Archive: Press Release

Obi Sushi Stops Sale of Shark Fin Soup

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is pleased to learn that Obi Sushi restaurant, located in Northern Virginia’s Reston Town Center, has retracted their decision to sell shark fin soup and other shark dishes.

AWI President Cathy Liss said, “This is great news and it’s a perfect example of the importance of being an educated consumer. Other restaurants should take note of the fact that US consumers do not want shark fin soup in their restaurants.”

On July 20th, Obi Sushi restaurant announced their decision to offer shark fin soup and other shark fin dishes in “celebration” of the Discovery Channel’s Shark Week program. Immediately following this news, AWI wrote to Obi Sushi, asking that they refrain from selling shark dishes because of the inhumane manner in which the fins are acquired and the precarious state of the targeted sharks. After a follow up call the next day, AWI was informed of the restaurants decision to stop selling any shark dishes in light of the plethora of calls they received voicing conservation and animal welfare concerns.

“This is a significant victory and we commend Obi Sushi for their compassionate decision,” said Serda Ozbenian, an AWI research assistant who works on marine issues, “However, it is appalling how many restaurants in the US still sell shark fin soup, and we will work diligently to ensure that they all stop.”

In March, AWI began a campaign to uncover restaurants selling shark fin products by educating restaurant owners and diners about the cruel nature of shark finning. The AWI website lists names and contact information of restaurants currently selling the soup, urging consumers to voice their distaste to the management.

Groups Stage Street Theater Enactment of Navy Authorization to Flood World’s Oceans with LFA Sonar

This Thursday the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and Citizens Opposing Active Sonar Threats (COAST) will stage a colorful enactment outside the headquarters of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration Fisheries Division (NMFS).

The “LFA Street Theater Spectacular,” will mark NMFS’ issuance of a rulemaking and Letter of Authorization allowing the Navy to use Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar in over 70 percent of the world’s oceans for the next five years. Military active sonar has been implicated in a slew of marine mammal deaths and strandings and the groups are appalled that the Administration’s lust for military dominance is taking precedence over responsible environmental stewardship.

“Currently, the Navy is restricted by a court ruling in its use of this incredibly loud and pervasive sonar, but after Thursday, it will be able to use it pretty much where it pleases,” said Russell Wray of COAST. “In the trials for LFA, short-term tests were done on only four baleen whale species, who were exposed, for the most part, to lower received levels of sonar, yet the Navy and NMFS chose to dismiss or ignore significant behavioral reactions to the noise, and have improperly extrapolated those results to apply to all marine mammals in the world’s oceans.”

LFA sonar has a source level of 215 decibels (dB)—10 million times more energy than the 145 dB level that the Navy claims is safe for human divers. LFA sonar has a low wavelength and consequently can travel for many hundreds of miles, a property used by some whales in their vocalizations to communicate with each other over huge ocean expanses.

“The uncontrolled widespread use of LFA sonar threatens to change the make-up of our seas forever,” said AWI Marine Animal Research Assistant Serda Ozbenian. “We cannot let this milestone go by without making our disappointment in our government known.”

US Court of Appeals Upholds Illinois Ban on Horse Slaughter

Recognizing the will of the people of Illinois and championing America’s horses, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today ruled unanimously to uphold a decision by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, reaffirming the constitutionality of an Illinois law preventing the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

Immediately following passage of the new law in May, the state’s sole horse slaughterhouse, Cavel International, filed suit in federal court to challenge the mandate’s constitutionality. On July 5, the US District Court ruled the law constitutional and thus, enforceable. However, Cavel appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and horses continued to be slaughtered while the case was considered.

“We are overjoyed by the court’s latest decision,” said Tracy Silverman, General Counsel for the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). “The state of Illinois did not want to be home to the nation’s last remaining horse slaughter plant, and today’s court ruling signals an end to this gruesome industry in the United States.”

While this news is significant, Cavel still has two options remaining to challenge the ruling.  It can request an en banc review, where if granted, all judges on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals would reconsider the decision rendered by the three-judge panel, or it can appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court refused to hear a similar request by the two Texas horse slaughterhouses operating in violation of Texas law. Those plants have effectively ceased operations as a result.

