Archive: Terrestrial Wildlife

ProTECT Act Would Ban Trophy Imports & Domestic Sport Hunting of At-Risk Species

The Prohibiting Threatened and Endangered Creature Trophies Act (ProTECT Act) was reintroduced yesterday, and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) commends Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Ted Lieu (D-CA) for championing this legislation.

The ProTECT Act would prohibit importing a trophy of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, as well as ban the killing of a listed species for a trophy within the United States. This reflects the values of American citizens, as a poll showed that 86% of Americans oppose big game hunting.

“Wild species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act are under a looming threat of extinction, and it is absurd to allow these animals to be hunted for sport,” said Susan Millward, AWI’s executive director and chief executive officer. “There is no good reason to cater to the interests of wealthy hunters when the very survival of these species hangs in the balance. Thank you to Representatives Jackson Lee and Lieu for introducing the ProTECT Act, which will ensure that species under federal protection aren’t further victimized by someone looking to mount a head on a wall.”

There is no credible scientific evidence that trophy hunting benefits conservation. Indeed, studies have shown that charismatic species are worth more alive as tourist attractions than dead at the hands of a trophy hunter. Trophy hunting can also hurt the structure and viability of already vulnerable wild populations: Big game hunters target the largest, strongest animals for trophies, and this can result in enormous upheaval for the surviving members of the group, disrupting social bonds and behaviors and having adverse genetic impacts on the population. Many populations of targeted species are already severely depleted due to other threats, and the 100,000+ animals killed by trophy hunters each year exacerbates the problem.

The ProTECT Act would also ensure that threatened and endangered species cannot be killed for trophies on canned hunting operations within the United States. Referred to as “shooting preserves” or “game ranches,” these operations allow trophy hunters to shoot animals within fenced-in areas. While it is generally illegal to harm an ESA-listed species, the operators of these ranches receive species permits from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to offer such species in captive hunts. These canned hunts perpetuate the market for imperiled species’ trophies, which can encourage poaching of the animals in the wild. This runs contrary to the fundamental purpose of the ESA, which is to conserve wild species—not endanger them further by encouraging the targeting of these animals for trophies.

Pygmy Three-Toed Sloth Proposed for ESA Listing In Response to AWI Petition

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has proposed listing the pygmy three-toed sloth under the Endangered Species Act in response to a 2013 emergency petition filed by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI).

The pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus) is the world’s smallest sloth species. On Tuesday, the USFWS proposed listing the species as threatened, determining that the pygmy sloth is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout its range due to habitat loss and degradation from timber cutting and development, overutilization by humans, loss of genetic diversity, and inadequate existing regulations.

The agency also proposed adopting a special “4(d) rule” to provide additional protections to the species. The USFWS’s proposed protections include prohibiting import, export, take (including capture, hunting, and harassment), possession, and sale of the species, and interstate or foreign commerce in the species by those subject to US jurisdiction, with certain exceptions. The USFWS is accepting comments on the proposal through May 28.

“Today’s proposal to list the pygmy three-toed sloth under the ESA is welcome news for this species that is declining due to destruction of its forest habitat, hunting, and commercial exploitation, including capture and harassment for ‘sloth selfies’ by tourists,” said DJ Schubert, senior scientist in wildlife biology at AWI.

Pygmy sloths were first identified as a distinct sloth species in 2001. Since 2006, the species has been classified as “critically endangered” on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List.

AWI filed an emergency petition in November 2013 with the USFWS to list the pygmy sloth as endangered, leading the agency to initiate a review of the pygmy sloth’s status. The petition was filed two months after the Dallas World Aquarium captured at least eight pygmy sloths in Panama, intending to send six to its facility in Texas and two to a Panamanian zoo, despite evidence that the species does not survive well in captivity. Concerned citizens, animal advocates, and local authorities thwarted the aquarium’s plans, but at least two of the captured sloths died before they were released back into the wild.

Biden Administration’s ESA Regulations Restore Important Protections to Imperiled Species, But Don’t Go Far Enough

The Biden administration has released three Endangered Species Act regulations that reinstate some critical protections for imperiled species and their habitats, yet fail to reverse many of the dangerous rollbacks implemented by the previous administration.

Announced Thursday, the finalized regulations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service restore broad automatic protections for threatened species while they await a more tailored set of protections drafted by the USFWS, and confirm that economic factors should not be considered in listing decisions.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is disappointed, however, that the administration stopped short of fully restoring the ESA’s regulations, which were weakened in 2019 under the Trump administration.

