Archive: Terrestrial Wildlife

AWI today filed an emergency petition to list the pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus) as endangered under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA). Endemic to Panama’s Isla Escudo de Veraguas, the pygmy sloth—the world’s smallest sloth—is critically endangered, with as few as 79 left in the wild.

On September 9, 2013, Dallas World Aquarium (DWA) attempted to export to Texas six pygmy three-toed sloths who were captured on Isla Escudo de Veraguas. Eight sloths were captured that day, with two going to a zoo in Panama and six intended for DWA, potentially removing a significant percentage of the remaining population. That export attempt was stopped by concerned citizens, animal advocates, and local authorities and the captured sloths were returned and released on the island.

This species is not yet protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) or the ESA. Pygmy sloths were first identified as a distinct sloth species in 2001.

DWA claims that it was capturing and importing the animals in order to ensure their survival, in case they eventually disappear from the wild. However, the species does not survive well in captivity, and no one has successfully bred or kept them alive in those circumstances. Nor had DWA consulted with other sloth experts about its capture, export, and captive breeding plan.

“Given what little information is known about this species and their diet, much less whether they can survive in captivity, it is absurd that Dallas World Aquarium would seek to remove a large percentage of the wild population to import into the United States,” said Tara Zuardo, Wildlife Attorney with AWI.

A successful listing under the ESA will help prevent future US imports like this one. In moving forward, AWI will encourage Panama, the United States, and other CITES member countries to support a CITES Appendix I listing of the pygmy three-toed sloth, thereby banning international commercial trade in the species.

The Animal Welfare Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, and Project Coyote petitioned the Obama administration today to reform the federal wildlife-killing program known as “Wildlife Services,” which kills nearly 1.5 million coyotes, bears, otters, foxes, birds and other animals each year without any requirement to disclose its activities to the public. The secretive killing—which includes aerial gunning, traps and exploding poison caps—has gone on for decades with little public oversight or rules requiring the use of the best available science or techniques to reduce the deaths of nontarget animals.

Today’s petition was filed with the US Department of Agriculture, which oversees Wildlife Services.

“Wildlife Services is an out-of-control, rogue agency that shoots, snares and poisons more than a million native animals every year, many unintentionally — including at least 13 endangered species,” said Amy Atwood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity and the primary author of the petition. “Despite calls for reform by members of Congress, scientists and the public, Wildlife Services is still operating without the kind of legally binding regulations that ensure transparency and accountability to the taxpaying American public, creating a free-for-all that should have been ended decades ago.”

The petition calls for the agency to:

• Develop regulations to ensure use of the best science when determining whether action should be taken against animals;
• Avoid killing nontarget animals, including endangered species;
• Ensure ethical treatment of targeted animals and exhaustion of nonlethal means; and
• Require release of reliable information to the public about the animals it kills.

A response to the petition is required by law; any decision is subject to review by the courts.

“For far too long Wildlife Services has run roughshod over America’s wildlife,” said Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote. “We call on the USDA to clean house and bring Wildlife Services into the modern era of predator conservation and stewardship by adopting rules that justify their actions and that allow for public input and the integration of ethics, economics and science-based ecology.”

Under various names, Wildlife Services has killed millions of animals since the early part of the 20^th century, targeting native carnivores like coyotes and foxes, prairie dogs, birds and many other species at the behest of agribusiness interests. The agency contributed to the decline of gray wolves, Mexican wolves, black-footed ferrets, prairie dogs, and other species during the first half of the 1900s, and continues to impede their recovery today.

“Wildlife Services has long ignored sound science in establishing its priorities, instead taking its cues from ranchers and other ‘cooperators,’” noted Carson Barylak, federal policy advisor at the Animal Welfare Institute. “The influence of these private interests has taken precedence over the ecological principles that should be guiding the agency’s decisions, and wildlife is suffering as a result.”

According to the agency’s own figures, which likely underestimate the total death toll, the agency has killed more than 22 million native animals since 1996, representing 476 different species. The past five years have been some of the most active for the agency, with more than 1.5 million native animals killed per year. The agency reports that it kills an average of nearly 4,000 nontarget native animals annually, including at least 13 endangered species, such as Louisiana black bears, Mexican gray wolves, wood storks, Hawaiian stilts, island foxes and roseate terns.

