Heber Wild Horse Territory

We have learned that the US Forest Service plans to remove 400 wild Arizona horses from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Eastern Arizona and sell them at auction in Sun Valley, near Holbrook, Ariz. Most or all of the 400 horses, including mares and foals, will go to slaughter. The agency intends to accept a final bid on gathering these horses from their territory no later than Sept. 8, 2005. Its officials will then authorize the contractor to begin rounding up or trapping the horses as soon as 10 days after the contract is awarded.

The horses currently live in the protected Heber Wild Horse Territory, a 14,000-acre habitat within the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest that was designated under the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Documents provided to In Defense of Animals (IDA) by the Forest Service claim the agency removed the last horses from the Heber Territory in 1993 and that all 400 horses it currently plans to capture are “trespass” horses who came from the Apache reservation during the Rodeo-Chediski fire in summer 2002.

The Forest Service asserts that because the horses are not native, it may impound and sell them at auction. The agency says it is exempt from the requirements of overseeing an Environmental Impact Study, issuing a decision memo and submitting the removal plan for public comment. Yet based upon our investigation to date, most are unbranded free-roaming horses in a protected territory—and therefore covered under the 1971 law.

In a letter to IDA, a Forest Service official wrote that the horses are being removed because they interfere with efforts to reestablish vegetation in the area damaged by the Rodeo-Chediski fire. However, the same letter indicated tall grasses from the reseeding project had lured the horses, and local residents report the grasses have never before been so tall and lush. We suspect the real motivation for the horses’ removal originates from a June 2005 report from the Senate Appropriations Committee to Congress, instructing Arizona and other western states to use additional public land for grazing contracts.

We have retained an attorney and have asked the Forest Service to stop the removal of the horses—or we will seek court intervention.

Man Hauling Horses To Slaughter Charged With Animal Cruelty

Just days after a committee of the US House of Representatives tried to kill legislation aimed at curtailing commercial horse slaughter in the United States, a Mississippi man hauling 19 horses to a Texas slaughterhouse has been charged with animal cruelty involving horses in Arkansas.

Bryan Morgan of Belmont, MS was charged with five counts of animal cruelty under Arkansas state law in Texarkana this week after eyewitness testimony, photographs and video showed 19 horses being transported in a single trailer to the BelTex slaughterhouse in Fort Worth were badly injured and abused.

“This only further demonstrates the immediate need for my legislation to be passed and signed into law,” said Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY), who with Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) is leading the fight to outlaw horse slaughter. “This is a perfect example of why I am so committed to seeing an end to this brutal practice as quickly as possible.”

Although it is what one congressional witness, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, called “America’s dirty little secret,” some 90,000 horses are hauled to three US slaughterhouses in Texas and Illinois each year and butchered for human consumption, with the meat exported to Europe and Asia and sold as a delicacy in high end restaurants.

“If there were any doubt that the horse slaughter industry leads to cruelty and abuse of horses, this erases it with graphic reality,” said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), based in Washington, DC. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 503) is scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives in early September.

In the Arkansas case, Morgan picked up the horses in Mississippi and was driving to Fort Worth when the trailer he was pulling blew two tires and forced him to stop in Texarkana for repairs. Employees at the shop called local police after noticing several horses had abrasions and marks across their faces and bodies, including one with facial gashes and swollen eyes.

“It looked like someone took a baseball bat and beat the hell out of the horse,” said Greg Fett, manager of GCR Tires in Texarkana.

Twenty citations for animal cruelty were initially written by local police, after which Morgan was allowed to drive the horses on to the slaughterhouse. This incident illustrates how woefully inadequate the regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are in ensuring the humane treatment of horses being transported to slaughter facilities.

“The local police in Texarkana were particularly diligent in this situation,” said AWI general counsel Tracy Silverman. “Often we just never hear about these cases and thankfully responsible citizens alerted authorities to the severely injured animals.”

At a hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on July 28, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) condemned the legislation that would stop commercial horse slaughter as an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of horse owners. The committee allowed the bill to go to the House floor for a vote, but only after deriding it as unnecessary and unfair to horse owners.

AWI will assist in the prosecution of Morgan and is filing a formal complaint with the USDA against Robbie Solomon of Belmont, MS, the owner and shipper of the horses, for violating several federal regulations regarding the commercial transportation of horses to slaughter.

