
It's sad that people cling on to this notion that keeping elephants as prisoners at a city zoo is somehow akin to being an ambassador for conservation of the entire species.
How much have these sad exhibits ever really done for elephants in the wild? They certainly do nothing good for the elephants they keep captive in those small enclosures.
If you choose to send your own letter, please don't forget to include your full name, address, and day time phone number.
Thanks also go to Catherine Doyle, Patty Shenker, and the activists who help to keep this issue alive in the media, and the pressure on at the zoo.
Already suffering from the loss of approximately one thousand lives in forest fires this year, Indonesia's beleaguered orangutans are apparently facing the threat of worse El Nino conditions in the region next year, according to ecologists:
Willie Smits, founder of the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation, said if intentional burning of forest was not prevented, Indonesia would face a terrible haze season next year.
"If we are looking at an El Nino which has a cooling in the Indian Ocean and a warming up in the Pacific Ocean, these are exactly the conditions that occurred in 1982-83 and 1997-98. Those were the two worst El Nino disasters. Next year we could look at a new world record," he said.
"Having a rainy season is not going to solve it. We could look at new problems as early as April next year," he said. "If these orangutans are to survive, we better deal with the fire situation in the coming years."
The annual fires are often deliberately lit by timber and palm oil plantation firms or farmers in Borneo and Indonesia's Sumatra island to clear land for cultivation, many of them in the same forests where the orangutans live.
Smits called the orangutan popultions "extremely threatened," saying that "The forest has to be intact in one big piece for a population as a total to survive."
I'm exhausted right now, so don't expect anything terribly insightful from me, but here are some quotes from the article that struck me deeply:
In 2002, it was estimated there were 56,000 orangutans in the wild but the population has dwindled at a rate of 6,000 a year, conservationists say. Ed Wray / APA rescued orangutan peers out of a temporary holding cage Monday in Mantangai, Indonesia.
Nearly 90 percent of their habitat has been destroyed by illegal logging and slash-and-burn farming practices. If the rate of deforestation continues, orangutans will disappear from the wild in around a decade, experts say.
A decade. Unless more is done to stop this, there's no way these orangutans will survive.
The next quote lets people know what they can do:
Most of the annual dry season fires are deliberately lit by farmers or at the behest of timber and oil palm plantation companies.
In other words, end the global demand for timber and palm oil, and you may save the orangutans. Doesn't sound too hopeful, does it?
Jennifer Miller is covering the disaster at the IFAW blog:
Sad that there's even a debate about this, when evidence abounds that elephants are intelligent, sensitive creatures in need of socialization, space, and stimulation.
An article at USATODAY.com seems to favor providing elephants with more space to exhibit their natural behaviors. The piece acknowledges newinformation about elephant intelligence in the article and extensive sidebar, including video of recent experiments with placing a giant mirror in an elephant exhibit, during which elephants Maxine, Patty, and Happy investigate the mirror and check themselves out.
There is also a poll, which asks where elephants should be kept. There is no option for "in the wild," but you can go vote for sanctuaries, as opposed to zoos. When I voted, sanctuaries were ahead 50-40, and 10 percent thought they needed more information.
A unanimous vote in the German Parliament has banned the import of seal products, eliminating the commercial seal market in that country. Morever, many German lawmakers are now seeking a complete ban on seal products and have drafted a proposal for an EU-wide ban. Germany will preside over the EU presidency in the first half of 2007, giving it a leadership role on a number of issues.
German firms currently import thousands of seal furs annually.
According to BBC NEWS is joining the moral slide backward on whale hunting, including members of an endangered species:
Icelandic ships will take nine fin whales, an endangered species, and 30 minke whales each year.
In a statement, the fisheries ministry said the nation was dependent on living marine resources, and would keep catches within sustainable limits.
Norway is the only other country to hunt commercially; most are bound by a 20-year moratorium. Currently Iceland hunts minkes for "scientific research".
Ah, there's that word "sustainable." They're such conservationists, killing an endangered species.
Iceland maintains local stocks are high enough to permit some hunting, despite the endangered status of the fin.
"The total stock size of central and north Atlantic minke whales is close to 70,000 animals, of which around 43,600 are in Icelandic coastal waters," said the government's statement.
"The number of fin whales in the [area] is estimated at around 25,800 animals.
"The catches are clearly sustainable and therefore consistent with the principle of sustainable development."
In other words, we can break the rules because they don't apply to us. It's unclear how Iceland is dependent on "living marine resources" considering they hope to export their kills to Japan, rather than sustaining their own population. Arni Finnsson, of the the Iceland Nature Conservation Association tells us
"There is no market for this meat in Iceland, there is no possibility to export it to Japan; the government appears to have listened to fishermen who are blaming whales for eating all the fish.
"This decision is giving the finger to the international community."
I'm sure there's more to their decision than that, but clearly they got fed up waiting for the International Whaling Commission's renegotiation on the Revised Management Scheme that they had hoped would allow them to take more whales within the system. Since things haven't gone their way, they're taking matters into their own hands.
It's hard as a country to point fingers at others for taking matters into their own hands, when we have so recently done the same thing in Iraq, for example. Fortunately there's international resistance to Iceland's whaling. The question is what on earth is going to be done about it?
This is a wild and wonderful piece that I simply didn't have the time to break out for you in a useful way due to my attendance at The Strength of Many this weekend. Since Karen Dawn did such a great job in her recent DawnWatch report, I'll simply post that here un-reformatted and encourage you to subscribe to her list as well:
The cover of the Sunday, October 8, New York Times Magazine has a close-up photo of an elephant face and the headline, "Are We Driving Elephants Crazy?" The subheading reads, "Their behavior in the wild has grown strange and violent in recent years. Researchers say our encroachment on their way of life is to blame."
The article inside is by Genesis Award winner Charles Siebert. (See www.hsus.org/ace/14849 for more on the Genesis Awards) Siebert won for his July 4, 2005, NY Times Magazine cover story "Planet of the Retired Apes." Now he explores the effect that poaching, culling and captivity have had on elephants.
In "An Elephant Crackup?" (pg 42) we learn: "All across Africa, India and parts of Southeast Asia, from within and around whatever patches and corridors of their natural habitat remain, elephants have been striking out, destroying villages and crops, attacking and killing human beings.... In the Indian state Jharkhand near the western border of Bangladesh, 300 people were killed by elephants between 2000 and 2004. In the past 12 years, elephants have killed 605 people in Assam, a state in northeastern India, 239 of them since 2001...In Africa, reports of human-elephant conflicts appear almost daily, from Zambia to Tanzania, from Uganda to Sierra Leone, where 300 villagers evacuated their homes last year because of unprovoked elephant attacks."