“AWI calls on Cavel to stop stonewalling the inevitable by prolonging this cruelty via the courts,” said AWI Deputy Legislative Director Chris Heyde. “Each day it drags out this process, hundreds of horses are caught in the middle, paying the ultimate price as a result.”

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 503/S. 311), a federal bill to ban horse slaughter in the United States and the transport of horses abroad for the same purpose, is pending in the US Congress. Its enactment is now essential to ensure horses who would have been sent to Cavel are not exported for slaughter in Canada or Mexico.

“The American public has made clear its desire to close this industry down,” Heyde said. “That’s why AWI is proud to be leading the charge to pass the urgently needed federal law to ban horse slaughter.”

Ringling Brothers Will Stand Trial for Elephant Abuse

Today, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the federal district court in Washington DC issued a major ruling rejecting the last-ditch attempt of Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus to avoid trial over charges that the circus abuses its Asian elephants in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act.

The groundbreaking lawsuit, brought by the Animal Welfare Institute, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The Fund for Animals, the Animal Protection Institute, and Tom Rider, a former employee of Ringling Bros., alleges that the circus violates the Endangered Species Act by abusively training and disciplining elephants with sharp implements such as bullhooks, by intensively confining and chaining the multi-ton animals for prolonged periods, and by forcibly separating baby elephants from their mothers.

“The ASPCA is delighted with today’s ruling, which paves the way for the real case at hand: whether Ringling Brothers violated the Endangered Species Act in its treatment of the elephants,” stated ASPCA Senior Vice President Lisa Weisberg.

In its ruling, the Court scolded the circus for “wast[ing] a considerable amount of time and resources” of the Court and the groups by engaging in “dilatory” delay tactics over several years. The Court had previously ruled and today reiterated that the circus had repeatedly withheld critical evidence, in violation of a Court order.

“After five years of legal wrangling, we look forward to unveiling the curtain at trial to expose the suffering and death of elephants at the hands of the so-called ‘Greatest Show on Earth,'” said Tracy Silverman, General Counsel for the Animal Welfare Institute. “These magnificent animals will finally have their day in Court.”

In today’s ruling, the Court also recognized the important “public policy in favor of protecting the animals from unlawful harassment or harm.” The Court further admonished that “promoting the public interest in the preservation of such species will remain an ever-present threat to those seeking to unlawfully harm such species.”

“Today’s strongly worded decision shows that the Court has run out of patience for Ringling Brothers’ stalling ploys,” said Michael Markarian, president of The Fund for Animals. “This trial will come not a moment too soon, as Ringling’s elephants continue to suffer every day from abusive discipline and prolonged chaining.”

The Court also rejected Ringling’s attempt to interject baseless counterclaims against the plaintiffs, and to harass the plaintiffs with discovery on irrelevant issues.  The Court ordered all further discovery to be completed by the end of the year, and a trial date is expected soon.

“We’re excited to move forward with this case and hope the spotlight continues to shine on the use of inhumane chains and bullhooks and Ringling’s cruel behind-the-scenes treatment of elephants,” said Nicole Paquette, General Counsel and Director of Legal Affairs at the Animal Protection Institute.

The plaintiffs are represented by the public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal.

Facts

  • Witnesses and former circus employees have given sworn testimony to the US Department of Agriculture, as recently as October 2006, that behind the scenes at circuses, elephants are kept tightly chained by one front and hind leg and unable to move freely. In the wild, elephants travel many miles each day. There are reports of circus elephants being confined this way up to 20 hours or more each day. Research shows that this leads to psychological and physical problems such as arthritis, crippling foot problems, and behavior that is indicative of high levels of stress.
  • As recently as July 2006, undercover investigators have videotaped trainers beating elephants, contrary to statements that the animals are trained exclusively through positive reinforcement. The lawsuit alleges that trainers use a stick with a sharpened metal hook on the end (called a “bullhook” or “ankus”) to repeatedly beat, pull, push, torment and threaten elephants.
  • In a January 2005 e-mail, Ringling’s own “Animal Behaviorist” recounted to Ringling’s General Manager that she saw an elephant named Lutzi “dripping blood all over the arena floor during the show from being hooked,” after a handler “hook[ed] Lutzi under the trunk three times and behind the leg once in an attempt to line her up for the T-mount.” A “T-mount” is a stunt where two elephants and at least one person stand on the back of a kneeling elephant.

