TRENTON — New Jersey wildlife officials said Sunday that 591 bears were killed during the state’s six-day hunt this week.
The hunt, New Jersey’s first since 2005, is part of the state Department of Environmental Protection’s bear management policy.
Wildlife officials have said the hunt, which ended at dusk on Saturday, was needed to reduce a black bear population now thought to number about 3,400.
But opponents contend the policy was improperly developed.
Two animal rights groups-Animal Protection League and Bear Education and Resource Group-tried unsuccessfully to stop the hunt before it started.
But an appeals court refused to halt the hunt on Dec. 3, and the following day a judge acting on a petition to the state Supreme Court refused to grant an emergency stay. The lawsuit, which challenges the state’s bear management policy as improper, is continuing.
A similar challenge succeeded in 2007 and no hunt was held. An appeals panel found flaws with the management policy and ruled that the 2005 hunt should not have taken place.
Some 6,680 bear hunting permits were issued for this year’s hunt, with each hunter entitled to one bear regardless of age or gender. The DEP has estimated that as many as 700 bears would be killed overall.
West Milford Messenger December 16, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Kudos to Congressmen Dan Boren (D-OK) and Paul C. Broun, M.D. (R-GA)
SAOVA endorsed Representatives Dan Boren and Paul Broun wrote to the fellow Congressmen expressing their opposition to scheduling any floor vote on HR 5434 PUPS during the lame-duck session.
Boren and Broun wrote their chief concern is the manner in which PUPS broadly defines "high volume breeder." Under this legislation, small hobby breeders, such as show breeders, hunting clubs and dog trainers, who breed only a litter or two a year would be considered "high volume breeders" and forced to comply with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
Letter is posted on the AKC website.
Contact Rep. Broun
Contact Rep. Boren
Boren and Broun wrote their chief concern is the manner in which PUPS broadly defines "high volume breeder." Under this legislation, small hobby breeders, such as show breeders, hunting clubs and dog trainers, who breed only a litter or two a year would be considered "high volume breeders" and forced to comply with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
Letter is posted on the AKC website.
Contact Rep. Broun
Contact Rep. Boren
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Feds may delist wolves in 2011
U.S. Interior Department officials have pledged to members of Congress that the eastern timber wolf will be removed from the endangered species list sometime in 2011, though the move would still face legal scrutiny.
By: John Myers, Duluth News Tribune
U.S. Interior Department officials have pledged to members of Congress that the eastern timber wolf will be removed from the endangered species list sometime in 2011, though the move would still face legal scrutiny.
The pledge went to U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Thursday after she and other members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation had been pressuring the Interior Department to take action.
It’s the latest update in a decades-long saga over how wolves should be managed in the western Great Lakes.
In a letter to Klobuchar dated Dec. 9, Thomas Strickland, assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, pledged a proposal would be made public in April and that a new rule on wolf management could be final by the end of 2011.
“We now have a timetable that we didn’t have before,” said Georgia Parham, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman.
But agency officials cautioned that the proposal first must pass scientific review, be biologically credible and be subject to public comment. The end result would return management of wolves to state and tribal wildlife agencies and is the next step needed for states to allow trapping and hunting of wolves as they see fit.
There are about 3,200 wolves in Minnesota and about 700 each in Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula — many more than federal officials expected when the animal first received federal protection in 1974.
Full story at link
Related articles:
Black Bear Blog. In Wolf Wars The Divide Widens
By: John Myers, Duluth News Tribune
U.S. Interior Department officials have pledged to members of Congress that the eastern timber wolf will be removed from the endangered species list sometime in 2011, though the move would still face legal scrutiny.
The pledge went to U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Thursday after she and other members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation had been pressuring the Interior Department to take action.
It’s the latest update in a decades-long saga over how wolves should be managed in the western Great Lakes.
In a letter to Klobuchar dated Dec. 9, Thomas Strickland, assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, pledged a proposal would be made public in April and that a new rule on wolf management could be final by the end of 2011.
“We now have a timetable that we didn’t have before,” said Georgia Parham, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman.
But agency officials cautioned that the proposal first must pass scientific review, be biologically credible and be subject to public comment. The end result would return management of wolves to state and tribal wildlife agencies and is the next step needed for states to allow trapping and hunting of wolves as they see fit.
There are about 3,200 wolves in Minnesota and about 700 each in Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula — many more than federal officials expected when the animal first received federal protection in 1974.