We also learn that "young male elephants in Pilanesberg National Park and the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Game Reserve in South Africa have been raping and killing rhinoceroses..." And "In Addo Elephant National Park, also in South Africa, up to 90 percent of male elephant deaths are now attributable to other male elephants, compared with a rate of 6 percent in more stable elephant communities."
We read about the work of Gay Bradshaw, a psychologist at the environmental-sciences program at Oregon State University:
"In 'Elephant Breakdown,' a 2005 essay in the journal Nature, Bradshaw and several colleagues argued that today’s elephant populations are suffering from a form of chronic stress, a kind of species-wide trauma. Decades of poaching and culling and habitat loss, they claim, have so disrupted the intricate web of familial and societal relations by which young elephants have traditionally been raised in the wild, and by which established elephant herds are governed, that what we are now witnessing is nothing less than a precipitous collapse of elephant culture.
Siebert continues: "It has long been apparent that every large, land-based animal on this planet is ultimately fighting a losing battle with humankind. And yet entirely befitting of an animal with such a highly developed sensibility, a deep-rooted sense of family and, yes, such a good long-term memory, the elephant is not going out quietly. It is not leaving without making some kind of statement, one to which scientists from a variety of disciplines, including human psychology, are now beginning to pay close attention."
We read that Bradshaw has sought "to combine traditional research into elephant behavior with insights about trauma drawn from human neuroscience."
Siebert writes about elephant matriarchal societies, about their intense mourning and burial rituals including weeklong vigils over the body and their elaborate communication systems.
The we read, "This fabric of elephant society, Bradshaw and her colleagues concluded, had effectively been frayed by years of habitat loss and poaching, along with systematic culling by government agencies to control elephant numbers and translocations of herds to different habitats. The number of older matriarchs and female caregivers (or 'allomothers') had drastically fallen, as had the number of elder bulls, who play a significant role in keeping younger males in line. In parts of Zambia and Tanzania, a number of the elephant groups studied contained no adult females whatsoever....As a result of such social upheaval, calves are now being born to and raised by ever younger and inexperienced mothers. Young orphaned elephants, meanwhile, that have witnessed the death of a parent at the hands of poachers are coming of age in the absence of the support system that defines traditional elephant life.
Bradshaw says: "The loss of elephants elders and the traumatic experience of witnessing the massacres of their family, impairs normal brain and behavior development in young elephants."
We read: "The elephants of decimated herds, especially orphans who've watched the death of their parents and elders from poaching and culling, exhibit behavior typically associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and other trauma-related disorders in humans: abnormal startle response, unpredictable asocial behavior, inattentive mothering and hyperaggression. Studies of the various assaults on the rhinos in South Africa, meanwhile, have determined that the perpetrators were in all cases adolescent males that had witnessed their families being shot down in cullings. It was common for these elephants to have been tethered to the bodies of their dead and dying relatives until they could be rounded up for translocation to, as Bradshaw and Schore describe them, 'locales lacking traditional social hierarchy of older bulls and intact natal family structures.'"
Allan Schore a UCLA psychologist and neuroscientist who has focused his research on early human brain development and the negative impact of trauma on it is quoted:
"We know that these mechanisms cut across species. In the first years of humans as well as elephants, development of the emotional brain is impacted by these attachment mechanisms, by the interaction that the infant has with the primary caregiver, especially the mother. When these early experiences go in a positive way, it leads to greater resilience in things like affect regulation, stress regulation, social communication and empathy. But when these early experiences go awry in cases of abuse and neglect, there is a literal thinning down of the essential circuits in the brain, especially in the emotion-processing areas."
Siebert describes a visit to The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, writing that it is "a kind of asylum for some of the more emotionally and psychologically disturbed former zoo and circus elephants in the United States — cases so bad that the people who profited from them were eager to let them go."
We learn that some of the elephants there have histories of striking out at trainers, even lethally. He describes what has historically happened in this country to elephants who killed humans -- the public electrocution of Topsy who killed a trainer who tried to feed her a lit cigarette, and the public hanging of Mary who killed a keeper after he jabbed her behind the ear with a bullhook.
Of the sad history of captive elephants in the US and elsewhere we read: "Wild-caught elephants often witness as young calves the slaughter of their parents, just about the only way, shy of a far more costly tranquilization procedure, to wrest a calf from elephant parents, especially the mothers. The young captives are then dispatched to a foreign environment to work either as performers or laborers, all the while being kept in relative confinement and isolation, a kind of living death for an animal as socially developed and dependent as we now know elephants to be."
We read, however:
"And yet just as we now understand that elephants hurt like us, we’re learning that they can heal like us as well." The elephant sanctuary uses a system of "passive control," a therapy similar to those used to treat humans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. We later read, however, about the killing at the sanctuary of loving caretaker Joanna Burke. Just as in humans, sometimes the trauma is not erased -- there is an "indelible etching."
It is explained that elephants suffer, "not simply because of us, but because they are, by and large, us. If as recently as the end of the Vietnam War people were still balking at the idea that a soldier, for example, could be physically disabled by a psychological harm — the idea, in other words, that the mind is not an entity apart from the body and therefore just as woundable as any limb — we now find ourselves having to make an equally profound and, for many, even more difficult leap: that a fellow creature as ostensibly unlike us in every way as an elephant is as precisely and intricately woundable as we are."
The article suggests we need to develop "interspecies empathy" and that "involves taking what has been learned about elephant society, psychology and emotion and inculcating that knowledge into the conservation schemes of researchers and park rangers. This includes doing things like expanding elephant habitat to what it used to be historically and avoiding the use of culling and translocations as conservation tools."
That empathy is expected to change the way we care for captive elephants. We read that the Bronx Zoo announced plans to phase out its elephant exhibit on social-behavioral grounds. Carol Buckley from The Elephant Sanctuary is quoted:
"They’re really taking the lead. Zoos don’t want to concede the inappropriateness of keeping elephants in such confines. But if we as a society determine that an animal like this suffers in captivity, if the information shows us that they do, hey, we are the stewards. You'd think we'd want to do the right thing."
I have given a relatively brief summary of a lengthy and rich article that I hope you will read. You'll find it on line at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08elephant.html
Please send an appreciative letter to the editor, discussing some aspect of our relationships with other species -- perhaps the holding captive of wild animals for human entertainment.
The Magazine section takes letters at magazine@nytimes.com
Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.