“Wildlife Services has contributed to the endangerment of several species, such as wolves and grizzly bears, that play pivotal roles in the food chain and have been the subject of extensive recovery efforts,” said Atwood. “The agency is a major threat to North American wildlife and must be reined in and held accountable.”

Wildlife Services employees routinely engage in unlawful or inhumane activities, refusing to fire or discipline agency employees who are known to break the law or cause animal suffering. The agency is also notoriously secretive, shielding most of its activities from scrutiny, and routinely covering up a substantial portion of its animal killings.

Lead petitioners include Center for Biological Diversity, Project Coyote and the Animal Welfare Institute. The Animal Legal Defense Fund signed on as a supporting petitioner.

A motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the unlawful killing of highly endangered red wolves caused by hunting in the Red Wolf Recovery area in North Carolina was filed on Monday, December 16, 2013, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, Red Wolf Coalition, and Defenders of Wildlife. The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) filed the motion and supporting memorandum on behalf of the organizations.

North Carolina is home to the world’s only wild population of red wolves. Red wolves bred in captivity were reintroduced on a North Carolina peninsula within their native range in the late 1980s after they were declared extinct in the wild. Once common throughout the Southeast, intensive predator control programs and loss of habitat eliminated wild red wolf populations.

As of July 26, 2013, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has authorized coyote hunting both during the day and at night with artificial spotlights within the Red Wolf Recovery Area. Prior to this permanent regulation going into effect, a temporary rule that legalized spotlight hunting of coyotes at night in North Carolina was in effect from August 2012 until November 2012, when it was suspended by the Wake County Superior Court in a lawsuit brought by SELC on behalf of the present plaintiffs.

Red wolves and coyotes are very similar in appearance, and red wolves are frequently mistaken for coyotes, even in daylight. In 2013 alone, 14 wolves have been found dead, at least 9 due to suspected gunshot wounds. Gunshot deaths have caused a loss of up to 10 percent of the wild population, and left no breeding pairs in at least two of the five counties within the recovery area.

In October, SELC filed a case complaint challenging the NCWRC’s decision to authorize the shooting of coyotes within the recovery area on the grounds that the NCWRC’s action is causing unlawful take (i.e., harassment, harm, hunting, or killing) of the red wolf in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act.

“The North Carolina Wildlife Commission has given the green light to activities which have led directly to the decimation of the only wild population of North America’s rarest wolf,” said Tara Zuardo, wildlife attorney with AWI. “If this activity is not halted, it is difficult to see how any sort of recovery can be sustained.”

To prevent wolves interbreeding with coyotes—another threat to the wolf population—the US Fish and Wildlife Service sterilizes coyotes who have territories within red wolf habitat. Shooting sterilized coyotes also harms the native red wolf population by undermining effective coyote population control efforts.

Today a coalition of conservation organizations sued the US Forest Service for failure to require permits and environmental impacts analysis for the advertised “Coyote and Wolf Derby” in Salmon, Idaho, December 28 and 29. The lawsuit seeks an order requiring the agency inform the killing contest sponsors and participants that shooting wolves and coyotes on public lands as part of the contest is illegal without the required environmental analyses and permits.

“Killing contests that perpetuate false stereotypes about key species like wolves and coyotes that play essential roles in healthy ecosystems have no place on public lands.” Said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. “The Forest Service is abdicating its responsibilities as steward of our public lands. We are asking the agency to comply with the law: require a permit application and do the necessary environmental analysis, including providing a public comment process, to ensure our public lands and wildlife are protected.”

The killing contest is charging an entry fee, advertising prizes for the largest wolf and the most coyote carcasses, among other award categories, and specifically offering opportunities for children as young as 10 to kill for prizes. Commercial activities like the killing contest are prohibited on public lands without a special use permit. An application for a special use permit triggers application of the National Environmental Policy Act. Highly controversial activities are exempted from fast track permitting. In contrast to the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) informed the killing contest sponsors that a special use permit is required. To date, BLM has not received an application. Hunting on BLM administered public lands as part of the killing contest is therefore illegal.

