By Philip Brasher
July 8, 2011. A stunning, landmark deal between the largest animal rights group and the egg industry would change the way hens are raised in this country. It shouldn't be surprising that it's making others in the livestock industry nervous.
The agreement, announced today, marks a victory for both the industry and the Humane Society of the United States, which has been seeking to use a series of ballot initiatives, most successfully in California, to force some major changes in way that livestock are raised in the United States.
The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn't want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as "enriched colony" housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.
There's a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn't pass, "then the agreement would be off and we'd be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact," HSUS' Paul Shapiro told me.
Most hens now have about 67 square inches of space in conventional cages. Under the HSUS-UEP deal that would increase up to 144 square inches.
As HSUS notes, such a law would mark the first time Congress has ever set standards for how any species of animals is raised on farms. No small achievement for HSUS.
The pork industry, which has tangled with HSUS for years over the way sows are housed, doesn't like the idea of federal standards for animal welfare. "It would inject the federal government into the marketplace with no measurable benefit to public or animal health and welfare," the National Pork Producers Council said. The group said it is "gravely concerned that such a one-size-fits-all approach will take away producers' freedom to operate in a way that's best for their animals."
Get some more details of the agreement here, in, of all things I thought I'd never see, a joint statement from HSUS and a major livestock producer group.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
High court to review downer hog ban
Updated: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:02 AM
Packer group says hogs normally lie down, law interferes with inspection
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI - Capital Press
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a lawsuit over California's ban on the slaughter of downer hogs.
The National Meat Association, a packer trade group, contends that the prohibition is preempted by federal laws that govern the slaughter of livestock.
"This is about clear standards," said Jeremy Russell, spokesman for the group.
Unlike cattle, hogs normally lie down, so it's necessary for a veterinarian to determine if an animal is actually non-ambulatory, he said, adding that the California law hinders that process.
"It directly interferes with the antemortem (pre-slaughter) inspection of swine," said Steve Wells, an attorney for the group.
The nation's highest court will probably hear oral arguments and make a decision in the case in the spring of 2012, he said.
Attorneys representing the state of California would not comment on the case.
The Humane Society of the U.S., an animal rights group that voluntarily intervened in the case as a defendant, sees the court's decision as unfortunate, said Peter Brandt, its attorney.
"The meat industry is devoting a huge amount of resources to be able to slaughter animals that are too sick or injured to even walk," he said. "This is about the industry trying to cram animals that can't walk through the food system."
Brandt said he hopes the Supreme Court will recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in the prevention of animal cruelty.
If the court rules in favor of the National Meat Association, that would make it harder to prosecute people across the U.S. for such abuses, he said.
California initially passed its law against the slaughter of all downer livestock in 2008 after the Humane Society of the U.S. released a video that depicted the abuse of non-ambulatory cows at a slaughterhouse in the state.
The National Meat Association filed a legal complaint challenging the law as it applied to swine and won an injunction that prevented it from going into effect.
A U.S. district judge in San Francisco found that the prohibition was preempted by federal law, which prevents states from imposing meat inspection standards that are more stringent than federal standards.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision last year, describing the judge's interpretation as "hogwash."
According to the appellate ruling, states are allowed to ban the slaughter of certain animals -- such as horses -- even if federal meat inspection standards exist for such animals.
A non-ambulatory pig is simply another type of animal that the state government can exclude from slaughter, the ruling said.
The National Meat Association disputed these findings in its petition to the Supreme Court.
California's requirement that downer hogs be immediately euthanized prevents federal inspectors and veterinarians from conducting inspections that are mandated by federal law, the group said.
At the Supreme Court's request, the federal government submitted a brief that generally supported the National Meat Association's views. California's ban places requirements on the operation of slaughterhouses and is thereby preempted by federal law, according to the brief.
Packer group says hogs normally lie down, law interferes with inspection
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI - Capital Press
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a lawsuit over California's ban on the slaughter of downer hogs.
The National Meat Association, a packer trade group, contends that the prohibition is preempted by federal laws that govern the slaughter of livestock.
"This is about clear standards," said Jeremy Russell, spokesman for the group.
Unlike cattle, hogs normally lie down, so it's necessary for a veterinarian to determine if an animal is actually non-ambulatory, he said, adding that the California law hinders that process.
"It directly interferes with the antemortem (pre-slaughter) inspection of swine," said Steve Wells, an attorney for the group.
The nation's highest court will probably hear oral arguments and make a decision in the case in the spring of 2012, he said.
Attorneys representing the state of California would not comment on the case.
The Humane Society of the U.S., an animal rights group that voluntarily intervened in the case as a defendant, sees the court's decision as unfortunate, said Peter Brandt, its attorney.
"The meat industry is devoting a huge amount of resources to be able to slaughter animals that are too sick or injured to even walk," he said. "This is about the industry trying to cram animals that can't walk through the food system."