New Food Seal Sets Highest Standards for Humane Treatment of Farm Animals

The Animal Welfare Approved standards prohibit cruel conditions and practices that other labels allow. The animals breathe fresh, clean air, instead of fumes from their own waste and grow naturally without pain and deformities caused by unnatural breeding for fast growth.

Comparison of Different Farming Systems

Only family farms can earn our seal. Families who own, labor on and earn a meaningful livelihood from their farms have a true commitment and connection to their animals that is lost on factory farms managed by distant, corporate owners and run by hired hands. Furthermore, unlike other labeling programs, Animal Welfare Approved requires farmers to raise all animals of an approved species according to high welfare standards.

Animal Welfare Approved also prohibits the liquefaction of manure to help ensure that animals breathe fresh, clean air, instead of fumes from their own gaseous waste, to prevent pollution of wildlife habitat from leakage and spills of liquefied manure and to reduce unnecessary consumption of a most precious natural resource, water.

Reviewed by veterinarians, farmers and scientific experts in animal behavior and rooted in the Animal Welfare Institute’s 55-year track record of reducing the pain and fear inflicted on animals, the Animal Welfare Approved standards give careful thought to the needs of animals.

While many specialty product labels are created with the economic interests of agribusiness in mind, the Animal Welfare Approved seal is a non-profit endorsement that prioritizes the well-being of animals and the sustainability of humane, independent family farms. Furthermore, in order to maintain independence there are no fees or royalties for participating in the Animal Welfare Approved program. Advisors and auditors are provided by Animal Welfare Approved, free of charge. The only requirement is upholding the high standards set by the Animal Welfare Approved program.

Conservationists Call on Interior Dpt. to Cancel Illegal Black Bear Hunt

Today, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), In Defense of Animals (IDA), the American Environment Foundation (AEF), and two individuals asked the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the US Department of the Interior in a 14-page letter to cancel an illegal black bear hunt scheduled for Dec.1 and 2 in the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.

The letter includes substantive evidence that the FWS has failed to comply with proper procedures and has ignored its duties under federal law to evaluate the environmental impacts of the hunt. As part of a cover up, they note, the agency failed to reveal that the two black bear studies it relies on to justify the hunt both recommended that no hunt be allowed until and unless additional studies are conducted. The author of one study indicated that a bear hunt could exacerbate a loss of genetic diversity. According to these studies, the Refuge’s bear population is already threatened by genetic concerns, as well as habitat destruction and fragmentation outside its bounds.

“There is no question that the hunt violates federal law, so we expect the FWS to cancel it immediately,” said IDA Communications Director Kristie Phelps.

Bears have been protected in the Great Dismal Swamp since the Refuge was established in 1974.

James D. Parker, American Environment Foundation President stated, “Though the FWS claims to have authorized bear hunting in 1998, evidence documented in our submission demonstrates that the agency never legally approved a bear hunt.”

“The FWS is engaged in an intentional game of hide and seek, withholding critical information about the Refuge’s bears from the public, while seeking to implement an illegal hunt,” said AWI Wildlife Biologist D.J. Schubert. “These bears must be protected to ensure their existence in the face of habitat loss and genetic decline.”

AWI and AEF are headquartered in Va. and IDA is based in San Rafael, Calif.

Great Dismal Bear Hunt on National Wildlife

In an 8-page letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) delivered today, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and In Defense of Animals (IDA) questioned the legality of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge’s black bear hunt. In addition to condemning the 2007 hunt which is set to begin tomorrow the groups requested that the FWS agree to the preparation of a new environmental impact review prior to deciding on whether to conduct a hunt in 2008.

“We are asking the US Fish and Wildlife Service to take a step back and simply agree to subject the refuge bear hunt to a new environmental analysis as required by federal law to address the legal deficiencies inherent to the current hunt,” states D.J. Schubert, AWI’s Wildlife Biologist. “We believe the evidence, if fully disclosed and objectively evaluated, will demonstrate that this hunt is unnecessary and harmful to the refuge bear population.”

The letter documented the legal inadequacies inherent to the current black bear hunt including the failure of the FWS to properly authorize bear hunting on the refuge and its woeful analysis of the environmental impacts of the hunt. Its current analysis provided virtually no substantive assessment of the impacts of the hunt in blatant violation of federal law.