Yours and the animals', Karen Dawn
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.dawnwatch.com/cgi-bin/dada/dawnwatch_unsubscribe.cgi You are encouraged to forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts but please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)
I got pretty excited when I read the above headline from Reuters.com, and then I read the article and realized the ban was in India. Then I thought, well, it's still a pretty big deal. That's 250 zoos!
Then I thought about how zoos will need more animals from the wild to replenish their exhibits as animals die, since they won't have any offspring to keep captive, so that bummed me out again. Ah, zoos.
Well, I didn't get done with the festivities related to my short film screening until about 8:45pm (missed Dan Piraro's keynote -- damn!). It would have taken me about 30 minutes or so to get down to the Strength of Many conference on the hopes that I might be able to meet up with some familiar faces at the hotel bar before everyone staying there turns in for the night. I figure there's always tomorrow, so I stayed in and saw this story.
I can't say that I'm overjoyed about what I read here, but I am certainly glad that one elephant exhibit is closing down. The problem is that the Philadelphia Zoo hopes to open one again when funds permit.
And three of the four elephants that were kept in that half-acre prison cell are being sent to another zoo in Baltimore, which is eventually going to provide six acres to five elephants, with plans to breed more.
Fortunately, one formerly injured elephant, Dulary, will be transported to The Elephant Sanctuary in Hohenwald, TN.
Zoo officials expect the transfers to be completed by next spring.
I haven't seen any media coverage of our Japan Dolphin Day protest on Wednesday. If anyone knows of any media protest footage or articles besides press releases, please get that info to me ASAP.
But it does look like the Japanese dolphin slaughter is starting to get more media attention, thanks to a consortium of scientists and wildlife officials that yesterday called on the Japanese government to end the practice:
When looking for footage of the protests today, I came across some dolphin slaughter videos. The first one looks pretty much raw, and appears to be the source of a photo I posted when originally bringing the slaughter to your attention. It's very short, and shows that indeed the water does get that red, and that the photo was not enhanced.
The second one appears to be a segment from Earthlings, a movie I watched before it was finalized and officially released, if I recall correctly, and I don't remember seeing it in that version. That said, it's a very difficult and painful sit through, but will drive the cruelty of animal exploitation home to anyone you show it to.
Halfway through this roughly 3-minute segment, I started tearing up. No still photos can portray how awful this slaughter truly is. You owe it to yourself and the dolphins to see this video, to know why it's important that this slaughter is ended.
The next story I want to touch on briefly was brought to my attention by Jeff Bryant, who first contacted me about the dolphin slaughter. The article reveals a disturbing mindset toward animals:
In it we learn that a writer described in a recent essay how she did not sterilize the three female cats she kept as pets, and described "hurling the newborn kittens over a cliff" as soon as they were born. That's very ancient Greece of her, but we don't go for that kind of cruelty anymore.
She justifies this barbarous action by comparing the sterilization of animals with the oppression of humans and that she can't bear to remove their "life energy and vitality." But it's okay to toss kittens over a cliff? Am I the only one that can't follow her logic?
Finally comes some happy news. Despite the continued use of bear bile for medicinal purposes in Vietnam, Animals Asia has reached an agreement with Vietnam's Forest Protection Department (FPD) to build a bear rescue center in a national park outside Hanoi. According to an FPD official, the center will open in January 2007:
The official, who requested anonymity for procedural reasons, says the center will give the bears check-ups and release the healthy ones into protected forests. The more fragile animals will be taken care of for life.
Unfortunately, this is only a glimmer of hope for the bears. According to Jill Robinson, founder of Animals Asia, the center's reach will be limited:
The ultimate aim of the project, at least, is to rescue 200 bears, although with 4,000 bears still in the country on these horrible farms, it's quite a challenge.
Our Los Angeles Japan Dolphin Day protest was a bit smaller than I was hoping for, with somewhere around two dozen or so people holding up signs and banners when I arrived, about 30 minutes late after my hour drive back down from Animal Acres. But the media was already there, as was environmental activist/actor Ed Begley, Jr., Last Chance for Animals' Chris DeRose, and numerous dedicated activists responding to LCA's and In Defense of Animals' calls to local activists for help in staging the protest.
The demo was quiet, respectful, and friendly with passersby on their way to and from lunch. It was a very uneventful protest in that regard, and for that I am thankful. I'm not thrilled with the banner you see in the photo above, but was glad for LCA and IDA putting together so many materials to hand out, from beautiful and thorough brochures to quick flyers urging readers to write the Japanese consulate, as well as tools like scores of signs like the one you see me holding and the blow-up dolphins with red paint on them. Those were a bit graphic, perhaps, but that's what we're dealing with when it comes to this slaughter, and the fact that a couple of people asked if they could have them says something... I think. Ultimately it was the comparison to Pearl Harbor I could have done without. Dramatic attention-getter, I know, but I don't think this issue needs activists to resort to those sorts of tactics when the reality is brutal enough in its own right.
I had a number of people come up to ask me why we were there (they didn't know the consulate was inside), a few people actually came up to me and asked for flyers, and a couple of of others let me know they were glad we were protesting. I sometimes wonder if that's as far as it goes for them. As if encouraging us is enough (not that I don't appreciate the sentiment, seriously). I'm glad people are morally supportive, I'm glad the media was there, and I hope they make some mention to a wider audience, but we'd also like for people who saw these photos and read about the drive fisheries to write to the Japanese consulate and to their own representatives demanding something be done about this barbaric annual slaughter.
Please read my original post on Japan Dolphin Day for information about where to send your letter, and more background information so you know what you're writing about. This hideous slaughter must end.
As an addendum, I'd suggest trying a demo out. If you're used to seeing demonstrations full of conflict, I can understand your reticence, but they're not all like that. If you object to any element of a protest, you can always leave. But by showing up, you give the protest a chance to gain attention and canvas the area with literature more effectively. If you never go, you're leaving the fate of the animals up to a small band of dedicated animal-friendly people. Without you, those numbers won't go up, and popular support for the animals will remain silent. Silence = Death.
I'm off momentarily to help out with the humane education of 3rd graders at Animal Acres this morning, followed by the international day of protest, Japan Dolphin Day, in downtown L.A in front of the Japanese Consulate located at 350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90071. Maybe I'll see some of you local readers there!
UPDATE: Protests on the other side of the world have already been covered, though I'm hoping we get a better turnout than two dozen. No matter. They got some much-needed news reportage, and that is our goal. Please read my JDD link above and find the protest nearest you today.