Brandt said he hopes the Supreme Court will recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in the prevention of animal cruelty.
If the court rules in favor of the National Meat Association, that would make it harder to prosecute people across the U.S. for such abuses, he said.
California initially passed its law against the slaughter of all downer livestock in 2008 after the Humane Society of the U.S. released a video that depicted the abuse of non-ambulatory cows at a slaughterhouse in the state.
The National Meat Association filed a legal complaint challenging the law as it applied to swine and won an injunction that prevented it from going into effect.
A U.S. district judge in San Francisco found that the prohibition was preempted by federal law, which prevents states from imposing meat inspection standards that are more stringent than federal standards.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision last year, describing the judge's interpretation as "hogwash."
According to the appellate ruling, states are allowed to ban the slaughter of certain animals -- such as horses -- even if federal meat inspection standards exist for such animals.
A non-ambulatory pig is simply another type of animal that the state government can exclude from slaughter, the ruling said.
The National Meat Association disputed these findings in its petition to the Supreme Court.
California's requirement that downer hogs be immediately euthanized prevents federal inspectors and veterinarians from conducting inspections that are mandated by federal law, the group said.
At the Supreme Court's request, the federal government submitted a brief that generally supported the National Meat Association's views. California's ban places requirements on the operation of slaughterhouses and is thereby preempted by federal law, according to the brief.
Friday, July 8, 2011
United Egg Producers- HSUS agreement
From Keith Good at FarmPolicy.com, Inc.
William Neuman reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two groups that are usually squawking at each other — egg farmers and animal welfare advocates — announced an unusual agreement on Thursday to work together to seek a federal law that would require larger cages and other improved conditions for the nation’s 280 million laying hens.
“The deal comes after the egg industry has been put increasingly on the defensive. Animal welfare groups have clandestinely recorded videos showing poor conditions on farms, and various states have sought to set more humane standards for hens. Egg producers have also been struggling to improve their image after tainted eggs from several farms in Iowa sickened thousands of people in a nationwide salmonella outbreak last year.
“The agreement was announced by the nation’s main egg industry group, the United Egg Producers, which represents farmers who own about 80 percent of the nation’s laying hens, and the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization.”
The Times article added that, “The groups said they would ask Congress to pass a law enacting the new standards, which they said would be the first federal law addressing the treatment of farm animals and would pre-empt efforts in several states to set their own standards.
“The proposed federal standards would include cages that give hens up to 144 square inches of space each, compared with the 67 square inches that most hens have today. They would also include so-called habitat enrichments, like perches, scratching areas and nesting areas, that allow the birds to express natural behavior.”
Mr. Neuman indicated that, “In a statement Thursday, the National Pork Producers Council said that a federal law regulating living conditions for hens ‘would set a dangerous precedent for allowing the federal government to dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals.’
“Robert L. Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, acknowledged the difficulties ahead.
“‘That’s part of what we have to do, as United Egg Producers, is talk with these other groups and hopefully get them to see our point of view,’ said Mr. Krouse, an Indiana egg farmer. ‘We understand their concerns, but this is about egg producers, this is a solution that we’ve found for us.’”
Today’s article noted that, “A federal law would be intended to pre-empt state laws. But the groups said it would have to include a faster transition timetable for California egg farmers to match the schedule approved in the ballot measure there, which requires larger cages by 2015.”
A statement yesterday from Arnie Riebli, the President of the Association of California Egg Farmers indicated that:
“While we are still in the process of reviewing today’s agreement between HSUS and the United Egg Producers, we welcome the recognition by HSUS that the enriched colony system is a suitable hen habitat. California’s egg farmers have long advocated the use of an enriched colony system as a superior living area for hens.
“At the same time, we are very disappointed that California is not being treated equally as the other 49 states. While the rest of the nation’s egg producers have until 2029 to spend an estimated five billion dollars necessary to comply with this agreement, California egg farmers must comply by 2015.”
Philip Brasher, writing yesterday at his new FoodWatch Blog, reported that, “The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn’t want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as ‘enriched colony’ housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.
“There’s a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn’t pass, ‘then the agreement would be off and we’d be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact,’ HSUS’ Paul Shapiro told me.”
And the AP reported yesterday that, “Threatened with a series of state laws cracking down on cramped cages, the egg industry on Thursday said it would agree to seek federal regulation to improve conditions for egg-laying hens.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Statement Of National Pork Producers Council
Feedstuffs. HSUS, UEP reach agreement to transition to colonies
Brownfield. HSUS, United Egg agree on federal standards
Brownfield. NPPC president says federal standard bad idea
Better housing for hens may mean higher prices for eggs
William Neuman reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two groups that are usually squawking at each other — egg farmers and animal welfare advocates — announced an unusual agreement on Thursday to work together to seek a federal law that would require larger cages and other improved conditions for the nation’s 280 million laying hens.