Timeline

August 23, 2007 US District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issues a ruling rejecting Ringling Brothers’ attempts to have the case dismissed, and permitting the plaintiffs’ case to proceed to trial.

October 2006 In response to a court order, Ringling discloses its own internal veterinary records revealing severe abuse at the hands of Ringling’s elephant handlers.

September 2005 The federal district judge assigned to the case announces that he will “incarcerat[e]” Ringling’s lawyers and executives if they do not turn over critical veterinary documents that were required to be produced much earlier in the litigation.

February 2003 A unanimous panel of the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia finds that the plaintiffs have standing to sue Ringling Brothers for its mistreatment of Asian elephants.

June 2000 Animal welfare groups file suit against Ringling Brothers in federal court in the District of Columbia under the Endangered Species Act to stop Ringling’s inhumane and unlawful mistreatment of highly endangered Asian elephants.

July 1999 Baby elephant Benjamin drowns in a pond when traveling between Ringling shows; witnesses state that he was evading his Ringling handler who had chased him with a bullhook.

February 1999 USDA cites Ringling after inspectors observe large rope burn “lesions” on two baby elephants Doc and Angelica caused by forcibly separating the babies from their mothers well before the end of their natural weaning period.

January 1998 USDA concludes that baby elephant Kenny dies after being made to perform by Ringling despite the fact that he was extremely ill.

Consumers Can Help Stop Shark Finning

The Animal Welfare Institute has sent letters of warning to restaurants in major cities that offer shark fin soup on their menus. In addition, the organization is working to expand its campaign from Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York City, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco to the entire nation.

“The movie Jaws may have encouraged beachgoers to look for fins in the ocean, but we’re encouraging consumers to look for fins before ordering food at the local Chinese restaurant,” said AWI’s Serda Ozbenian. “If shark fins are on the menu, people must raise an objection and look for somewhere else to eat.”

Recent estimates show that over 70 million sharks are being slaughtered for their fins annually.  Fins are typically removed while the sharks are still conscious.  Because of the high value of shark fins and the relatively low value of their meat, the bodies are discarded back into the ocean, where the animals endure slow, agonizing deaths.

Even the fins from threatened species including the basking, porbeagle, dogfish, gulper and hammerhead sharks are being marketed. Since sharks are top predators, their decimation creates a ripple effect throughout the marine food web, impairing the balance of the ocean ecosystem.  Sharks are particularly vulnerable because they produce few young and mature late.

The restaurant blacklist and a coupon with a message in both English and Chinese requesting businesses that carry the product to “Let Sharks Keep Their Fins…Say No to Shark Fin Soup” are available on the AWI website. As consumers locate offending restaurants not yet listed, they should email the names of the establishments to nosharkfinning@awionline.org.

Former Ringling Brothers Employees Bolster Federal Lawsuit Against Circus

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and others seek permission for three former circus employees to join in their federal lawsuit against Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus under the Endangered Species Act. The suit alleges that Ringling Bros. mistreats and abuses the Asian elephants it uses in shows all across the country.

Former Ringling Bros. employees Archele Hundley, Margaret Tom and Robert Tom Jr. witnessed elephant cruelty before leaving the circus last summer. Their observations reaffirm evidence previously described by existing plaintiff and former Ringling Bros. employee Tom Rider, which includes the routine striking of elephants with bullhooks, and chaining of the animals for long periods of time.

Hundley, who quit the circus because she found the mistreatment of the animals too upsetting, recalled an incident where notorious animal trainer, Sacha Houcke used a bullhook in an attempt to force an elephant named Baby to lie down. After smacking her with the bullhook repeatedly with no success, Houcke inserted the bullhook into Baby’s ear canal, and while holding the bullhook’s handle with both hands, he pulled down on Baby’s ear with all of his weight, causing her to bleed profusely and squeal in pain.

In describing an episode that happened earlier this year when an elephant named Asia defecated on one of the dancers during her routine, Margaret Tom stated that she “witnessed two guys beat Asia the minute she left the stage, hitting her at least 10 times with bullhooks, making her scream.”

Margaret Tom’s husband, Robert Tom Jr., reported that elephants are hit with bullhooks daily.  He described an elephant who bled from the back and screamed in pain from a beating that lasted approximately 30 minutes. The trainer exerted so much energy that “he would periodically sit in a chair to take a break, then return to the elephant and start hooking again.”