“Species teetering on the brink of extinction deserve stronger protections than the Biden administration gave them,” said Johanna Hamburger, director and senior attorney for AWI’s Terrestrial Wildlife Program. “While we appreciate that some improvements have been made, the regulations were not restored to their historic strength, which leaves species vulnerable to ever-increasing threats, particularly from habitat loss exacerbated by climate change.”

Celebrating its 50th anniversary last year, the ESA is hailed as the world’s strongest conservation law and credited with saving 99% of listed species from extinction. It was enacted to provide a framework to protect and recover species at risk of extinction—both at home and abroad—by promoting the conservation of ecosystems upon which those species depend.

The Trump-era provisions curtailed protections afforded to threatened species, allowed economic considerations to be weighed when deciding whether to list a species, significantly undermined the process for designating protected habitat, and thwarted the interagency consultation process by restricting input from experts best suited to determine how federal projects affect imperiled species.

Those 2019 regulations generated public outrage, including more than 800,000 public comments, and letters signed by 105 US representatives and 34 US senators. Ten states and the District of Columbia opposed the weakening of the ESA, as well as more than 30 tribal nations. The rules were successfully challenged in federal court.

In August, AWI joined other organizations in calling on the Biden administration to fully restore the core components of this bedrock environmental law. Unfortunately, the newly released rules still allow for piecemeal destruction of essential habitat, do not ensure adequate consideration of the full scope of a project’s consequences, permit offsite mitigation to compensate for onsite harm to species, and do not fully restore important expert consultation requirements.

USFWS Increases African Elephant Protections, But Misses Crucial Opportunities

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) commends the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for releasing a final rule today that provides additional Endangered Species Act protections for imperiled African elephants. However, AWI is disappointed that the agency failed to prohibit the import of wild-caught elephants for display in zoos, along with sport-hunted elephant trophies.

“African elephants are imperiled due to poaching, habitat loss, and human-elephant conflict,” said Johanna Hamburger, director and senior attorney of AWI’s terrestrial wildlife program. “They should not face additional threats from trophy hunters and facilities that capture and relegate them to a diminished life on display. Such captures serve no conservation purpose: No elephant brought into or born into captivity is ever returned or released into the wild. It is time to end the exploitation elephants for entertainment and profit by prohibiting all elephant imports.”

The capture and removal of wild elephants from close-knit family herds is traumatic for both the captured individuals and the remaining herd. Elephants are highly unsuited to captivity and inevitably suffer in zoos, which cannot meet the complex cognitive and social needs of the species. Even the USFWS concedes in the final rule that “[t]he best available information demonstrates that bringing elephants into captivity impairs their viability—they are not self-sustaining in captivity, and continuous importation is required for breeding purposes.”

Proponents of trophy hunting often tout its economic benefits and contribution to conservation efforts in range states. But studies show that these supposed benefits are vastly overstated, and trophy hunting actively harms the structure and viability of wild elephant populations, which undermines long-term conservation efforts.

Continuing to grant import permits for live elephants and elephant trophies sends the troubling message that the United States is not committed to taking the measures necessary to protect African elephants and provides other nations a justification for following suit.

The final rule does contain many improvements to current US elephant import policies, including (1) requiring exporting range states, such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, to provide information about their elephant conservation efforts; (2) requiring all US facilities receiving live elephants to be “suitably equipped to house and care for them” throughout their lives; and (3) by 2026, allowing non-ivory elephant imports only from countries with domestic laws that conform to international wildlife trade requirements under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Fauna.

However, protecting elephants requires bolder action, and AWI will continue advocating an end to all elephant imports.

Biden Administration Restores NEPA Regulations Critical to Battle Against Climate Change

The White House Council on Environmental Quality released today its final phase II rule updating regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), our country’s basic charter for the protection of the environment. This is the final rule in a multi-phased process to restore this foundational law, which was dramatically weakened in 2020 under the Trump administration.

The new regulations require federal agencies conducting NEPA analyses of proposed projects to consider their ramifications for threatened and endangered species and habitat, climate change, and environmental justice, while also requiring meaningful consultation with impacted communities, including Native American tribes.

NEPA was passed by Congress in 1969 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by President Nixon in 1970. Congress enacted the law to “promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere” to “fulfill the responsibility of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.” Over 50 years later, it still stands as one of the most important environmental laws in the United States.