Full story at link
Related articles:
Black Bear Blog. In Wolf Wars The Divide Widens
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Court case on pit bull ban as service dogs
Disabled veterans await court case on cities' ban on pit bulls as service dogs
By Kyle Glazier The Denver Post 12/11/2010
A U.S. District Court judge will decide whether Denver and Aurora must allow disabled people to use pit bulls as service animals.
Animal Law Center spokesman Kurt Holzberlein said the Wheat Ridge-based law firm represents three plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the cities of Denver and Aurora, which have banned the breed.
The suit contends that owners of pit bulls classified as service animals must be allowed to keep their dogs under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The plaintiffs filed in federal court in March.
Holzberlein said one plaintiff is from Denver, and another is from Aurora. The third is a Washington state resident who was planning to travel to Denver with a pit bull.
The Denver Council voted Dec. 6 against granting an exception to the city's ban for pit bulls classified as service animals.
Animal Law Center attorney Jennifer Edwards said the suit seeks financial damages against both cities, with the ultimate goal of allowing pit bulls classified as service animals within city limits.
"This isn't about overturning the ban. It's about getting Denver into compliance with the ADA," Edwards said.
She said two of her clients are veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who use pit bulls as service dogs: Vietnam veteran Allen Grider of Aurora and Persian Gulf War veteran Glenn Belcher of Denver.
Edwards said her firm filed for a stay in proceedings because Aurora filed a motion to disqualify the Animal Law Center as counsel on the grounds that firm members are necessary witnesses.
Edwards said this would leave her clients without representation because they cannot afford to hire another firm.
"We are in hurry up and wait mode," Holzberlein said of the current status of the case.
Aurora City Attorney Charles Rich ardson said the litigation against Aurora hinges on whether the city reached a "reasonable" accommodation for Grider, as the ADA requires. Richardson said the case could take some time.
"It's moving slowly through the federal court system, just like every case," he said.
Kyle Glazier: 303-954-1638 or kglazier@denverpost.com
By Kyle Glazier The Denver Post 12/11/2010
A U.S. District Court judge will decide whether Denver and Aurora must allow disabled people to use pit bulls as service animals.
Animal Law Center spokesman Kurt Holzberlein said the Wheat Ridge-based law firm represents three plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the cities of Denver and Aurora, which have banned the breed.
The suit contends that owners of pit bulls classified as service animals must be allowed to keep their dogs under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The plaintiffs filed in federal court in March.
Holzberlein said one plaintiff is from Denver, and another is from Aurora. The third is a Washington state resident who was planning to travel to Denver with a pit bull.
The Denver Council voted Dec. 6 against granting an exception to the city's ban for pit bulls classified as service animals.
Animal Law Center attorney Jennifer Edwards said the suit seeks financial damages against both cities, with the ultimate goal of allowing pit bulls classified as service animals within city limits.
"This isn't about overturning the ban. It's about getting Denver into compliance with the ADA," Edwards said.
She said two of her clients are veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder who use pit bulls as service dogs: Vietnam veteran Allen Grider of Aurora and Persian Gulf War veteran Glenn Belcher of Denver.
Edwards said her firm filed for a stay in proceedings because Aurora filed a motion to disqualify the Animal Law Center as counsel on the grounds that firm members are necessary witnesses.
Edwards said this would leave her clients without representation because they cannot afford to hire another firm.
"We are in hurry up and wait mode," Holzberlein said of the current status of the case.
Aurora City Attorney Charles Rich ardson said the litigation against Aurora hinges on whether the city reached a "reasonable" accommodation for Grider, as the ADA requires. Richardson said the case could take some time.
"It's moving slowly through the federal court system, just like every case," he said.
Kyle Glazier: 303-954-1638 or kglazier@denverpost.com
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
OH Farm Bureau proceeding on livestock deal
Sportsmen and dog breeders were caught up in the HSUS demands after the fact. Once the Farm Bureau conceded and HSUS smelled victory, their scope of so-called negotiations expanded to include regulatation of dog kennels (puppy mills in HSUS vernacular) and to ban ownership of exotic animals (currently licensed by either the state or USDA). HSUS was not elected as a lawmaker by the citizens of Ohio. Sportsmen need to be clear in their message to newly elected officials that their rights are not negotiable.
Brownfield Ag News
December 7, 2010 by Julie Harker
A spokesman for the Ohio Farm Bureau says results of the November election won’t affect their agreement in regard to the livestock care standards board.
“The new administration and election of new administration really doesn’t affect our commitment to the agreement that was reached this past summer with HSUS.”