“These witnesses reinforce what we know Ringling Bros. is anxious to hide,” said Tracy Silverman, General Counsel for AWI. “We are pleased that these former employees have come forward to reveal what goes on behind the scenes of the big tent, and we are eager to present this evidence in court.”

The Washington, DC law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal is representing AWI and its co-plaintiffs, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Fund for Animals, the Animal Protection Institute and another former Ringling employee, Tom Rider. Trial is expected to commence sometime next year.

Archival document; for complete account, please see http://awionline.org/cases/protection-asian-elephants.

Michael Vick, NFL and Atlanta Falcons Must Do the Right Thing National Animal Protection Group Calls for Establishment of Humane Education Fund

In light of his recent indictment and guilty plea for charges related to dog fighting, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) calls on National Football League (NFL) quarterback Michael Vick to immediately surrender $22 million of his signing bonus back to the Atlanta Falcons. The organization in turn urges the Falcons to commit at least $10 million to an independent, self-operating charity overseen by AWI.

“These funds would not be paid to AWI or other national organizations. They would help establish a nationwide humane education and rehabilitation program for children and adults so we can lessen the likelihood that others will commit violence against animals,” said Chris Heyde, AWI deputy legislative director. “In addition to educating people about respect for animals, such funds would also be used toward local humane societies, SPCAs and other organizations that take in, care for and rehabilitate animals in need.”

Despite the majority of America’s outrage over this incident, little attention has been given to the actual crimes perpetrated upon the dogs in Vick’s “care.”  More discussion has occurred over whether Vick will play football again, or whether the Falcons can recoup money from his signing bonus to be applied to the team’s salary cap this season.  As one CNN reporter noted at the close of a recent Falcons press conference, “it sounded like businessmen talking about a business plan.”

Others have raised concern over why there has been so much outrage over Vick’s charges, while many NFL players have faced a litany of criminal charges, including murder, spousal abuse, and drug and alcohol addiction. While such a worry is valid, it is not a reason to overlook the brutal actions Vick committed.

“The public should hold the NFL accountable for its practices,” Heyde said. “Something is clearly wrong with our sporting industry when it is more of a crime to bet on a game than it is to murder one’s wife or pit innocent animals against each other for entertainment.”

Young people are exposed to an array of cruelty and it is well-documented that children exposed to animal abuse tend to become desensitized and commit crimes against animals and ultimately people. Fortunately, because of the current heightened public awareness, the humane community and the American public have been presented with an opportunity to take a positive step toward ending this cycle of brutality.

The dogs who suffered and perished as a result of Vick’s actions cannot be brought back to life, nor will Vick ever be able to fully redeem himself. However, he can do something that will have a positive impact on those who once looked up to him as a role model. Likewise, the NFL and Atlanta Falcons can begin to promote and foster humanity toward animals.  By doing what is right versus what is profitable, both animals and our society will benefit.

Animal Welfare Institute Condemns Illegal Whale Hunt by Makah Tribal Members

The Animal Welfare Institute is outraged by the killing of a gray whale in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by members of the Makah Tribe, condemning it as an illegal, cruel, and callous act that must not go unpunished.

“The American public should be aghast and angry that five members of the Makah Tribe have harpooned and shot a harmless, sentient and intelligent gray whale,” states Cathy Liss, President of the Animal Welfare Institute.  “This tragedy was committed in violation of Federal and State laws and we expect and insist that the state, federal, and tribal law enforcement authorities arrest, charge, and prosecute all involved in this incident to the fullest extent.”

Though not supported by all tribal members, the Makah Tribe, with the assistance of the US government and at taxpayer expense, has been trying to kill gray whales for erroneous subsistence needs since 1996. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has twice ruled that the government’s required environmental analyses were deficient and has prohibited the hunt, although members of the Tribe were able to kill one gray whale in 1999 in the midst of the legal wranglings. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is now preparing a more detailed environmental document and addressing other legal matters to facilitate future whaling by members of the Makah Tribe through a waiver process under the Marine Mammal Protection Act—the law enacted to protects all whales from harm by US citizens. In May of this year, the US secured—albeit illegally—a quota to kill gray whales from the International Whaling Commission the body responsible for the management of the great whales on behalf of those Makah tribal members who desire to kill whales.