The three basic principles of NEPA are informed decision-making, transparency, and public input. The law requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of projects—such as new power plants, highways, oil and gas development, and logging—and to explore alternative approaches to achieving their objectives. It also provides opportunities for communities across the country to voice their concerns about how these proposals may threaten public health and ecosystems. AWI routinely relies on this law to provide input on administrative rulemaking and engage in litigation involving wildlife management.

“Climate change presents an existential threat to tens of thousands of species,” said Johanna Hamburger, director and senior attorney of AWI’s terrestrial wildlife program. “Courts have consistently held that federal agencies are obligated to examine a project’s impact on climate change. We are grateful that the Biden administration’s new regulations codify this obligation and provide clear direction on how agencies must evaluate climate impacts during the NEPA process.”

In July 2020, the Trump administration finalized its NEPA overhaul, enacting new regulations that were inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the law. Unprecedented in significance and scope, these changes undermined informed agency decision-making, reduced transparency, and limited critical public involvement, denying the public the democratic process at the heart of the law. Decisions on certain projects would have been able to move forward without full consideration of their environmental impacts and without a requirement that a broad range of safer, more ecologically sound alternatives be considered. AWI strongly opposed the changes, submitting comments on two rounds of notices and testifying at two public hearings.

The Biden administration’s new regulations reinstate informed agency decision-making, transparency, and public involvement to their rightful places in the NEPA process. The regulations enhance certainty for regulated industries and the public by restoring consistency with decades of regulatory language, case law, and policies. This facilitates a predictable, effective, and inclusive process that allows the public to fully raise concerns about destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity, declines in air and water quality, and harm to public health, particularly in communities of color, which for decades have disproportionately shouldered the burden of toxic pollution in their neighborhoods.

Captive Primate Safety Act Would End the Cruel and Dangerous Primate Pet Trade (2024)

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) endorses yesterday’s reintroduction of the Captive Primate Safety Act (CPSA), which would end the cruel and dangerous pet primate trade in the United States. Nonhuman primates are highly intelligent and typically social wild animals who suffer enormously when kept as pets. They can also injure or spread disease to the people around them.

Sponsored by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), this bill would ban the private possession of nonhuman primates. The prohibition is narrowly focused on pet primates and exempts zoos, research labs, sanctuaries, and universities. Current owners would be grandfathered in and simply be required to register their animals to ensure that first responders and animal control officers are aware of the presence of wild animals in their communities.

“Primates are wild animals, not pets or playthings,” said Susan Millward, AWI’s CEO and executive director. “All too often, owners faced with the reality of an aggressive, active animal in their home will mutilate and isolate primates in an attempt to ‘tame’ them. As a result, these animals suffer permanent physical and mental trauma. The Captive Primate Safety Act would protect primates from this horrifying mistreatment.”

Primates’ needs are irreconcilable with the realities of captive life as pets. Even the most well-meaning owner cannot provide the special care, housing, diet, socialization, and maintenance that these animals require. Many captive primates spend their entire lives in relative isolation, compared to living in the wild in large social groups. They experience physical and psychological suffering when confronted with unrealistic expectations that they will behave like perfectly trained pets or even “little humans.”

Breeders generally sell primates as cute infants on the internet or through out-of-state dealers and auctions without disclosing that these baby animals have been forcibly removed from their mothers, often at only a few days old. As these animals reach sexual maturity, they become larger and more aggressive. They pose a serious threat to the people around them, as evidenced by the hundreds of reported injuries nationwide over the last few decades. Captive primates have mauled neighbors, turned on their owners, and endangered local police officers and emergency personnel, who must expend countless hours and resources responding to escapes, attacks, and cruelty cases.

Primates also pose a significant threat to public health because they can carry life-threatening diseases that are communicable to humans, including Ebola, tuberculosis, and the Herpes B virus.

“This measure protects both primates and people. Wild animals belong in the wild, not shackled and mistreated in someone’s backyard. Humans often are injured by wild animals kept as pets, because their deeply ingrained instincts resist domestication, causing them to be dangerously unpredictable pets. The Captive Primate Safety Act is about safety, but also basic humane behavior—ending exploitation of these human-like, highly intelligent, social animals,” said Blumenthal.