The Japanese dolphin slaughter and tomorrow's international day of protest against it are receiving a tiny bit of media attention, here from the Daily Mail.
You can read more about the slaughter, the protest, and how you can get involved tomorrow here. I also ask that you contact your local media to encourage them to cover the event.
Yesterday the Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN) and two private citizens had their lawsuit against the city of Seattle and a local zoo dismissed by King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector.
The suit accused Woodland Park Zoo of violating the federal Endangered Species Act and the State Environmental Policy Act with its treatment of elephants at the facility.
Judge Spector stated that none of the claims against the city, the zoo, its directors and staff had merit, except for the claim filed under the Endangered Species Act, which the judge ruled falls under the jurisdiction of federal court.
From the Guardian Unlimited comes further evidence -- as if more were needed -- that there are some seriously disturbed people out there:
Up to 11 stingrays have been found dead and mutilated on Australia's eastern coast since the Crocodile Hunter's death, prompting fears that Irwin's fans are exacting their revenge on the normally docile fish.
It's been suggested that these killings were less vengeance and more opportunistic. After all, with sting rays at the top of everyone's consciousness lately, surely their tails and barbs would make a good souvenir, right?
In a rational nod to Labor Day here in the States, I'm going to make my life a little easier and less stressful with this post.
Busy since landing back in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, and inundated with links while gone (and since then), I've been unable to make much of a dent. I can't keep pushing these off, and it's not realistic for me to think I'll do as thorough a job as I'd like commenting on them, but they merit attention, and shouldn't take too long for you to read on this holiday weekend.
Obviously it's a good sign that there are so many items still to post after narrowing them down to what I felt were the most compelling pieces. I will list them with links below, breaking them up into opinions and news items, then list them in rough chronological order, starting with the most recent (I promise not to go back further than two weeks!):
Houston Press: Monkey Business (A lengthy, damning look at animal research, with a strong focus on primates and little cooperation from the secretive Charles River Labs -- courtesy of Joellen Secondo)
Overall, China has an abysmal record on animal protection issues, though I can't say it's an impossible situation. Animals Asia is working with Chinese authorities toward a long-term long-term goal to totally eliminate moon bear bile farming.
With that in mind, animal protectionists need to read this recent story:
It's another senseless, horrific waste of life, "driven by new demand from China," as the article says. I don't know about you, but I'm fed up with the exploitation of the shrinking African wilderness and a vast Chinese market for exotic animal "byproducts." China possesses a rapidly growing economy, one that will continue to pose a burden on the planet and its inhabitants.
While the U.S. still takes the lead on many unsustainable practices, we can be assured they are not driving demand for ivory. As animal-concerned individuals push for more animal-friendly policies in N. America, we should pay just as much attention to what's going on in China (witness the dog massacres due to rabies paranoia), because it's only going to get worse if the course is not changed.
It appears action star Jackie Chan is one of those people trying to help change that course. He is working with PETA to end the culling once and for all:
The kung fu movie hero has created a unique greeting card that will be auctioned off on eBay starting Thursday to benefit PETA Asia-Pacific's humane rabies control campaign, the group said in a press release.
Shaped like a heart, the handmade card features the Chinese characters for "love" and "respect" along with the actors signature.
It also carries the inscription: "Of course it is our duty as human beings to love and respect each other. But that obligation extends to our animal friends as well. They are just as deserving of our care and kindness."
While stars have been misrepresented by PETA before, they have a long track record of collaborating with big name supporters in order to generate attention for an issue, and this has often resulted in heightened media and public interest.
As part of their campaign, PETA representatives met with Chinese government officials and provided them with posters and guidelines for humane methods of rabies control, hoping to avoid another insane bout of dog slaughter in the future.
Evidently taking eggs from the wild and raising alligators in factory farm-style conditions is okay, because "There is no such thing as a nice alligator." Tip of the hat once again to Joellen Secondo for bringing to our attention this inside look at alligator meat and skin production.
Much of this production feeds a fashion machine that sells animal skins to wannabe fashionistas, particularly those for whom "It's just the trend, because it's expensive and not everybody has it." They ought to be getting the message by now that supporting a death industry for the sake of elusive style is lame and tacky.
Weeks ago, I was contacted by Stephanie Hanson regarding a troubling policy of The Desert Botanical Garden in Arizona, which she learned shoots rabbits to protect some 50,000 plants from being eaten, including some that are considered rare or endangered.
Through our correspondence, I tried to assist with various approaches to the facility to end the unfriendly approach to animal management. In light of their intractability, I advised Ms. Hanson to approach the press. After contacting several papers, John Faherty of The Arizona Republic wrote the story that was published in Friday's paper.
Interestingly, Ms. Hanson -- who is a garden member -- received a reply from the director of the garden that mentioned nothing about a catch-and-release program. I read the letter, and it was rather thorough, attempting as it was to be reassuring. You would think that program would have made it into such a letter. Only after the Arizona Republic contacted him was that program made known.
Of course, shooting the rabbits is what they consider a last line of defense. But, Ms. Hanson, as well as other members who reply in the comments below the story (generating more attention than this issue has so far, with 6 pages of comments as of this writing -- way to go, Stephanie!), strongly disagree with the policy:
"It sure changed my view of the place," Hanson said. "I can't even go there any more. There are better ways to do this. Now it feels like they are different from the image they project."
Nor are they alone in decrying the practice. The decision to shoot the rabbits provokes the same reaction from Laura Simon, field director for Urban Wildlife Program with Humane Society of the United States:
"We would expect a botanical garden would not do this. You would think they would be philosophically opposed."
If nothing else, this is a great example of activism at its finest. Ms. Hanson has approached the garden with her ethical concerns, escalated the concerns to the public, and has raised awareness.
In addition to anyone who has already posted in the comments (and of course they lean from supportive to sick, and even paranoid and misleading, so you may want to post as well), I'd also recommend a letter to the editor to keep the topic percolating. And let me know if you get published. Thanks!
It's just a preliminary injunction, but (by definition) it's a start:
A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction barring Wisconsin from killing gray wolves, siding with animal welfare and environmental groups that argue the killing violates the Endangered Species Act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had issued a permit to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for the killing of up to 43 gray wolves. The state argued the permit was necessary to maintain social tolerance for the wolves, which are listed as endangered.
But in a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly mocked that rationale.
''Simply put,'' she wrote in her decision, ''the recovery of the gray wolf is not supported by killing 43 gray wolves.''
Special thanks to Jeff Bryant for bringing this news to our attention while I'm busy traveling.