The 2007 hunt is only the second year that bear hunting has ever been allowed on the refuge. A lawsuit to stop the 2006 hunt was unsuccessful but, fortunately, not a single bear was killed during the two-day hunt last year. The 2007 hunt may result in the death of up to 20 bears.

“Recreational hunting has no place on America’s national wildlife refuges which should be sanctuaries for wildlife—not shooting arcades for hunters,” explains Elliot M. Katz, DVM, IDA’s President. “Considering the myriad threats to the Great Dismal Swamp bears as a result of off-refuge development pressures, the government should be protecting not persecuting these bears simply to provide a recreational opportunity for hunters.”

A copy of the 8-page letter is available at http://www.vabear.org/letter or can be obtained by contacting D.J. Schubert of AWI via e-mail at dj@awionline.org.

Whales Need US: More than 50 members of Congress and 20 Conservation Groups Call for U.S. Leadership to Protect Whales

The “Whales Need US” coalition, an unprecedented joint effort of 20 US-based environmental, conservation and animal welfare organizations, representing more than 15 million people, today urged the Bush Administration to intensify its efforts to end commercial whaling.

New US poll results on attitudes toward whaling show the vast majority of the American public opposes commercial whaling and supports greater protection for whales, while polling data from Japan shows that a sizeable majority of the Japanese public do not support whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. A national survey of 1000 registered voters conducted on behalf of IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) by Market Strategies, Inc., in late March found:

  • 78% oppose commercial whaling
  • 78% are concerned about the hunting of whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
  • 59% would be more likely to vote for a Presidential candidate who took a firm stand against Japanese whaling
  • More than 50% would be willing to stop buying Japanese products to convince the Japanese Government to stop its scientific research whaling

In a related initiative, the coalition praised the bi-partisan group of 56 members of Congress, led by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W. Va.), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who sent a strongly worded letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, instructing them to fight harder for whale conservation and against commercial whaling at the upcoming International Whaling Commission meeting to be held this May in Anchorage, Alaska. The letter was also signed by the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), and expresses the views of the two committee chairmen with oversight authority of the US’s delegation to the IWC.

The IWC is the international body charged with managing the world’s whale populations.  A moratorium on commercial whaling was established in 1986 by the IWC, yet more than 20,000 whales have been killed since then for commercial purposes.

“With the IWC meeting being held on US soil for the first time since 1989, the upcoming meeting provides an opportunity for the United States to re-establish itself as a leader on whale conservation,” said Rep. Rahall.  “The United States has the opportunity to reverse the current trend within the commission and work with like-minded countries to safeguard the moratorium on commercial whaling and advance a strong conservation agenda that addresses the many and varied threats that confront the world’s whales and dolphins,” he continued.

The Whales Need US Coalition:

American Cetacean Society
Animal Welfare Institute
Cetacean Society International
The Cousteau Society
Defenders of Wildlife
Dolphin Connection
Earth Island Institute
Environmental Investigation Agency
Greenpeace USA
The Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International
IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare)
International Wildlife Coalition
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Ocean Conservancy
The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Sierra Club
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
The Whaleman Foundation
World Society for the Protection of Animals
World Wildlife Fund US

AWI Joins Lawsuit Filed to Protect Endangered Whales from Navy Sonar

Conservation and animal welfare organizations have filed a legal challenge to the US Navy’s plan to use high-intensity, mid-frequency active sonar in antisubmarine exercises in Hawai’i’s waters. The planned sonar would emit blasts far louder than levels associated with mass whale strandings and fatalities.

The Navy has announced plans to use the sonar in up to twelve separate sets of Undersea Warfare Exercises (USWEXs) during 2007 and 2008 in Hawai’i’s waters, including within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and near the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Attorneys from Earthjustice filed suit in Hawai’i federal district court on behalf of Ocean Mammal Institute, the Animal Welfare Institute, KAHEA, Center for Biological Diversity, and Surfrider Foundation.

Marti Townsend of KAHEA said, “The Navy is not above the law. Just the reverse—as a government agency, the Navy should be setting an example. Protecting the country includes following its laws, not skirting them.”

NMFS, the agency responsible for protecting endangered marine life, relying almost entirely on the Navy’s assessments, made little effort to analyze the sonar’s effects or require the Navy to implement protective mitigation, such as that to which the Navy agreed for the 2006 RIMPAC exercises in Hawai’i. The plaintiffs have sued NMFS as well, for violating the Endangered Species Act.