“Predator killing contests have no place in the 21st century,” said Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote. “Killing coyotes and wolves for fun and prizes is ethically repugnant, morally bankrupt, and ecologically indefensible. Such contests demean the immense ecological and economic value of predators, perpetuating a culture of violence and sending a message to children that life has little value.”

Lynne Stone, director of the Boulder-White Clouds Council, who has lived and worked in central Idaho for over three decades, said, “killing contests like this have no place in a civilized society and are an embarrassment to our state. Shame on the agencies for allowing these events on our public lands. It’s no wonder so many people view Idaho as like something out of Deliverance.”

Since 2011 when Congress stripped Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves in Idaho, the state has allowed nearly half of Idaho’s wolf population to be hunted and trapped each year. Since 2011, nearly 1,000 wolves have died at the hands of hunters and trappers. Science shows that wolves play a key role as apex carnivores, providing ecological benefits that cascade through an ecosystem. Wolves bring elk and deer populations into balance, allowing riparian vegetation to regrow, in turn creating habitat for songbirds and beavers and shade for fish.

“That the US Forest Service allows a commercial event that glorifies the killing of wildlife for killing’s sake without a special use permit on public lands is unconscionable.” Said Ken Cole, NEPA coordinator for the Western Watersheds Project.

Coyotes, like wolves, serve a valuable ecological function by helping to control rodent populations and to maintain ecological integrity and species diversity. Unlike wolves, coyotes quickly rebound when they are killed indiscriminately. Coyotes have no protection under Idaho state law.

“Such killing contests reveal a larger flaw in our nation’s wildlife management strategies where predators continue to be treated as vermin, including by those very state agencies responsible for their management,” explains DJ Schubert, wildlife biologist at the Animal Welfare Institute. “The scientific reality is that predators are immensely important members of any healthy ecosystem and their ecological role should be celebrated, not condemned.”

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) put the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on notice Friday that the organization plans to take legal action regarding serious violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with a massive deer cull proposed for Long Island, New York. The “Long Island Deer Project” is to be administered by Wildlife Services, a program of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The project involves the use of federal sharpshooters to kill up to 5,250 white-tailed deer on eastern Long Island over the course of 40 days, at an estimated cost of more than half a million dollars. The majority of this cost will be borne by federal and New York taxpayers, including a $200,000 allocation of state tax dollars to the Long Island Farm Bureau.

Despite the large geographic scope of this project and the massive number of deer proposed to be killed, APHIS has not prepared the required environmental impact statement under NEPA. The agency’s reliance on an 11-year old environmental assessment that was based on a presumption of killing 1,000 deer annually, and its failure to consider new science on deer management and non-lethal control, are brazen violations of federal law.

“Unfortunately, Wildlife Services’ decision to slaughter over 5,000 deer without complying with federal law is par for the course for this rogue federal program,” says Susan Millward, executive director of the Animal Welfare Institute. “Given such behavior, it’s no wonder this program has been subject to intense criticism by many scientists, members of Congress, and the public as it spends tax dollars to slaughter our nation’s wildlife.”

Established in 1931, Wildlife Services has used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to kill native predators, birds, and other wildlife species with little or no oversight or transparency. In so doing, the program has killed federally protected endangered and threatened species, as well as domestic pets; its killing techniques have also harmed people. Wildlife Services has a long track record of ignoring science, disregarding non-lethal alternatives to wildlife damage control, and evading or simply disregarding compliance with federal environmental law. The program has recently come under increased congressional scrutiny, and is being audited this year by the USDA Inspector General.

Click here to view a copy of AWI’s letter to USDA-APHIS officials.

As world leaders gather in London on February 13 to attend a summit—hosted by UK Prime Minister David Cameron and attended by Prince Charles and Prince William—to confront the escalating poaching crisis decimating the world’s iconic wildlife, 23 environmental, conservation, and animal welfare groups from 14 countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America demand a permanent ban on both domestic and international trade in ivory and the destruction of all government-held stocks.

Experts estimate approximately 50,000 elephants were killed in 2013 to satisfy the demand for ivory—largely from China. This level of poaching has not been seen since the 1980s. Without urgent action to end the ivory trade now, elephants may soon become extinct in parts of their range in Africa and Asia.