Ohio Farm Bureau spokesman Joe Cornely says that includes making recommendations to the livestock care standards board. Cornely says Governor-elect John Kasich spoke to delegates at their annual meeting last week.
“He recognized what a challenge out-of-state activist groups can provide. He also recognized that if farmers bought into this agreement then perhaps he needs to allow farmers have the say there.”
Cornely says the Ohio Farm Bureau will be engaging the governor and his new director of ag Jim Zeringer, along with members of the General Assembly, in conversation – helping them understand ag’s position as they make their own decisions about the agreement.
Brownfield Ag News
December 7, 2010 by Julie Harker
A spokesman for the Ohio Farm Bureau says results of the November election won’t affect their agreement in regard to the livestock care standards board.
“The new administration and election of new administration really doesn’t affect our commitment to the agreement that was reached this past summer with HSUS.”
Ohio Farm Bureau spokesman Joe Cornely says that includes making recommendations to the livestock care standards board. Cornely says Governor-elect John Kasich spoke to delegates at their annual meeting last week.
“He recognized what a challenge out-of-state activist groups can provide. He also recognized that if farmers bought into this agreement then perhaps he needs to allow farmers have the say there.”
Cornely says the Ohio Farm Bureau will be engaging the governor and his new director of ag Jim Zeringer, along with members of the General Assembly, in conversation – helping them understand ag’s position as they make their own decisions about the agreement.
The HumaneWatch Veterinary Student Interview
The HumaneWatch Interview: Jake Geis December 7, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States has put many Americans in uncomfortable positions during the current decade, but few have found themselves in a box quite like veterinarians.
Just last week the American Veterinary Medical Association (whose chief executive we interviewed back in September) made significant changes to The Veterinarian's Oath, which had only been amended once since its creation in 1969. It now refers to "animal health and welfare," along with "the prevention and relief of animal suffering." (New words are in italics.) The first reaction of many observers was that the move was taken in reaction to HSUS—and specifically to its threat to capture the hearts and minds of young vets, and of vets-to-be.
Many vets—especially the youngest ones who are most comfortable questioning authority—recognize that they’re caught between the proverbial “rock” and the corresponding “hard place.” On one hand, many of them are visibly uncomfortable with seeing the animal rights movement gather steam. But on the other, they recognize the need to maintain the dignity of the veterinary profession by refusing to return fire when HSUS slings mud. In short, playing dirty is supposed to be beneath them. And for good reason.
With everything going on in the veterinary world, it's fitting that we're talking with Jake Geis. He’s a second-year veterinary student at Iowa State University. (That school’s cooperative agreement with the University of Nebraska has put him in Lincoln for the first half of his training.) Geis first pinged our radar screen on November 19 when The Daily Nebraskan published his passionate essay titled “National Humane Society has Backward Priorities.”
Full interview at link ...
Related article:
Veterinarian's Oath revised to emphasize animal welfare commitment
The Humane Society of the United States has put many Americans in uncomfortable positions during the current decade, but few have found themselves in a box quite like veterinarians.
Just last week the American Veterinary Medical Association (whose chief executive we interviewed back in September) made significant changes to The Veterinarian's Oath, which had only been amended once since its creation in 1969. It now refers to "animal health and welfare," along with "the prevention and relief of animal suffering." (New words are in italics.) The first reaction of many observers was that the move was taken in reaction to HSUS—and specifically to its threat to capture the hearts and minds of young vets, and of vets-to-be.
Many vets—especially the youngest ones who are most comfortable questioning authority—recognize that they’re caught between the proverbial “rock” and the corresponding “hard place.” On one hand, many of them are visibly uncomfortable with seeing the animal rights movement gather steam. But on the other, they recognize the need to maintain the dignity of the veterinary profession by refusing to return fire when HSUS slings mud. In short, playing dirty is supposed to be beneath them. And for good reason.
With everything going on in the veterinary world, it's fitting that we're talking with Jake Geis. He’s a second-year veterinary student at Iowa State University. (That school’s cooperative agreement with the University of Nebraska has put him in Lincoln for the first half of his training.) Geis first pinged our radar screen on November 19 when The Daily Nebraskan published his passionate essay titled “National Humane Society has Backward Priorities.”
Full interview at link ...
