produced by: Animals & Society Institute
Draft Platform Wildlife
1. Many Americans value and appreciate the wildlife within the United States. A 2001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey found that 66.1 million Americans (31 percent of the population) fed, observed, or photographed wildlife.1 A further indicator of the public’s interest in wild animals and birds and their environment is the National Park System’s report of 266,099,641 visits to its parks in 2003.2
2. Notwithstanding the public’s widespread interest in wildlife, the development of public policy on wildlife issues is currently in the hands of pro-hunting and commercial interests, although these factions constitute only a small percentage of the population. For example, some state Fish and Wildlife Agencies require members to have occupational or organizational affiliations and seven states insist that hunters, trappers, and anglers serve on their commissions.3 This bias results in regulations and laws that protect the exploiters – not the exploited – and seek to position wildlife as a manageable and renewable resource to be harvested. Not surprisingly, public debate and innovative practices, including nonlethal methods of population control, are rarely considered by these agencies.
3. As the number of hunters declines (from 14,063,000 in 1991 to 13,034,00 in 2001)4 and public awareness of hunting as a cruel and ineffective method of population control increases, the management of federal and state wildlife agencies must be expanded to all sectors of society and primarily to serve the wild animals and birds themselves.
4. Other important issues to be considered in the development of effective wildlife public policy include the current trends in human population growth, urban sprawl, and environmental devastation. The U.S. population is projected to increase from 293,752,942 to 419,854,000 in 2050.5 The animal advocacy community believes that “smart growth” public policies that include coexistence with wildlife and protection of their habitat must be developed and implemented.
5. In order to minimize displacement and alleviate some of the worst ramifications of suburbanization in those areas where development encroaches upon habitat, the animal advocacy community promotes zoning and land use policies that establish substantial and contiguous habitat corridors that allow wildlife migration for food and mating without the need to cross highways or housing developments. Further, wildlife road crossings also help to reduce road kills. The network of 22 underpasses, two overpasses and 11 miles of fencing along the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park where deaths to hoofed animals like deer and elk have been reduced by 95 percent and overall road deaths to wildlife reduced by 80 percent since the 1980s.6 Utilizing a system of underpasses, overpasses and strategically placed fencing will not only reduce highway deaths but will also be effective in connecting habitat for all wildlife.
6. The animal advocacy community is increasingly focused on ensuring that wild animals and birds enjoy the legal protection that they deserve, by challenging
a. Lethal wildlife “control” methods (Compound 1080, snares, leghold traps, Conibear killtraps, aerial gunning, etc.)7. The effective enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and such international treaties as CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna) and the International Whaling Commission are critical to the protection of indigenous and nonnative wildlife. The animal advocacy community is alarmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempts to weaken the ESA with a proposed rule change that will allow and encourage the commercial exploitation of endangered and threatened species in the name of “conservation.”b. The killing and exploitation of wildlife for recreation, entertainment, and advertising
c. The killing of wildlife for consumer products
d. Private ownership of exotic animals and birds
e. The erosion of wildlife habitat
The U.S. Supreme Court observed in its landmark decision TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978) that the ESA is “the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.” The statute provides broad protections to endangered and threatened species worldwide by prohibiting import, export, “taking” or commercial use of these species. Exceptions to this general rule are limited; permits for activity that is otherwise illegal may be granted only for “scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species,” 16 U.S.C. § 1539 (a)(1)(A). The adoption of the proposed rule change (68 Fed. Reg. 53327 [September 10, 2003]) would reverse the strong legislative protections of the ESA by allowing permits to import, transport, and take endangered species in exchange for giving money or other unspecified activity based upon a finding that the “net effect” “will likely be beneficial” to the conservation of the species.
Further, the proposal has no mechanism to insure that the money will actually be spent for conservation once it is given to the foreign governments. This proposed approach will further commercialize endangered species and threatened wildlife, thereby setting a precedent that the United States approves the purchase of wildlife to be used for sport hunting, the fashion industry, entertainment, exhibition, the pet trade, traditional medicines, and other enterprises. As a result, there will be less incentive for range countries to focus on protecting habitat and developing industries (such as ecotourism) that would provide long-term benefits to the economy and the animals.
8. The animal advocacy community holds that human responsibility to wildlife is one of guardianship, not ownership. We therefore call on all levels of government to recognize the intrinsic value of wild animals and birds as a public policy issue by committing financial and other resources to partnerships with the privately funded, not-for-profit animal advocacy community in a long-term strategy to successfully address the following issues.