The Animal Welfare Institute’s Susan Millward commented, “It’s disappointing that NMFS abdicated its responsibilities by allowing the Navy to decide for itself the mitigation it will use.” Dr. Marsha Green of Ocean Mammal Institute added, “The Navy knows protecting whales is possible—it used more protective mitigation in the 2006 RIMPAC exercises than it plans to use in these.”

Read the complaint

Background
Hawai’i is well known as the winter breeding grounds for thousands of endangered humpback whales, but endangered blue, fin, Northern Pacific right, sei, and sperm whales also are found here, along with thousands of whales and dolphins of other species that will be exposed to the sonar. A whale’s keen sense of hearing is vital in every aspect of its life history, including foraging for food, finding mates, bonding with offspring, communicating with other members of their species, navigating through lightless waters, and avoiding predators. Exposure to sonar blasts can cause serious injury or death caused by hemorrhages or other tissue trauma, temporary and permanent hearing loss, displacement from preferred habitat, and disruption of feeding, breeding, nursing, communication, sensing and other behaviors essential to survival.

In July 2004, more than 150 melon-headed whales congregated in the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay, Kaua’i during the Navy’s biennial RIMPAC exercises. The whales had to be herded back to open water by volunteers, and a young whale calf was found dead. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concluded the Navy’s sonar transmissions were a “plausible, if not likely, contributing factor to the animals entering and remaining in the bay.” The Navy’s 2006 RIMPAC war games were halted by a court-ordered temporary restraining order, and the Navy agreed to implement mitigation measures. The Navy has failed to include most of that mitigation in the upcoming exercises. The Navy’s USWEX exercises will occur in addition to the 2008 RIMPAC war games.

Use of military sonar has been associated with strandings not only on Kaua’i, but in Greece (1996), the Bahamas (2000), Madeira (2000), Vieques (1998, 2002), the Canary Islands (2002, 2004), the northwest coast of the US (2003), and Spain (2006). Necropsies performed on whales stranded in the Bahamas and the Canary Islands (2002) revealed hemorrhaging around the brain and in other organs, most likely due to acoustic trauma from the use of high intensity sonar. The Navy itself concluded that for the Bahamas stranding “an acoustic… injury…caused the animals to strand…and subsequently die…”, and a report commissioned by the Navy stated that “the evidence of sonar causation [of whale beachings] is, in our opinion, completely convincing.” In 2004 and 2005, whales and dolphins stranded or died on the coasts of Australia and New Zealand, North Carolina, and Florida after use of high intensity sonar. The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, the world’s preeminent body of scientists studying whale populations, has found that the evidence linking mid-frequency sonar to the mass strandings and deaths of whales appears “overwhelming.”

The Navy acknowledged in its Environmental Assessment for the Hawai’i exercises that its sonar will reach whales at levels up to 215 dB – at least a hundred thousand times more intense than the levels at which the whales stranded in the Bahamas incident—and that the sonar will, at a minimum, likely significantly alter or cause the abandonment of the whales’ migration, surfacing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering behaviors. Recognizing it will harm whales in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Navy in January 2007 exempted itself from that law. The Navy nonetheless refused to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, refused to include protective mitigation, and dismissed as insignificant the impacts to thousands of marine mammals, including humpbacks nursing calves in Hawai’i’s protected nearshore waters. It also failed to comply with the coastal Zone Management Act and National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

Man Who Throws Puppy on Grill Sentenced to Three Years in Prison

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) commends the Honorable Thomas Cooper of the Richland County Fifth Judicial Circuit for sentencing 28-year old Adan Gonzalez to three years in prison for throwing Lady, a 12-week-old boxer puppy, on the burning hot coals of a grill last October. Lady was treated for severe burns on over sixty percent of her body but died a few days later.

Mr. Gonzalez, who lived in the same mobile home park as Lady and her guardian, pled guilty to one felony count of animal cruelty this week. He faced up to five years in prison along with a $5,000 fine under South Carolina law. In a letter, AWI urged the Attorney General’s Office to request that Judge Cooper hand down the maximum sentence.

“We appreciate the efforts of Attorney General McMaster and his staff in aggressively pursuing the prosecution of Mr. Gonzalez,” said Tracy Silverman, an attorney for AWI. “There is absolutely no justification for cruelty to animals and heinous acts such as the one Mr. Gonzalez committed against Lady in this case must be prosecuted to the fullest extent under the law.”