“Primates are not pets. Allowing these animals to be kept in private captivity is not just cruel. It puts our communities at tremendous risk as we have seen in horrific cases in Oregon and elsewhere. Enacting this bipartisan, common-sense proposal is long overdue to protect both primates and the public,” said Blumenauer.

“For far too long primates have been mistreated, exploited, and abused while also carrying deadly diseases which may endanger humans,” said Fitzpatrick. “As Co-Chair of the Animal Protection Caucus, I remain committed in working across the aisle to promote animal welfare, and I am proud to lead this critical bipartisan and bicameral legislation to prohibit the unlicensed, private possession of primates and put animal safety first.”

House Bill Would Ban Wildlife Killing Contests on Public Lands

Today, more than 14 members of the US House of Representatives introduced legislation that would prohibit organizing, sponsoring, conducting, or participating in wildlife killing contests on more than 500 million acres of US public lands.

Wildlife killing contests are organized events during which participants compete for cash or prizes by killing the most, the largest, or the smallest animals over a certain period of time. Each year, thousands of native carnivores and other wildlife—including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, raccoons, rabbits, prairie dogs, mountain lions, and wolves—are killed during these cruel, senseless competitions.

The Prohibit Wildlife Killing Contests Act of 2024, introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and other congressional leaders, would require the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Forest Service to enact regulations banning wildlife killing contests within one year of the law being passed.

“America’s wildlife play a special role in the natural environment and in a healthy ecosystem,” Cohen said. “Killing apex predators and other targets for what some deem ‘sport’ is both cruel and unnecessary. These contests serve no legitimate wildlife- management purpose and ending them is the right thing to do.”

“Wildlife killing contests are cruel events that have no place in modern civil society,” said Johanna Hamburger, director and senior attorney for the Animal Welfare Institute’s Terrestrial Wildlife Program. “Participants frequently violate the fundamental hunting principle of fair chase by using bait and electronic calling devices to maximize the likelihood of winning, and animal carcasses are usually dumped once the contest is over.”

“It’s shocking that these cruel and reckless contests are still allowed on our public lands,” said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “America’s wild carnivores are so important to maintaining healthy ecosystems. They deserve better than to be targeted in these thrill-kill slaughter fests.”

Ten states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington—have already outlawed wildlife killing contests within their borders.

“Most people are shocked to learn that wildlife killing contests are even legal on our public lands,” said Camilla Fox, founder and executive director of Project Coyote. “Killing animals for prizes and entertainment is ethically indefensible, ecologically reckless, and anathema to sound wildlife conservation and management.”

“In addition to being unethical and unsportsmanlike, wildlife killing contests run counter to science-based wildlife management policy,” said Jennifer Eskra, director of legislative affairs of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. “This bill would end this execrable practice and protect wildlife at a national level, something that 10 states have already done.”

“Wildlife killing contests have absolutely no place in our country, including on our public lands,” said Katie Stennes, senior program manager for wildlife protection at the Humane Society of the United States, which has conducted undercover investigations into these competitions in more than a dozen states. “These ‘cash for wildlife’ competitions, where native species are targeted, killed, and then piled up for photos and bragging rights, are unacceptable. These animals should be respected for their intrinsic value and their key role in healthy ecosystems. We urge Congress to end senseless, wasteful wildlife killing competitions once and for all.”

Additional cosponsors of today’s legislation are Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Cori Bush (D-MO), Gerald Connolly (D-VA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Grace Meng (D-NY), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Katie Porter (D-CA), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Dina Titus (D-NV).

House Farm Bill Draft Helps Domestic Violence Survivors and Their Pets, But Rewards Industries That Abuse Animals

The US House Committee on Agriculture will weigh in Thursday on the long-awaited, 942-page Farm Bill, a massive legislative package—reauthorized every five years or so—that serves as a key driver of food and agriculture policy in the United States and touches on a number of other policy areas affecting animal welfare.

The House version of the Farm Bill, released last week, includes one of the highest priorities of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)—reauthorizing the Emergency and Transitional Pet Shelter and Housing Assistance Grant Program so that domestic violence service providers can better assist survivors who have companion animals.