Animal Welfare Act
9. The Animal Welfare Act, which was originally passed in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, 1985 and 1990, is the only federal law that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. As such, it had the potential to protect many animals, including wildlife. However, animal advocates agree that it has not lived up to its promise because of lax enforcement and exclusion of many species. Thus it has been used as a shield by the very industries it was intended to regulate, who are able to claim that they are in compliance with its provisions. Further, because of its purported wide scope, it has served as a benchmark of minimum acceptable standards for other laws, policies and guidelines pertaining to animals.
10. The Act has not been an effective tool for animal advocates. Unlike the Endangered Species Act, it does not allow citizen suits, which makes it much more difficult for interested parties to sue on behalf of animals. Many such suits have been dismissed because plaintiff individuals and animal organizations lack legal “standing.” This is a matter of fundamental importance to establishing legal protection for wildlife. The animal advocacy community is committed to lobbying the U.S. Congress for amendments to the Animal Welfare Act that provide a private right of action to enforce the provisions of the Act.
Predator Control
11. Worldwide, conflicts between humans and wildlife are increasing because of expanding human populations and development and, in some areas, growing wildlife populations recovering from centuries of extreme exploitation. In the U.S., animal advocates are challenging a deeply ingrained reliance on killing wild animals who come into conflict with humans. For example, conflicts between carnivores and agricultural interests are still addressed primarily with leghold traps, snares, poisons such as Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide, aerial gunning, and “denning” (the killing of coyote pups in their dens). From 1996 to 2001, the USDA’s Wildlife Services division (formerly “Animal Damage Control”) killed 13.7 million animals in the U.S. to benefit agricultural interests.7 In 2002, Wildlife Services killed close to 100,000 native carnivores, including coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, bears, badgers, and foxes.8 Private ranchers also kill untold numbers of native carnivores each year.
12. Moreover, increasing conflicts between people and wildlife in urban areas and along the urban/wild lands interface has led to a growing business for “nuisance” wildlife damage control. Many former fur trappers have moved into this lucrative business. As with predator conflicts, urban wildlife conflicts are often addressed with lethal methods, despite the long-term inefficiency of this approach.
13. Growing public appreciation and respect for wildlife provide animal advocates with solid ground on which to promote and lobby for nonlethal solutions. We call on federal, state and local governments to recognize the growing demand for humane, alternative approaches to wildlife conflicts and to commit financial and other resources to partner with the animal advocacy community in a long-term strategy to successfully address the following issues.
a. Prohibit the use of inhumane and indiscriminate wildlife control methods for addressing wildlife conflicts, including leghold traps, neck snares, aerial gunning, and poisons.The Killing and Exploitation of Wildlife for Recreationb. Eliminate federal subsidies for lethal predator control.
c. Increase research and use of humane, selective, and effective methods for co-existing with wildlife.
d. Increase public education and awareness campaigns about how to avoid or mitigate conflicts with wildlife.
e. Require that state fish and wildlife, or natural resources agencies be representative of the population as a whole.
14. The animal advocacy community is working to end government-funded hunting activities on all public lands and to outlaw hunting, shooting, or trapping animals for sport. While trends suggest that these long-term goals will be realized, the animal advocacy community is currently focused on the most egregious hunting practices – particularly canned hunts (the killing of an animal in an enclosure to obtain a trophy) and bear baiting (setting out food or animal carcasses to lure bears and then shooting them).
15. We believe state and federal governments must fulfill their responsibility to end the most indefensible example of the recreational killing of wildlife by partnering with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objectives.
a. Ban canned hunts.The Killing of Wildlife for Consumer Productsb. Prohibit the removal of indigenous animals from the wild and their importation into the United States for the purpose of canned hunting.
c. Prohibit bear baiting wildlife on public lands.
16. Wildlife are killed for nonessential products, such as the trapping and farming of furbearers for pelts and other products. In the long term, the animal advocacy community is working toward a ban on the importation of skins, pelts, and other products obtained from furbearers, whether trapped or farmed, and a prohibition on commercial fur farming and trapping within the United States.
17. We believe state and federal government must address the inhumane and unnecessary production of fur and other products by partnering with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objectives.
a. Prohibit interstate commerce of steel-jaw leghold traps or fur caught with these cruel devices.b. Ban the anal electrocution of animals on fur farms.
c. Discourage bear poaching by prohibiting interstate or foreign commerce of bear viscera (gallbladders and bile) or products that contain them.
d. Prohibit the removal of indigenous animals from the wild and their importation into the United States for the production of fur and other products.