“The US government must react to this brazen act of lawlessness and cruelty by terminating its current efforts to allow for future whaling by the Makah Tribe,” explains D.J. Schubert, AWI’s wildlife biologist. “AWI will be officially petitioning NMFS to cease wasting taxpayer dollars and demonstrate the seriousness of this crime by terminating its efforts to help the Tribe to whale and instead to permanently protect the gray whales, both resident and migratory, who inhabit waters in and around Neah Bay.” He adds.

Makah Tribe Whaling Chronology

1855 The United States Government (USG) and Makah Tribe entered into the Treaty of Neah Bay which secured “[t]he right of taking fish and of whaling or sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations…in common with all citizens of the United States.”

Late 1920s The Makah Tribe ceased whaling after the population of eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales significantly declined, due largely to commercial whaling. After the Tribe stopped whaling, its subsistence need for whale meat disappeared.[1]

1946 USG signed the ICRW and joined the IWC. In 1949 it enacted the Whaling Convention Act (WCA) implementing the ICRW and making it unlawful to whale in violation of the ICRW, the IWC Schedule, or a United States Secretary of Commerce.

1970 Gray whales were listed as “endangered” under the United States Endangered Species Conservation Act, a precursor to the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 1972 the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted prohibiting the unpermitted taking of marine mammals except by “Alaskan Natives…for subsistence, or [f]or purposes of creating and selling authentic native articles of handicraft and clothing…to an Indian, Aleut or Eskimo.”

1994 USG removed ENP gray whales from the ESA listing and began a five-year monitoring program.

1995 The Makah Tribe notified the USG of its interest in resuming the hunting of ENP gray whales for a “ceremonial and subsistence harvest”[2] and asked the USG to seek IWC approval for a quota.

1997 After submitting and then withdrawing a proposal for a quota of ENP gray whales at the 1996 IWC meeting, the USG submitted a joint proposal with the Russian Federation for 620 ENP gray whales, of which 20 were for the Makah Tribe. The proposal was approved by IWC consensus after the insertion into the ICRW Schedule of the term “whose traditional subsistence and cultural needs have been recognized.”

1997 A lawsuit was filed against the USG challenging the adequacy of the USG’s compliance with domestic law, namely the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires adequate and transparent analysis of federal actions with significant environment impact.[3]

1998 With litigation ongoing, NMFS allocated the quota to the Makah Tribe the 1999 season under the WCA. In the same year, summary judgment was made in favor of the USG. The decision was appealed.

1999 A single ENP gray whale was struck and landed. Later that year the USG ended its 5-year monitoring program of the ENP gray whales and concluded that the population should remain de-listed from the ESA.

2000 An appeal against the lawsuit judgment was successful and prevented the Makah Tribe from whaling legally until the USG complied with the law. The USG recommenced its domestic legal obligations and completed its NEPA responsibilities in 2001. A further lawsuit was filed in 2002 challenging the adequacy of the NEPA compliance and citing a violation of the MMPA.[4]

2002 With litigation ongoing, the USG submitted a successful joint proposal with the Russian Federation to the IWC for an aboriginal subsistence quota of 620 ENP gray whales, of which 20 were for the Makah Tribe for the period 2003 through 2007.

2002 After initial summary judgment in favor of the USG, the decision was overturned on appeal. The USG was forced to recommence its NEPA obligations and require that the Makah Tribe seek a waiver to the MMPA to hunt whales. Illegal whaling by members of the Makah Tribe was stopped.

2004 The IWC adopted by consensus a USG co-sponsored proposal to strike the language relating to the IWC having to recognize the “traditional aboriginal subsistence and cultural needs” of aboriginal subsistence whalers of ENP gray whales, that had been inserted prior to the approval of the 1997 Russian-US ENP gray whale quota request.[5]

2005 Members of the Makah Tribe requested a waiver to the MMPA. The USG commenced its domestic legal obligations under NEPA and the MMPA. The process is ongoing and may take at least a year to conclude, assuming the documentation is in order and depending on any legal challenges to the final decision.

2007 The USG submitted a joint proposal with the Russian Federation to the IWC for 620 ENP gray whales, of which 20 would be for the Makah Tribe.[6] The proposal was approved by IWC consensus though again the subsistence nature of the hunt was questioned.