The draft bill as a whole, however, represents a huge missed opportunity for improving animal welfare and, in some cases, significantly undermines animal protection goals. Among the most damaging provisions:

    • Overturning the will of millions of voters in order to block state laws such as California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3, which prohibit the sale of animal products produced from animals subjected to extreme confinement, such as gestation crates or veal crates. Last year, in a significant and historic victory for animal welfare, the US Supreme Court upheld Prop 12, but the House version of the Farm Bill threatens to nullify this victory and harm millions of animals by preventing states from setting higher welfare standards for products sold within their borders.
    • Permitting the sale of uninspected meat from custom slaughterhouses, based on controversial language in the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act. Custom slaughter refers to facilities that are not subject to continuous federal or state inspection; they typically serve hunters seeking to process carcasses or others who want meat for personal (i.e., noncommercial) use. According to AWI’s research, these facilities are among the worst slaughter plants for humane handling violations.
    • Expanding the US Department of Agriculture’s Livestock Indemnity Program—which compensates livestock producers for animal injuries and deaths that occur during natural disasters and extreme weather events—without mandating that operations have disaster preparedness plans. This requirement was included in the Emergency Disaster Preparedness for Farm Animals Act, which was introduced earlier this year in the House.
    • Changing the law governing live dog imports into the United States, hindering rescue organizations’ efforts to save dogs from horrible conditions in other countries (due to natural disasters, war, or overall poor standards of care), and provide them with necessary medical care and the chance to find their forever homes.
    • Providing subsidies for the mink fur industry, a sector that has been in steep decline for years and poses a severe threat to public health. The draft bill would earmark taxpayer dollars for the mink industry to develop and expand into international markets, even though mink on fur farms incubate diseases such as COVID-19 and avian influenza, creating the perfect conditions for new variants to jump to humans—with potentially devastating results.
    • Undermining two bedrock conservation laws—the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—by curtailing environmental reviews, public input, and expert consultations on certain forest management projects. Such a move would allow these projects to move forward before their negative impacts on imperiled species and habitat are known.
    • Codifying the USDA’s reliance on “unrelieved suffering” as the standard that dogs must endure before the department even considers immediately confiscating them from substandard dealer facilities. This unreasonable and inhumane level of suffering is at odds with the definition of suffering in the Animal Welfare Act and suggests that immediate confiscation would not even be considered for other AWA-protected animals in similarly dire situations.
  • Failing to include a prohibition on the slaughter of horses for human consumption, despite overwhelming bipartisan support for the Save America’s Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act, which currently has 223 cosponsors in the House, directly builds on language included in the last Farm Bill, which prohibited the slaughter and trade of dogs and cats in the United States. The current version of the Farm Bill does not extend these same protections to equines.

“The Farm Bill presents an important opportunity to eliminate severe public health threats, cut tax dollar waste, and seek redress for unimaginable animal suffering,” said Nancy Blaney, AWI’s director of Government Affairs. “Sadly, much of this draft language rewards the biggest industry offenders; it should be called the Harm Bill, not the Farm Bill.”

Big Money Talks in Fight to Save Endangered Monkeys from Extinction

This month, a committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is scheduled to determine whether long-tailed macaques (LTMs) should continue to be classified as “endangered” on its Red List of Threatened Species, a decision that could either reinforce hard-won protections or ease restrictions for the lucrative primate trade.

LTMs, also known as crab-eating macaques, face unprecedented threats to their survival, and one major factor is accelerating demand from the biomedical research industry.

In September 2023, the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), an industry-funded, pro-animal-research lobbying group, formally petitioned the IUCN to strip LTMs of their “endangered” designation. IUCN classifications strongly influence protections afforded to listed species, including wildlife trade restrictions under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to which the United States is a party.

For 15 months, NABR has campaigned to ensure the import pipeline for LTMs remains open, arguing that the IUCN (a global authority on conservation issues) “did not reach objective scientific conclusions” when it designated the primates as endangered in 2022. In the peer-reviewed assessment accompanying the endangered designation, the IUCN warned that LTMs “will experience at least a 50% decline in the coming three generations,” or just over 40 years, adding that the “research industry needs to become accountable” for its effects on wild primate populations.

NABR is the mouthpiece for that same industry. Founded in 1979 and based in Washington, DC, the association received more than $1.3 million in member dues in 2021, the most recent year for which data are available. While NABR does not publicly disclose its donors, four of the five top donors to its sister organization, the Foundation for Biomedical Research, have all supplied, or experimented on, nonhuman primates. NABR President Matthew Bailey, a former legislative staffer on Capitol Hill, serves as president for both organizations.