Related article:
Veterinarian's Oath revised to emphasize animal welfare commitment
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
HSUS and Lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers …
The animal rights playbook is the same, no matter which organization it is or how it is peddled to the public. Valerie Stanley, an attorney for Animal Legal Defense Fund, said in 1996 “Everything we are doing lays the foundation for the one day when animals will have rights" ....“We need to get in their faces and sue the animal users so often they don’t know which courtroom they’re supposed to appear in next.” That is exactly what ALDF does with its $6 million in annual contributions. Certainly HSUS with its $101.6 million revenue is capable of using the court system to inflict much more damage on animal owners and producers.
Blog by HumaneWatch
(19 Hours Ago) in Society / Animal Rights
You may have noticed that the Humane Society of the United States sued a chicken company on Monday, apparently over “humanely raised” chicken package labels that don’t presently exist. But that’s not all the nation’s best-paid animal rights lawyers are up to.
On Christmas Day 2009, the Associated Press reported that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) employed "[a] staff of 30 attorneys—up from three when Wayne Pacelle took the helm five years ago."
And that doesn’t include the outside counsel that Wayne Pacelle hires to handle the really tough cases, like defending HSUS against civil lawsuits. Sadly, this leaves the salaried HSUS legal team—whose sheer size rivals that of many mid-size law firms—free to hassle farmers, pet store owners, and food companies.
Let’s take a look at where a few of HSUS’s legal nightmares stand. Funny how they don’t turn up on HSUS’s online docket. But if you’ve contributed to HSUS recently, you’re paying the legal bills.
Feld Entertainment Inc. v. ASPCA et al
In February 2010 the Ringling Brothers Circus company (Feld) sued a handful of animal-rights defendants—including HSUS, the HSUS-controlled Fund For Animals, and two HSUS attorneys—under the federal RICO act. This came after a federal judge’s December 2009 decision to dismiss the animal rights groups’ elephant-welfare lawsuit against Feld.
Why was that lawsuit dismissed, you ask? Good question. It turned out that the plaintiffs had paid their star witness (a former Feld employee) $190,000 for his testimony. The Court ruled that he was “not a credible witness,” adding that he “often gave conflicting answers and was repeatedly impeached on the witness stand.”
Here’s the latest on that lawsuit: It’s moving forward, but the defendants (including HSUS) are asking the judge to put a “hold” on everything while they make a motion to dismiss the case. Meanwhile, the plaintiff has proposed a 27-month-long schedule for dealing with things like “discovery,” the certification of expert witnesses, and pre-trial motions.
So the bottom line is that it will be at least 2013 before this RICO case really gets underway, presuming the case survives a near-term challenge.
Full story at link ...
Blog by HumaneWatch
(19 Hours Ago) in Society / Animal Rights
You may have noticed that the Humane Society of the United States sued a chicken company on Monday, apparently over “humanely raised” chicken package labels that don’t presently exist. But that’s not all the nation’s best-paid animal rights lawyers are up to.
On Christmas Day 2009, the Associated Press reported that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) employed "[a] staff of 30 attorneys—up from three when Wayne Pacelle took the helm five years ago."
And that doesn’t include the outside counsel that Wayne Pacelle hires to handle the really tough cases, like defending HSUS against civil lawsuits. Sadly, this leaves the salaried HSUS legal team—whose sheer size rivals that of many mid-size law firms—free to hassle farmers, pet store owners, and food companies.
Let’s take a look at where a few of HSUS’s legal nightmares stand. Funny how they don’t turn up on HSUS’s online docket. But if you’ve contributed to HSUS recently, you’re paying the legal bills.
Feld Entertainment Inc. v. ASPCA et al
In February 2010 the Ringling Brothers Circus company (Feld) sued a handful of animal-rights defendants—including HSUS, the HSUS-controlled Fund For Animals, and two HSUS attorneys—under the federal RICO act. This came after a federal judge’s December 2009 decision to dismiss the animal rights groups’ elephant-welfare lawsuit against Feld.
Why was that lawsuit dismissed, you ask? Good question. It turned out that the plaintiffs had paid their star witness (a former Feld employee) $190,000 for his testimony. The Court ruled that he was “not a credible witness,” adding that he “often gave conflicting answers and was repeatedly impeached on the witness stand.”
Here’s the latest on that lawsuit: It’s moving forward, but the defendants (including HSUS) are asking the judge to put a “hold” on everything while they make a motion to dismiss the case. Meanwhile, the plaintiff has proposed a 27-month-long schedule for dealing with things like “discovery,” the certification of expert witnesses, and pre-trial motions.
So the bottom line is that it will be at least 2013 before this RICO case really gets underway, presuming the case survives a near-term challenge.
Full story at link ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