2007 Five members of the Makah Tribe, including members of the Makah Whaling Crew and the Crew Captain hunt and kill a gray whale in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca.

[1] The 2007 Needs Statement submitted by the United States at IWC59 (IWC/59/ASW9) states the “subsistence benefits [were] reintroduced to the Makah community …in 1999.”
[2] “Chronology of Major Events Related to Makah Tribal Whale Hunt,” NMFS Northwest Regional Office.
[3] Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2000) on appeal.
[4] Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 500 (9th Cir. 2004) on appeal, after two refusals by the court to allow defendants requests for en banc review.
[5] Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission, Sorrento, Italy. 2004.
[6] Chair’s Summary Report of the 59th Annual Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, May 2007

Bison Protection Advocates Ask Agencies to Suspend Bison Hunt

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC), and Mr. Walt Farmer, a Jackson, WY area resident have asked the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to immediately suspend the bison hunt on the National Elk Refuge (NER) which began on September 15th. In their eleven-page letter to the agencies, a number of federal and state laws and related procedural requirements that have been overlooked or ignored in their great haste to allow hunters to kill bison on the refuge are identified. Two bison were killed during the first weekend of the three-month long hunt.

“It’s bad enough that the agencies have elected to turn a refuge where bison have been fed and protected for over 15 years into a killing ground,” states D.J. Schubert, AWI’s wildlife biologist. “It is worse when the agencies have failed to comply with existing law, ignored their own directives, and manipulated procedures to expedite hunter access to the killing grounds.”

Among the issues raised in the letter are a doubling of the number of bison to be killed on the refuge compared to the numbers disclosed in the management plan, a failure by the WGFD to establish a bison herd objective prior to implementing the hunt, and the misuse of an emergency rule when no emergency existed. Other legal, procedural, and policy issues are addressed including concerns about whether the hunt is “ethical” or can meet “fair-chase” standards.

The hunt is the product of a 10-year long planning effort after a previous hunt was halted by litigation. The final management plan, approved in April, allows the killing of more than half of the Jackson bison herd and increases the number of elk to be hunted but provides no concrete plan to phase out the supplemental feeding of elk and bison on the refuge. The FWS has been providing supplemental feed for elk and bison on the refuge for nearly 100 and 30 years, respectively. This feeding program has allowed the bison population to grow to its present size. Moreover, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates, as the FWS concedes, that the feeding program is the underlying cause of many of the alleged threats to the refuge and Grand Teton National Park; particularly wildlife disease concerns.

“The federal agencies have elected to favor politics over science and common sense in approving the management plan,” explains Schubert. “Their need to placate the WGFD and decision to capitulate to the state’s demands will only serve to prolong the problems and increase the threats posed by supplemental feeding.”

AWI is one of this nation’s oldest animal protection organizations dedicated to reducing the sum total of pain and fear inflicted on animals by humans. BFC is based in West Yellowstone, Montana and is the only group working in the field everyday to stop the slaughter of Yellowstone’s wild free-roaming buffalo.

Illinois Legislation Banning Double Deckers

In response to the recent death of 18 young Belgian draft horses, Illinois State Reps. Bob Molaro and JoAnn Osmond have introduced legislation to ban the use of double-decker trucks to transport horses in the state.

“We commend Representative Molaro and Representative Osmond for their leadership in protecting America’s horses,” said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director of the Animal Welfare Institute. “It is a shame that it took a tragedy such as this for a ban to be considered, but when enacted other horses will be protected from this tragic fate.”

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States added, “What a gory mess we saw recently in Illinois. It must never happen again, and the best way to achieve that result is to enact this legislation.”

On Saturday Oct. 27, a double decker cattle truck carrying 59 horses overturned when the driver ran a red light and hit another vehicle. Eight horses died on the scene, and another 10 were euthanized. The exact destination of these horses is not known but it was reported that they were on their way to auction a prime spot for slaughterhouse killer buyers.

Double decker trucks are designed for short-necked species such as cattle and hogs not horses who are forced to stoop in the cramped quarters, many times causing severe injuries. A similar double decker accident involving 41 horses and a mule in transit to the DeKalb, Ill. Slaughter plant killed 16 horses in 2006.

Federal Legislation is currently pending to end the slaughter of American horses for human consumption and prohibit their export for slaughter in other countries.