“NABR apparently believes that when its industry benefactors have issues with endangered species protections, those protections should be gutted,” said Dr. Joanna Makowska, director and senior scientist for the Animals in Laboratories Program at the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). “The biomedical industry’s web of financial incentives must be scrutinized to fully appreciate how precarious the situation is for long-tailed macaques. These primates should continue to be listed as ‘endangered’ by the IUCN; it is absolutely essential to protect the species.”

In October, AWI submitted a formal complaint to the IUCN, raising these concerns and others in response to NABR’s petition.

Now, a new scientific study—the first to compare population estimates across multiple countries and regions—has found that LTM populations in the wild are indeed in steep decline. The research, published on May 24 in Science Advances, uses a new probability model to more accurately represent species abundance. The paper was coauthored by more than three dozen scientists representing many countries, universities, and conservation organizations.

“Our current estimate of approximately 1 million [LTMs] reflects a continuous decline representing an alarming 80% reduction over approximately 35 years,” the authors wrote. “The severity of this decline is further emphasized by the nature of the model, which overestimates the population … making the true decline possibly greater.”

Financial incentives, sound science at odds

The use of long-tailed macaques in research involves many conflicting agendas.

Dr. Henry Foster, founder and chair of Charles River Laboratories (CRL), helped establish NABR 45 years ago. He recognized the commercial value of maximizing the numbers of laboratory animals.

“If you read the papers, everything seems to have carcinogenic effects. But that means more animal testing, which means growth for Charles River,” he told The Wall Street Transcript in 1979. “So you can see why we continue to be enthused and excited.”

On its website, NABR touts its track record of advocating on behalf of its more than 360 member organizations, including universities, medical and veterinary schools, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. In 2002, for example, NABR successfully lobbied Congress to permanently exclude rats, mice, and birds from the minimal protections that the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) provides to animals used in research. (Rodents and birds comprise about 90% of all animals used in research.)

Among the association’s current members are Inotiv and CRL—the largest supplier and user of research monkeys, respectively. Inotiv’s chief strategy officer currently sits on NABR’s board, and CRL’s vice-president for global procurement served on the board until last year. Both companies have earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue related to the trade in LTMs.

The chronology of the industry’s attempts to influence LTM import regulations sheds new light on how far it will go to keep the billion-dollar primate trade pipeline open.

  • March 7, 2022: The IUCN revises its designation of LTMs from vulnerable to endangered, citing the legal and illegal trade for experimental research as a major threat to their survival.
  • November 16, 2022: The US Department of Justice unseals an indictment of eight people, including two Cambodian wildlife officials, alleging an international conspiracy to smuggle thousands of wild-caught Cambodian long-tailed macaques into the United States for experimentation. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) spearheaded the years-long criminal investigation that led to the indictment.
  • February 13, 2023: USFWS rejects a request from a company (name redacted by federal officials) to allow a shipment of long-tailed macaques, after the agency cannot confirm that the monkeys are captive-born.
  • February 17, 2023: The DOJ issues a subpoena to CRL related to its monkey imports from Cambodia.
  • February 27, 2023: NABR broadcasts a “crisis” action alert, claiming that 60% of the preclinical nonhuman primate models critical to “the pipeline for lifesaving medical advancements” were being denied import permits. The alert urges industry insiders to complain to federal legislators that the USFWS is creating a “disruption” in the “drug development pipeline,” and alleges that USFWS’ recent import denial represents a fundamental change to agency policy. In reality, the USFWS was simply enforcing existing US policy on a single questionable shipment.
  • May 4, 2023: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine releases a 248-page, government-funded report on primate research and supply that fails to discuss the industry’s financial motivations. The report reveals that more than 42% of US labs that use or hold primates are for-profit institutions. (A subsequent analysis by AWI found that in fiscal year 2022, CRL alone was responsible for nearly a quarter of all LTM research, experimenting on more than 16,000 monkeys.)
  • May 23, 2023: Inotiv and its subsidiaries receive a voluntary request from the US Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents and information regarding the company’s imports of nonhuman primates from Asia, and whether these practices complied with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
  • June 15, 2023: NABR files an informal petition with the IUCN challenging the endangered designation for LTMs. NABR states that it worked with “recognized, independent scientists” on the petition, but does not name them.
  • August 1, 2023: NABR, joined by two other pro-animal-research lobbying groups, announces that a coalition of 40 organizations is working to “protect” long-tailed macaques. The coalition includes Inotiv, CRL, and seven National Primate Research Centers that receive a combined $88 million in federal grants annually to experiment on monkeys.
  • September 14, 2023: NABR announces that it has filed a formal petition with the IUCN. The group’s release names just one scientist on the NABR “scientific review team”: Ray Hilborn. A professor of aquatic and fisheries science, Hilborn has received substantial funding from the fishing and seafood industry throughout his career and has authored several papers challenging the data on fish population declines. In its media outreach, NABR repeatedly references a recent paper coauthored by Hilborn that disputes the IUCN’s “faulty” assessment of long-tailed macaques’ conservation status. That study was funded by NABR.
  • January 16, 2024: Animal protection advocates and local residents attend a Bainbridge City Council meeting to protest plans for a 200-acre breeding “megafacility” to provide monkeys for biomedical research. At peak capacity, the $396 million complex would hold 30,000 long-tailed macaques — at least triple the number currently housed at any other US breeding facility — and employ up to 263 workers. Behind the project is Safer Human Medicine, a new company whose CEO was previously COO at Envigo and whose president and COO previously held executive positions at CRL. Envigo (now owned by Inotiv) made headlines in 2022 for atrocious conditions documented at a now-shuttered beagle-breeding facility in Virginia.
  • March 22, 2024: Masphal Kry, a Cambodian wildlife official, is acquitted by a US jury on two felony counts related to his alleged involvement in an international conspiracy to smuggle long-tailed macaques into the United States. Seven other alleged co-conspirators remain at large.
  • June 3, 2024: Envigo pleads guilty to federal criminal charges related to its management of the Virginia beagle-breeding facility, and admits to the government’s charge that “the conspirators established a business culture that prioritized convenience and profits over compliance with the AWA and the humane treatment of animals.”