Leaving town for a couple of weeks tomorrow, so blogging may or may not be scarce. As always, subscribing through RSS or e-mail (see sidebar), is the easiest way to know if there are new posts available.
In the meantime, AlterNet has an article on mass extinction. According to prominent biologists, we're on currently par with the five previous mass extinctions in life's history on earth.
The end of the piece suggests that much of the species projected to go extinct could survive, if we create protected areas and alter our own activities, but it does not go into detail about which activities would be most beneficial to alter, like our diet and modes of transportation. Missed opportunity, though it certainly has sparked conversation in comments on the story.
Before adjourning for the August recess, The U.S. Senate approved the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards (PETS) Act, requiring local and state disaster plans to include provisions for household pets and service animals in the event of a major disaster or emergency, with only 24 no votes.
The Senate also approved the Pension Reform Act, passed last week by the House of Representatives, which closes a loophole in the tax code exploited by trophy hunters to allowed them to deduct the costs of their hunting excursions across the globe. The HSUS brought this scheme to the attention of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who shepherded the key provision through to final passage of the bill.
The president is expected to sign the Pension Protection Act, which is expected to help protect wildlife around the world and save American taxpayers an estimated $49 million over the next decade.
The Orange County Weekly leads with an awesome exposé on Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's use of bullhooks to menace elephants into doing what handlers want of them. It's sickening how implied violence is used to intimidate these creatures, who are basically treated like slaves until they hit an age half their natural lifespan in the wild.
It's suggested that, as the big cats have gone, so may go the elephants. Janet Davis, who teaches at the University of Texas, has written about American circuses, and she says in the article that she thinks the circus will eventually give up elephants, but doesn't want to be seen as losing to activists.
Ultimately it's the consumer that will have the greatest impact. The popular Cirque du Soleil has proven that crowds will show up to be dazzled without animals. And with a philosophy like this, I hope a lot of animal-friendly people will patronize their shows:
“We don’t agree with the way the animals are dressed to do their tricks. We prefer to give jobs to human beings,” said Cirque’s Pierre Parisien, artistic director of Cirque’s Saltimbanco, perhaps speaking for his customers. “They are animals, not performers. They should be in the jungle. We do not agree with the way they are trained, and I’m not sure the place of an elephant or a tiger is to stand in a cage half of its life and perform all around the world. We will never have animals in our shows.”
Excuse me while I melt into a puddle for the Cirque...
Send a letter of praise to the editor, or fax to (714) 550-5908. (Letters may be edited for clarity and length)
I previously wrote about one of the side effects the conflict in Israel and Lebanon is having on animals in the area. Now comes word from MSNBC.com that an oil spill caused by Israeli bombing has created an environmental disaster that cannot be cleaned up until the fighting stops. In the meantime, more innocent bystanders continue to be killed in this fighting, as endangered baby turtles are dying shortly after hatching, and dead fish float to the surface just off the coast.
Experts warn Cyprus, Turkey and even Greece could be affected. Already the oil pollution is spreading to Syria:
“Chances are, our whole marine ecosystem facing the Lebanese shoreline is already dead,” [environment minister, Yaacoub] Sarraf said. “What is at stake today is all marine life in the eastern Mediterranean.”
[snip]
Optimistic assessments suggest it will take at least six months for the shore cleanup and up to 10 years for “the reestablishment of the ecosystem of the eastern Mediterranean as it was two weeks ago,” he said.
The cost of clean-up is expected be anywhere from $30 to $500 million dollars, depending on how long it is put off, and how thorough it is.
The Los Angeles Times is running a five-part series this week, Altered Oceans, which unavoidably holds humankind accountable for the absolutely ruinous state of our seas and the animals that are suffering and dying off as a result, in part, of the only partially treated nutrient-dense waste we are dumping by the billions and billions of gallons every day, much of which comes from agriculture, i.e., intensively confined animals. Overfishing is also held responsible for considerable devastation.
Clearly diets that rely heavily on animal protein are responsible for the worst kind of enviromental destruction. And this series doesn't even focus on desertification caused by grazing cattle, Amazon forests clear-cut to provide farmland for soy, 80% of which is fed to animals intended for human consumption, and so on, all of which affect animals in the process, sending countless unknown species into extinction.
It's like an alarm bell is clanging, but no one is hearing it. This news is further behind the curve than global warming. An Inconvenient Truth focused on global warming, but the environmental crisis is much larger than that, and a key solution that needs to brought fully into the mainstream is a plant-based diet, especially before meat consumption grows astronomically in developing countries.
Each article in the series is on the long side, so you may want to print to PDF and read at your convenience. I strongly recommend doing so. It's probably one of the most important ongoing stories I've ever read in a newspaper. Today I found myself emotionally raw reading about the plight of poisoned sea lions. You'll be moved, more informed, and hopefully you'll be more motivated to help do something about it.
It is estimated that there are only about 100 western north Pacific gray whales left alive. According to the article, the death of "just one female a year for the next three years would be enough to send the population into catastrophic decline.":
The whales' feeding ground lies directly above huge reserves of gas and oil, which some of the biggest companies in the world are determined to exploit.
This small stretch of water off Sakhalin island, in the far east of Russia, has become the battleground for a struggle between environmentalists determined to save these whales from extinction and oilmen equally determined to push ahead with what one of them calls "the mother of all projects".
It wasn't always like this. 200 years ago, whales were so plentiful that it was dangerous to send boats through the waters. But,
In the mid-1800s, the Sea of Okhotsk was the region of choice for the whaling fleets of Japan, Korea and the United States. Intensive whaling had its inevitable effect - numbers dropped off steadily towards the end of the century, and by beginning of the First World War, the whale was thought to be extinct.
Russian marine biologists "rediscovered" the whales in the 1980s, at around the same time that the massive oil reserves were found. The projects to exploit these reserves are massive and well-funded by companies such as Shell and Mitsubishi. Billions are at stake, and so are lives.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), along with about 60 local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are working to protect them, their main fear that the noise from drilling, pipe-laying, and construction will distress the whales, driving them away from their feeding grounds. As western grays are seasonal feeders, surviving for the over half of the year on blubber reserves from a feeding period that can last as little as 4 months, an interruption to this cycle threatens their survival:
Scientists have observed apparent behavioural changes in the whales in relation to the operation of seismic survey ships working up to 30km away. They also reported 14 "skinny" whales in 2005, a considerably larger number than in any year since 2001. The cause of their emaciation is unknown, and it cannot be scientifically linked to the oil projects, but the environmentalists are deeply concerned.