The poaching is also devastating rural communities, sustaining terrorist groups and armed militias, and driving domestic conflict. Tragically, more than 1,000 rangers have lost their lives worldwide in the fight against poaching over the last decade, with untold impacts on their families. The human toll does not stop there. Vulnerable communities are being exploited by traffickers and drawn into criminal activities, while tourism is being compromised amid the decline in security.

Over the past six years, enforcement authorities in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere have intercepted massive amounts of illegal ivory. In 2013 alone, at least 45 tonnes were seized. But considering that law enforcement experts estimate that 10 percent of illegally traded ivory is seized, far more has slipped through the net. Most of the illegal ivory is ending up in China to be sold as chopsticks, jewelry, and carvings. Japan also remains an important consumer of illegal ivory tusks through a government “registration” process, which every year legalizes tonnes of ivory of unknown origin.

Demand for ivory has been stimulated by two “experimental, one-off” sales approved by CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)—of 49 tonnes in 1999 and 108 tonnes in 2008, all from government stocks in southern Africa. Despite strong opposition by many non-governmental organizations, the 2008 sale allowed China to purchase 62 tonnes, fueling demand for ivory among increasingly affluent Chinese citizens, driving prices up, and facilitating the laundering of massive quantities of illegal ivory as “legal.”

“There is broad agreement that legalizing ivory trade to China and Japan has been a huge mistake. We need to learn from history and permanently shut down all ivory trade—international and domestic,” says Mary Rice, Executive Director, Environmental Investigation Agency.

A 1989 ban on ivory trade largely halted the slaughter of elephants by slashing the price of ivory and substantially reducing poaching—allowing elephant populations to recover. However, this successful policy has been undermined not only by the two stockpile sales, but also by persistent discussions in CITES aimed at legalizing trade over the long-term.

Reducing demand for wildlife products is one of the stated goals of the London summit on illegal wildlife trade. A parallel legal trade in ivory, however, will negate demand-reduction efforts. “If world leaders are serious about ending the illegal ivory trade, they need to urgently implement an ivory trade ban. This includes closing down domestic ivory markets around the world, especially in China and Japan, and stopping the ongoing debate about legalizing ivory trade,” states Sally Case, Chief Executive Officer, David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation. “Anything else will only add to the elephant body count, and drive the African and Asian elephants closer to extinction, fuel more conflict, and sacrifice the lives of more rangers.” The legal domestic ivory market in China is considered to be the greatest threat to elephants.

The elephant poaching crisis has not gone unnoticed by governments. In the last three years Gabon, the Philippines, and the United States have destroyed confiscated ivory stockpiles. In January 2014, China destroyed a portion of its stockpile. France crushed 3.4 tonnes in February 2014. And Hong Kong, a key destination and transit country for illegal ivory, is set to follow suit, with plans to crush more than 28 tonnes of ivory. Moreover, in an attempt to address the crisis, there have been numerous discussions and high level meetings held, new initiatives announced, and commitments and declarations issued.

Yet, the poaching of elephants will continue as long as ivory is a legal commodity, driving demand. “No amount of rhetoric, money, or enforcement actions will save elephants unless there is an immediate, permanent, and comprehensive ban on the trade in ivory,” declares Charlotte Nithart, Director of Robin des Bois.

Supporting organizations:
Amboseli Trust for Elephants
Animal Welfare Institute
Ateneo School of Government
Conservation Justice
The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust
David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation
Eco Activists for Governance & Law Enforcement
Elephant Action League
Elephant Family
ElephantVoices
Environmental Investigation Agency
Foundation Franz Weber
Hong Kong for Elephants
International Ranger Federation
Last Great Ape Organization
Natural Resources Defense Council
Projet d’Appui a l’Application de la Loi sur la Faune Sauvage
Pro Wildlife
Robin des Bois
The Thin Green Line Foundation
The Tsavo Trust
WildlifeDirect
Youth for Conservation

A state court judge in New York issued a temporary injunction on Thursday to prevent new permits from being issued to kill deer as part of the Long Island Deer Cull Project—one of the largest planned deer slaughters in the country. The injunction comes in response to a lawsuit filed on March 6, 2014, by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and a group of local organizations in Suffolk County to stop the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) from issuing the permits until the DEC fully evaluates the environmental impacts of the cull, as required by state law. The diverse group of plaintiffs includes eastern Long Island citizens and conservation, animal welfare, and local hunting organizations.