The sentence against Mr. Gonzalez sends a clear message to both citizens and prosecutors that animal cruelty should and will not be tolerated. AWI will continue to expose cases such as this to advocate better treatment of animals and stricter penalties for animal abusers across the country.

“Barbaric, Barbaric, Barbaric!” Vick Dog Fighting Charges Symptomatic of a Larger Problem

“Barbaric, Barbaric, Barbaric!” This is the phrase recently opined by Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, our nation’s longest-serving US Senator and last great political orator. Following news of charges leveled against Atlanta Falcons star quarterback Michael Vick, Senator Byrd described the tragic and gruesome practice of dog fighting in a heartfelt speech on the Senate floor.

Senator Byrd wiped tears from his eyes during his speech, symbolizing the revulsion felt by the majority of Americans regarding the allegations made against a supposed “role model.” The public is clearly opposed to animal abuse, and every state in this country has laws against animal cruelty. Yet, from the beginning of recorded history, some humans have treated animals as disposable pieces of property to use, abuse and kill at will.

When asked about the Vick case, Washington Redskins player Clinton Portis said, “I don’t know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it’s his property, it’s his dog. If that’s what he wants to do, do it. I think people should mind their own business.” This mindset of animals as “private property” may sound abhorrent, but sadly, it is used all-too-commonly by elected officials.

In fact, during a Congressional hearing just last week, a US Representative from Georgia derided a ban on horse slaughter as infringing on owner’s rights because horses are “private property.” And in a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives last year on the same subject, a Congressman from Utah dedicated his entire speech opposing the bill to the premise of protecting “private rights.”

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act has come close to enactment in the US Congress, but it continues to languish on Capitol Hill due to a few individuals who misuse the democratic process and tout the private property argument. However, private property does not confer a right on anyone to mistreat animals. People who mistreat animals must be held accountable for their actions without being able to rely on this supposed justification.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) calls on federal authorities to aggressively pursue the charges against Michael Vick and his three cohorts. Further, AWI encourages the National Football League to suspend Vick. AWI also urges the US Congress to reject antiquated and clearly out of step arguments regarding the most basic animal protective measures. Our legislators must set an example by leading efforts to reduce animal cruelty whenever possible.

US House of Representatives Votes to Stop

Once again, Congress has voiced its opposition to horse slaughter. The US House of Representatives today approved an amendment to the 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill that will temporarily bring horse slaughter to a halt by stripping funds from the federally required inspection of slaughter-bound horses. Without the inspections, the slaughter cannot proceed.

Introduced by US Representatives John Spratt (D-SC), Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Ben Chandler (D-KY), the amendment ensures that horse slaughter stops while Congress considers the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (AHSPA), a permanent ban on this abhorrent trade. The measure must now go to the US Senate for consideration.

The amendment is almost identical to one that passed overwhelmingly in the US Congress two years ago, with the addition of language to prevent the US Department of Agriculture from circumventing the will of Congress—as it did in 2005 when the slaughter continued.

More than 100,000 horses were brutally slaughtered in the United States last year at three foreign-owned slaughterhouses for human consumption in Europe and Asia. Tens of thousands more were exported for slaughter in Canada and Mexico. Currently, Cavel International (DeKalb, IL) is the last remaining horse slaughter plant in operation in the country. The only other plants, both in Texas, were effectively closed down earlier this year under state law.

A hearing on Aug. 16 in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will determine whether Cavel International will remain open or be forced to shut its doors, following last April’s passage of a similar law that was signed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

“Once again, when the entire House has the chance to vote on ending slaughter, support for a ban is overwhelming. Sadly, a few politicians and misguided business associations continue to thwart the Democratic process by stalling enactment of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act,” said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director of the Animal Welfare Institute. “I implore these individuals to stand with the majority of Americans who support a ban on horse slaughter and allow this measure to move forward.”

The American public, over 500 animal protective organizations, horse industry organizations and veterinarians all support the effort to end the slaughter of America’s horses. Congress must now pass the AHSPA (H.R. 503/S.311) to end the slaughter of American horses nationwide and ensure that they are not exported elsewhere to be killed for those who wish to eat them.

The Animal Welfare Institute applauds the continued leadership of the sponsors of legislation to end horse slaughter. The organization also commends Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) for supporting efforts to protect America’s horses from this cruel industry and those who want to exploit their suffering.