And this says nothing of other risks posed to the magnificent creatures, including the threat of ships hitting them, and damaged pipelines releasing oil into their habitat.
Despite all these concerns, the projects are moving forward. Currently 75% complete, the construction will continue once public banks step in to invest $6.9 billion, which looks it could well happen. With that kind of money at stake, the environment takes second position to politics. Environmentally-concerned citizens can only hope that the prospect of transparency inherent in public financing is as realistic as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's director of the environment, Alistair Clark claims:
He refuses to say whether the loan will go ahead, but it is probable, given the EBRD's views on the value of its involvement. "It's a bad thing for the environment and people if public institutions don't have involvement, because we bring transparency to the process," Clark says.
As much power as we have to protect animals in our daily lives, this is one area where I feel the issue is way above my head. Maybe if I was a multi-millionaire investment banker or something... All I can recommend at the moment is for you to reduce your fuel consumption in every way imaginable, certainly removing any financial ties to Shell and the other financiers, as well as supporting the IFAW, which seems to be the most empowered to hold the involved parties accountable.
It seems that all the whale news I relay on to my readers here at AAFL is bad. I'm sad to say the trend continues with this story on beluga whales:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - In the 1970s, there used to be about 1,300 beluga whales in Cook Inlet, delighting locals and tourists alike in the body of water around Anchorage. Last year, the number was estimated at just 278.
Why their numbers are dwindling has scientists puzzled — and scared. The National Marine Fisheries Service is embarking on a status review to determine if the belugas need the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act.
[snip]
One cataclysmic event — a large stranding in the inlet’s 20-foot tides, perhaps, or an oil spill or tsunami — could push the remaining whale population over the edge, said [Lloyd Lowry, a professor of marine mammals with the University of Alaska Fairbanks].
“Having a small population for a long time is very risky,” he said. “If the decline continues we are going to get to very critically low numbers soon.”
In contrast to the isolated belugas whales of Cook Inlet, belugas overall are thriving in Alaska, with at least 35,000 to 40,000 animals in four Arctic stocks.
[Brad Smith, a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service] said the status review will be expanded this time. It will include a prediction at what point the inlet whales — considered a genetically distinct population — could go extinct. The last review was done about a decade ago and the data shows the decline.
“It certainly does not look encouraging,” Smith said.
Killer whales have become the most contaminated mammals in the Arctic, new research indicates.
Norwegian scientists have found that killer whales - or orcas, as they are sometimes known - have overtaken polar bears at the head of the toxic table.
No other arctic mammals have ingested such a high concentration of hazardous man-made chemicals.
This is terrible. Of course we all knew pollutants in the oceans were affecting the animals, but I didn't know until today just how grim the situation was.
As the article later points out, the higher up on the food chain you are, the more contaminated you have the potential to be. This includes humans, too, who eat very high on the food chain, mainly meat-eaters who eat contaminated animals, fish like salmon and tuna being a great example.
So, while this is awful for the whales, and contaminants must be removed from the oceans, something we can all do right this minute it to eat lower on the food chain, and preferably organic.
“This research re-confirms that the Arctic is now a chemical sink,” said WWF campaign leader Colin Butfield. “Chemicals from products that we use in our homes every day are contaminating Arctic wildlife.”
I thought it important to include this observation, as many of us can also reduce our consumption of household chemicals by simply shopping for products that don't contain them. A lot of natural cleaners from brands like Seventh Generation and Ecover are now available at many mainstream grocery stores as a response to the market's demand for environmentally-friendly products. As this article reminds us, environmentally-friendly can be very animal-friendly, too.
After my rant about zoos and reference to other options earlier, I'd like to remind why the Wild Animal Park is basically just a glorified zoo in some ways:
The three arrived in Chicago two years ago from the San Diego Wild Animal Park, which was making room for younger elephants.
This one makes me just grit my teeth. I was a little involved with trying to help out on Ruby and the L.A. Zoo with some editing I did for HSUS a while back, and I became more aware of the issue of elephants in zoos back then.
They are such remarkable creatures, and it breaks my heart to see this story.
A spokeswoman for In Defense of Animals, another animal rights group that had been opposed to the zoo's handling of the elephants, said Sunday the zoo had rushed Wankie out of the city "to circumvent the public hearing scheduled in the Chicago City Council May 12" on sending the elephant to a sanctuary instead of another zoo.
"We are holding Lincoln Park Zoo accountable and believe that they need now to release the medical records and necropsy reports of all three elephants that have died," said Rae Leann Smith, the spokeswoman. "We need to have public accountability to see what kind of care and what kind of medical treatment these animals had been receiving."
In January, Lincoln Park officials announced they planned to move Wankie to another facility shortly after the death of Peaches, a 55-year-old elephant that was known as the oldest African zoo elephant in the United States. Peaches' death came only three months after the death of a 35-year-old elephant, Tatima. An autopsy determined that Tatima died of a rare lung disease similar to tuberculosis.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association will conduct an independent audit starting Monday to ensure that the zoo took all measures necessary to care for the elephants, Bell said.
The story goes on to show how heartbroken the elephant team at the zoo was, and I'm sure that's true, but if everyone in charge had truly had the animals' best interest in mind, they wouldn't have been a situation of transporting Wankie again, this time alone. The least they could have done is tried to get her safely to a sanctuary, on someone else's dime.
The article closes:
In April 2003, when plans were being made to transfer the three female elephants from the San Diego Wild Animal Park in California to Lincoln Park, PETA sent a letter to Bell asking the zoo to reconsider. "Chicago's long, bitter cold winters will have a devastating effect on elephants who are accustomed to being outdoors year-round in San Diego's warm climate," PETA wrote.
PETA plans to encourage the USDA to conduct a thorough investigation. Leahy said PETA offered to pay the cost to transport Wankie to the elephant sanctuary in Tennessee.
"It's just absolute paradise for elephants in captivity," Leahy said. "Wankie would've been so happy there."
Please. Please, please, please, if you're reading this and not already on board with me about zoos, get involved with your local government and animal activists to prevent animals from being jailed in these public spectacles. If so-called animal lovers want to preserve the wild and educate the public, they need to do it in a way that teaches more respect for these creatures, and provides them with a natural environment. Otherwise what's the point?
If naturally wild animals are to remain in our custody, put them in true sanctuaries and keep them there! The elephants taken from San Diego's Wild Animal Park in 2003 and brought to Lincoln Park Zoo, including Wankie, should never have been relocated in the first place. This is a senseless tragedy.
OSLO - Polar bears and walrus could be wiped out in Greenland because of excess hunts and a thawing of Arctic habitats spurred by global warming, the WWF conservation group said on Thursday.