AWI Grants Support Humane Strategies to Manage Human-Wildlife Conflicts

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) announced today the nine recipients of its Christine Stevens Wildlife Award who are developing humane solutions to human-wildlife conflicts and less intrusive methods to study wildlife.

The award provides individual grants of up to $15,000 and is named in honor of AWI’s late founder and longtime president, who dedicated her life to reducing animal suffering both here and abroad. Stevens founded AWI in 1951 to end the cruel treatment of animals in experimental laboratories. Inevitably, her work expanded to take on other animal welfare causes, including protecting vulnerable species, reforming methods used to raise animals for food, banning steel-jaw leghold traps, ending commercial whaling, and much more.

Since the grant program launched in 2006, AWI has contributed more than $1.1 million to support over 110 research projects in North America. This year, AWI received over 40 applications that proposed novel approaches to humanely remedy human-wildlife conflicts — from lead poisoning of raptors to deer-vehicle collisions — and developing new, less invasive methods to study wildlife.

“AWI is proud to continue our tradition of funding diverse, innovative research that uses nonlethal techniques to improve the study of wildlife,” said Susan Millward, AWI’s CEO and executive director.

The 2024 Christine Stevens Wildlife Award grant recipients are:

  • Dr. Nevé Baker, University of Minnesota, for using environmental DNA to monitor aquatic ecosystems supported by beaver engineering in agricultural areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
  • Dr. Carlos Delgado Martínez, National Autonomous University of Mexico, to install rainwater collection systems to reduce wildlife encroachment on apiaries in Calakmul, Mexico, and promote coexistence of beekeepers, birds, and mammals.
  • Katelyn Depot, McGill University, to test noninvasive techniques, such as motion-activated cameras and fecal sample collection, to monitor the diet of the tufted puffin, a declining seabird species.
  • Dr. Emily Fairfax, University of Minnesota, to evaluate the effectiveness of minimally invasive electronic tags in tracking beavers following reintroduction programs.
  • Dr. Myra Finkelstein, University of California, Santa Cruz, to determine if feathers can be used as a noninvasive biological marker to assess the health effects from lead exposure in eagles.
  • Anmol Karan and Shaurya Jain, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, to test the effectiveness of using low-cost biosonic and ultrasonic repellents to mitigate deer-vehicle collisions in Virginia.
  • Dr. Susan McRae, East Carolina University, to use scent lures to increase the effectiveness of trail cameras to noninvasively monitor eastern black rails, a threatened marsh bird species.
  • Dr. Valeria Vergara, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, to develop a collaborative underwater noise monitoring and mapping initiative to support the recovery of at-risk marine species.

Click here for more information about the Christine Stevens Wildlife Award and the 2024 winners.