Private Ownership of Exotic Animals and Birds
18. The private ownership of exotic animals creates serious problems for the animals and their caretakers. Exotic animals have special requirements, including behavioral and psychological needs, a healthy nutritional diet, appropriate climatic conditions, and security precautions to protect humans and other animals. The animal advocacy community believes exotic, wild animals are not “pets” and should be allowed to live in conditions appropriate to their needs free from human intervention.
19. We believe state and federal government must take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and well-being of people and exotic animals by partnering with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objective.
a. Expand federal legislation which prohibits the breeding, sale, and ownership of large cats to include other exotic animals, including nonhuman primates.
The Erosion of Wildlife Habitat
20. Human development (population growth and urbanization) and such practices as logging and mining have resulted in habitat destruction and displacement of increasing numbers of wild animals. The animal advocacy community envisions a world which recognizes the intrinsic value of wildlife and their habitat, and we are committed to working with the environmental protection movement toward this goal. Further, we believe that such an appreciation must be fostered and maintained through education and legislation.
21. We believe state and federal government must take all necessary steps to end the erosion of wildlife habitat and partner with the animal advocacy community to achieve the following legislative objectives.
a. Enhance protections provided under the Endangered Species Act and preserve those already in place.b. Provide permanent funding for programs to conserve and protect wildlife habitat, open spaces, and natural resources.
c. Establish public education programs that celebrate wild animals and encourage mutually beneficial coexistence.
d. Support conservation projects to protect great apes from the bush-meat trade, habitat destruction, and other threats.
e. Work with government environmental agencies and not-for-profit environmental protection organizations to pursue legislation that protects wildlife habitat and highlights the benefits for wildlife.
f. Promote zoning and land use policies that establish substantial and contiguous habitat corridors.
g. Encourage highway overpasses, underpasses and fencing to reduce highway deaths and further serve as vital bridges connecting habitat for all wildlife.
Animals in Entertainment
22. Rodeos, circuses, zoos, “swim with dolphin” programs, fighting, racing, and other forms of “entertainment” involving animals (most of which are captive wildlife), frequently result in their suffering, neglect, and death, and always in their exploitation. Moreover, adults and children have been attacked and killed by animals used for these purposes. Animals who are put on display in zoos, forced to perform unnatural acts in circuses, or encouraged to fight one another in pits suffer severe physical and psychological abuse. Media undercover investigations routinely document the woefully inadequate law enforcement provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. Notwithstanding claims to “tradition” or “family entertainment,” assertions that these practices are educational are suspect. The inherent degradation of animals in entertainment hinders us from respecting these animals as individuals.
23. There is a growing consensus in America that the use of animals for any form of fighting is immoral and objectionable. State legislatures have enacted various bans on activities associated with animal fighting, specifically those connected to cockfighting. While only two states (Louisiana and New Mexico) legally sanction cockfighting, the federal Animal Welfare Act bans all interstate transportation or export of cocks for fighting purposes. Cockfighting is a felony offense in 30 states and the District of Columbia; 30 (different) states prohibit the possession of cocks for fighting; and 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit attendance at cockfights.
24. The animal advocacy community opposes any form of entertainment that forces animals to perform. We advocate converting zoos, wildlife parks, aquariums, and similar facilities into sanctuaries for rescued animals. We call on federal and state governments to recognize animals in entertainment as a public policy issue by committing financial and other resources to partnerships with the privately funded, not-for-profit animal advocacy community in a long term strategy to successfully address the following issues.
a. Ban cockfighting in Louisiana and New Mexico.b. Make cockfighting, the possession of cocks for fighting, and attendance at cockfights, felony offenses.
c. Ban the keeping of animals in circuses, roadside zoos and other similar attractions.
d. Prohibit the removal of animals from the wild for the purposes of public display and entertainment.
e. Make animal fighting a felony.
1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 2001 Survey.2 National Park Service Social Science Program, Public Use Statistics Office.
3 "State Wildlife Management: The Pervasive Influence of Hunters, Hunting, Culture, and Money" published The Humane Society of the United States
4 “A Dying Sport” published by The Fund for Animals, part two, p. 2.
5 U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin
6 Blaine Harden, “Saving Lives of Moose and Men,” The Washington Post May 3, 2004
7 Treves, A.R. Woodroffe, and S. Thirgood. 2004. Evaluation of lethal control for the reduction of human-wildlife conflict.
In press in R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.8 Statistics obtained from USDA’s Wildlife Services’ Annual Tables: “Number of Animals Taken and Methods Used by the WS Program, FY 2002”