LIMA, Peru - Peruvian officials saved some 4,000 endangered frogs from being whizzed into popular drinks after they were found hidden in an abattoir.
'We were checking the fridges when out jumped a frog. It had escaped, they were in big crates,' a spokesman for Lima city hall said on Thursday.
Frog cocktails are popular in the Andes because of their supposed aphrodisiac qualities. Shops in central Lima selling the drinks have tanks where customers can choose their frogs.
He said the Telmatobius frogs -- which had apparently been brought from the southern lakes in the high Andes -- were found on Wednesday stored in the abattoir.
They were taken to a colonial fountain in central Lima to splash around before being returned to their native lakes by ecological police.
'There were about 5,000 of them but 1,000 died because of the conditions and in transit,' the spokesman said.
AHMEDABAD, India - The number of Asiatic lions in India's Gir forest, the animal's only natural habitat, has risen to 359 from 327 four years ago after a crackdown on poaching, a new government census showed.
Hey, hey! Here's some rare good news in a press release from the WWF:
(Excerpted)
WASHINGTON -- April 28 -- Carter Roberts, president and CEO-elect of World Wildlife Fund, issued the following statement following reports that the ivory-billed woodpecker has been found in Arkansas, 60 years after it was believed to have gone extinct:
"Nature gives very few second chances, but this may be one of them. Just imagine: North America's largest woodpecker -- a bird with a three-foot wingspan -- hiding in the Arkansas woods for 60 years without being seen by people.
"It's no accident that the ivory-billed woodpecker has been reported in Arkansas's Big Woods. The Nature Conservancy, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and local communities have worked tirelessly for years to keep these magnificent landscapes intact. Without this place, the ivory-billed woodpecker would have had nowhere to go.
OSLO - Norwegian fishermen harpooned 25 whales in the first week of the country's much condemned whaling season that this year allows the biggest hunting quota for more than 10 years, a whalers' spokesman said on Monday.
Norway is the only nation to permit commercial whaling after breaking with a 1986 International Whaling Commission moratorium in 1993. Environmental groups condemn the increasing quotas and shrinking monitoring of whalers. "Norway should be condemned for sanctioning the cruelty that whaling represents," said Kitty Block, a spokeswoman for Whalewatch, which says it represents 140 anti-whaling groups in 55 nations.
She added Norway's whalers were under less surveillance this season because many were no longer obliged to have a government inspector aboard. Instead, they have an electronic "blue box" meant to monitor activities on ship.
Critics say the "blue box" is unable to record how long it takes from the moment the harpoon hits to the moment of death, but the Norwegian government maintains almost all whales die instantly when struck by a harpoon tipped with a grenade.
I'm sorry... did you say grenade? WTF?
WOW. That makes it SOOO much better. If you ever had cause to save the whales, now's the time. Contact Whalewatch to help.
Yeep! The dark side of conservation... Of course, if humans had never thrown the whole equilibrium so badly out of whack we wouldn't be reading this article, but at least it discusses the issue in a way that shows the pros and cons of our current conservation methods. I just don't like putting a bounty on an animals head for any reason. This whole affair could be handled better, in my opinion, for all parties involved. Instead we have a shortcut solution.
Excerpt:
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA – Once on the verge of extinction, black rhinos in South Africa's national parks have made a spectacular comeback. Under the country's aggressive conservation programs, the mammal's population has grown by more than 50 percent in the past decade. But that success has brought a new challenge: how to control a population in limited conservation space.
Now South Africa is weighing a controversial measure that would allow hunters to kill five old male black rhinos a year, which could raise $200,000 per kill. Allowing hunting, some experts say, has helped resurrect the white rhino population, which now stands at 11,000 worldwide, from a low of 200 at the turn of the 20th century.
Fast-Disappearing 'Heart of Borneo' is Likely Home to Thousands of Species Still Undiscovered; Urgent Action Needed to Protect Island Where 361 Species Were Recently Discovered
WASHINGTON -- In the past decade, at least 361 new species have been discovered on Borneo, one of the most important centers of biodiversity in the world. And a new report by World Wildlife Fund finds that there are likely to be thousands of plant and animal species left to discover on the world's third-largest island.
Released today, "Borneo's Lost World: Newly Discovered Species on Borneo" shows at least 361 new species have been identified and described on the Asian island between 1994 and 2004: 260 insects, 50 plants, 30 freshwater fish, 7 frogs, 6 lizards, 5 crabs, 2 snakes and a toad.
The report suggests that thousands more have not yet been studied, particularly in the island's 54 million-acre inner region, which is relatively inaccessible and home to some of the most pristine forests left on the island. Borneo is split between the countries of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
Much of the island's wildlife species -- even the largest mammals -- have yet to be closely studied by scientists. WWF and other scientists just discovered in 2003 that Borneo's pygmy elephants are genetically distinct from other Asian elephants and are likely a new subspecies. And it wasn't until 2000 that scientists found that Borneo's orangutan population is a separate species from other orangutans.
Large areas of Borneo's forest are being rapidly cleared and replaced with tree plantations for rubber, palm oil and timber production. According to the report, the illegal trade in exotic animals is also on the rise, as logging trails and cleared forest open access to more remote areas.
"U.S. and international consumer demand for wood, rubber and palm oil, used in lots of food and cosmetics, fuels much of the destruction of the Borneo jungle," said Tom Dillon, director of species conservation at WWF. "All of these useful products can be sustainably produced, and consumers and companies need to tell companies they don't want products created at the expense of wildlife in some of the last pristine rain forests left on Earth."
An ambitious initiative is under way to conserve the "Heart of Borneo." WWF is working to assist Borneo's three nations to conserve the area known as the "Heart of Borneo" -- a total of 137,000 square miles of equatorial rain forest -- through a network of protected areas and sustainably managed forest and through international cooperation led by the governments of Borneo and supported by a global effort.
"Borneo is undoubtedly one of the most important centers of biodiversity in the world," Dillon said. "Losing the heart of Borneo would be an unacceptable tragedy not only for Borneo and its people, but also for the world. It is really now or never."
Borneo is one of only two places -- the other being Indonesia's Sumatra island -- where endangered orangutans, elephants and rhinos co-exist. Other threatened wildlife in Borneo includes clouded leopards, sun bears and Bornean gibbons, the latter found nowhere else in the world. The island is also home to 10 primate species, more than 350 bird species, 150 reptiles and amphibians and 15,000 plants.