“While this court order does not stop the killing, it does slow the DEC-led deer killing frenzy occurring on eastern Long Island,” explained Cathy Liss, president of AWI. “The court acted in a manner consistent with the law and we would now welcome a DEC decision to cease issuing permits, repeal existing permits, and subject its program to the requisite environmental review.”

The Long Island Deer Cull Project, devised by the Long Island Farm Bureau and the US Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services Program, calls for the killing of potentially thousands of deer over several years on eastern Long Island. Under the Project, federal sharpshooters using high-powered weapons would shoot deer over bait piles or potentially trap and shoot groups of deer using nets.

“As a society, we need to stop using bullets to address deer-human conflicts and, instead, use existing non-lethal techniques and seek out new strategies for living with deer,” adds D.J. Schubert, wildlife biologist for AWI. “We believe most citizens of eastern Suffolk County, knowing the facts, would be outraged by this slaughter. Yet their voices and concerns have been ignored by the DEC, Wildlife Services, the Long Island Farm Bureau, and the municipalities, which refuse to consider feasible and effective alternatives to wholesale slaughter.”

The temporary injunction issued by the court will remain in place until at least March 28, 2014, when a hearing on a preliminary injunction is currently scheduled to occur.

Plaintiffs in addition to AWI include the Wildlife Preservation Coalition of Eastern Long Island, Hunters for Deer, LLC, Long Island Orchestrating for Nature, the Evelyn Alexander Wildlife Rescue Center, Inc., and several individuals. The plaintiffs are being represented by Jeffrey S. Baker and Jessica R. Vigars of Young/Sommer LLC in Albany, one of the preeminent environmental law firms in New York state.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and WildEarth Guardians (Guardians) are suing USDA’s Wildlife Services program due to its lethal wildlife management activities, which violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) sent a required 60-day notice to sue on April 4, 2014, on behalf of the groups.

Historically, jaguars—the largest cat species in the Western Hemisphere—were found in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and possibly as far east as Louisiana. During the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, these big cats were extirpated from California and Texas, and nearly eradicated from Arizona and New Mexico. This resulted in an endangered species listing for the jaguar across a portion of their range in 1972 and across their entire range in 1997.

After years of delay, in March 2014, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for jaguars in Hidalgo County, New Mexico, and the counties of Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise in Arizona. Despite the designation, Wildlife Services currently employs lethal wildlife management techniques harmful to endangered jaguars in designated critical habitat, and has failed to consult with USFWS, as is required under the ESA. The groups are suing to bring Wildlife Services in line with the ESA.

“The presence of rare jaguars in the Southwest is part of what makes it such a unique and special part of our country,” said John Mellgren, staff attorney at WELC. “The critical habitat designation will help ensure that the jaguar does not go extinct. As such, it is important that we hold Wildlife Services accountable for actions that could harm jaguars.”

The fundamental purpose of the ESA is to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend for survival and recovery. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify a listed species’ critical habitat.

Wildlife Services is a relatively unknown (and ironically named) federal program of USDA that is responsible for the deaths of millions of wild animals each year. The program uses multiple lethal management techniques to target large predators in and near designated critical habitat for jaguars—including blind sets, baited and scented traps, draw stations, leg and foot snares, and M-44 cyanide capsule ejectors. Many of these cruel techniques routinely injure and kill non-target species. Wildlife Services is conducting other activities that jeopardize jaguar recovery, including pesticide application in the vicinity of known occupied jaguar habitat.

“Wildlife Services can no longer blindly pretend that jaguars do not have a place in the American Southwest,” said Tara Zuardo, wildlife attorney with AWI. “Employing indiscriminate, dangerous lethal control methods in known jaguar habitat is a severe threat to the species’ recovery and must end now.”

“For far too long, Wildlife Services has hidden the impacts of its lethal activities on endangered species like the jaguar,” said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. “Wildlife Services must immediately cease its activities in jaguar habitat and comply with the Endangered Species Act.”

A copy of the 60-day Notice of Intent can be found here.