The protection of the heart of Borneo would not only benefit wildlife. It would also help alleviate poverty by increasing water and food security and cultural survival for the people of Borneo. In the long term, it will save the island from the ultimate threat of deforestation and increased impacts from droughts and fires.
Known in the United States as World Wildlife Fund and recognized worldwide by its panda logo, WWF leads international efforts to protect endangered species and their habitats and to conserve the diversity of life on Earth. Now in its fifth decade, WWF, the global conservation organization, works in more than 100 countries around the world. For more information on World Wildlife Fund, visit World Wildlife Fund.
SINGAPORE - A crocodile attacked a zookeeper at Singapore's zoo, puncturing the 37-year-old's leg in seven places and leaving a tooth stuck in his calf -- the third incident of animals gone amok at the zoo in the last two weeks.
The animals are revolting!
Maybe this is in anticipation of Dreamworks' animated zoo escapee movie, Madagascar. Of course, the irony you'll see at this site is that even though it's about animals escaping from a prison-like zoo, you can win your very own chance to visit that same zoo!
*sigh*
The disconnect is incredible.
In fact, I'm watching "Sweet November" in the background -- due to reports of Charlize's character being an AR-type or vegan, or something -- Anyway, she does seem to rescue dogs from an experimental type facility. She does have an anti-fur poster in her stairwell, but the meat message is kinda muddled (seems like she had real sausage at a scene in the DMV early on and later offers "vegan" -- her word -- breakfast meats to Keanu while cooking eggs), and later finds herself "strangely aroused" when Keanu mentions S&M leather...
BEIJING - A giant panda has gone under the knife in a ground-breaking two-and-a-half hour operation to fix a broken back, Chinese state media said on Friday.
The 20-year-old panda was found partly paralysed, most likely the loser in a breeding season battle with another male, at a nature reserve in central Shaanxi province, the China Daily said.
Well, if nothing else, that's one less dead panda, hopefully.
Charlie, a grown male chimp and the Bloemfontein Zoo, has been picking up cigarettes thrown to him by visitors and smoking them -- a habit he probably picked up by observing humans, zoo officials told the SAPA news agency on Thursday.
First of all, if you smoke, quit.
Second, don't go to zoos.
Third, boycott zoos.
Fourth, stay away from people lame enough to throw cigarettes to monkeys. Same fools might try to throw you to the tigers next.
GENEVA - India's commitment to protecting endangered species such as the tiger appeared to be weakening as organised crime networks poach populations near to extinction, wildlife protection group CITES said on Tuesday.
TOKYO - Japan is set to expand its annual whale hunt to take two new species as well as nearly doubling its planned catch of minke whales, media reports said on Tuesday, a move virtually certain to spark global fury if true.
Under a new plan for what Tokyo calls its research whaling programme, Japan would take humpback whales and fin whales in addition to the four whale species it currently hunts, sources close to the situation were quoted as telling Kyodo news agency.
Japan, where whale meat is regarded as a delicacy, abandoned commercial whaling in 1986 in line with an international ban, but began a programme to hunt whales in what it calls scientific research whaling the following year. The meat ends up on store shelves and on the tables of gourmet restaurants.
Japan maintains that eating whale is an important part of its cultural heritage despite the protests of environmentalists determined to prevent the killing of the marine mammals, some species of which are endangered.
The plan is to be submitted to the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) this summer.
It calls for Japan initially to hunt around 10 humpbacks and 10 fin whales per year, Kyodo said, and to sharply increase the number of minkes it takes each year from the 440 it took in the Antarctic in the past whaling season.
I always dread openings like this, because I know exactly what's coming:
ANTANANARIVO - The earth's most successful primates -- humans -- are on the verge of killing off nearly a quarter of the 625 other species of primate on the planet, according to new global report.
This article stems from the "Primates in Peril" report released on Thursday in Madagascar
...with input from 50 of the world's top specialists from the International Primatological Society, Conservation International and other organisations.
Dwindling patches of rainforest and pressure from hunting have brought some species' numbers down to a few dozen, it said.
"If you took all the remaining individuals from the 25 primate species on this list and gave them a seat in a football stadium, they'd all fit," Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation International, told Reuters.
Pathetic. It's the most appropriate word here, I think. I mean, we can spend millions, if not billions, on what is certainly fascinating and important work, but we can't do something to prevent the near-extinction of our closest mammalian relatives? There's probably more primates in captivity for entertainment and experimentation than in the wild at this point, and it just makes me sick when I think of how much the world spends on thousands of other things that are evidently more important.
One day there will only be animals that have financial value to humans, and the planet will be a barren wasteland of food crops for human and domestic animal consumption, or vast cities, with the occasional manicured national park to pretend we still have a wilderness.
That's the pessimist in me speaking anyway. Hopefully anyone as outraged as me by this will not let this future occur. It doesn't have to happen.
The report urges immediate action to curb the destruction by farmers and loggers of forests in which primates dwell and end the trade in bushmeat and exotic medicines from animal parts.
"If we do nothing ... as many as one-quarter of all today's primates will be dead within 20 years," it says.
Primates are "relentlessly hunted for their meat and fur, bodies broken for dubious medicines, shot for stealing crops in fields which were once their home".
Of the four global regions inhabited by primates, their situation is worst in Madagascar, where loss of habitat to traditional slash-and-burn agriculture has left some lemur species, such as Perrier's sifaka, stranded in tiny areas of forest.
"Amazingly, we've managed to get through the 20th century without any primate species going extinct," Mittermeier said. "I'd like to think this is partly because of better conservation efforts."
ANCHORAGE - For the first time since Alaska became a US state, hunters will be allowed to use bait to lure and kill grizzly bears under a program intended to boost moose populations in parts of interior Alaska.
Great... And this is for the good of the moose, right?
Evidently not:
The Alaska Board of Game, a panel appointed by Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, has determined that the grizzly bear-killing program is needed to increase residents' opportunities to successfully hunt moose, said Fish and Game spokeswoman Cathie Harms.
They should just call it the Department of Better Hunting and get it over with.
An estimated 135 grizzly bears live in the targeted area, and the program seeks to have up to 81 of those killed, state officials said. The target area is included in a program that has allowed aircraft-assisted hunters to kill 266 wolves since November, according to Fish and Game figures.
The news only gets cheerier. Over half? The permits are already being issued, so I'm not sure what posting this here now will do for anyone, other than bum people out. But I do think it's important we pay attention to what government officials (of various states like Alaska, much less the feds) are doing with taxpayer money, particularly when it results in unnecessary harm.
Japan Dolphin Day Protest - L.A. Report