“The deal comes after the egg industry has been put increasingly on the defensive. Animal welfare groups have clandestinely recorded videos showing poor conditions on farms, and various states have sought to set more humane standards for hens. Egg producers have also been struggling to improve their image after tainted eggs from several farms in Iowa sickened thousands of people in a nationwide salmonella outbreak last year.
“The agreement was announced by the nation’s main egg industry group, the United Egg Producers, which represents farmers who own about 80 percent of the nation’s laying hens, and the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization.”
The Times article added that, “The groups said they would ask Congress to pass a law enacting the new standards, which they said would be the first federal law addressing the treatment of farm animals and would pre-empt efforts in several states to set their own standards.
“The proposed federal standards would include cages that give hens up to 144 square inches of space each, compared with the 67 square inches that most hens have today. They would also include so-called habitat enrichments, like perches, scratching areas and nesting areas, that allow the birds to express natural behavior.”
Mr. Neuman indicated that, “In a statement Thursday, the National Pork Producers Council said that a federal law regulating living conditions for hens ‘would set a dangerous precedent for allowing the federal government to dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals.’
“Robert L. Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, acknowledged the difficulties ahead.
“‘That’s part of what we have to do, as United Egg Producers, is talk with these other groups and hopefully get them to see our point of view,’ said Mr. Krouse, an Indiana egg farmer. ‘We understand their concerns, but this is about egg producers, this is a solution that we’ve found for us.’”
Today’s article noted that, “A federal law would be intended to pre-empt state laws. But the groups said it would have to include a faster transition timetable for California egg farmers to match the schedule approved in the ballot measure there, which requires larger cages by 2015.”
A statement yesterday from Arnie Riebli, the President of the Association of California Egg Farmers indicated that:
“While we are still in the process of reviewing today’s agreement between HSUS and the United Egg Producers, we welcome the recognition by HSUS that the enriched colony system is a suitable hen habitat. California’s egg farmers have long advocated the use of an enriched colony system as a superior living area for hens.
“At the same time, we are very disappointed that California is not being treated equally as the other 49 states. While the rest of the nation’s egg producers have until 2029 to spend an estimated five billion dollars necessary to comply with this agreement, California egg farmers must comply by 2015.”
Philip Brasher, writing yesterday at his new FoodWatch Blog, reported that, “The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn’t want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as ‘enriched colony’ housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.
“There’s a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn’t pass, ‘then the agreement would be off and we’d be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact,’ HSUS’ Paul Shapiro told me.”
And the AP reported yesterday that, “Threatened with a series of state laws cracking down on cramped cages, the egg industry on Thursday said it would agree to seek federal regulation to improve conditions for egg-laying hens.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Statement Of National Pork Producers Council
Feedstuffs. HSUS, UEP reach agreement to transition to colonies
Brownfield. HSUS, United Egg agree on federal standards
Brownfield. NPPC president says federal standard bad idea
Better housing for hens may mean higher prices for eggs
Sunday, May 29, 2011
ALDF Lawsuit against Woodland Park Zoo dismissed
By Michael Simeona
MyNorthwest.com Editor
A lawsuit filed against the Woodland Park Zoo and city of Seattle for the treatment of elephants was dismissed by King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey on Friday.
Activists from the Animal Legal Defense Fund argued that the city of Seattle was acting illegally in providing support for the Woodland Park Zoo because of its treatment of elephants.
Judge Heavey dismissed the suit because the group had no standing to sue the city, and there was nothing illegal about the city's funding of the zoo.
"We are very pleased with the ruling," said Zoo President and CEO Dr. Deborah Jensen. "This was an attempt to get a court to decide issues of elephant care and medicine that have been appropriately delegated to experts - at our zoo and at other zoos around the country." Full story at link
MyNorthwest.com Editor
A lawsuit filed against the Woodland Park Zoo and city of Seattle for the treatment of elephants was dismissed by King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey on Friday.
Activists from the Animal Legal Defense Fund argued that the city of Seattle was acting illegally in providing support for the Woodland Park Zoo because of its treatment of elephants.
Judge Heavey dismissed the suit because the group had no standing to sue the city, and there was nothing illegal about the city's funding of the zoo.
"We are very pleased with the ruling," said Zoo President and CEO Dr. Deborah Jensen. "This was an attempt to get a court to decide issues of elephant care and medicine that have been appropriately delegated to experts - at our zoo and at other zoos around the country." Full story at link
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
WUNDERLICH: Congress pushes for probe of HSUS
Follow the Spay and Neuter HSUS Campaign on the SAOVA website. View the joint Congressional letter to IRS and find contact information for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in order to send your own request that IRS speed up the HSUS investigation.
Posted: Sunday, May 15, 2011 7:00 am Argus-Press
WUNDERLICH: Congress pushes for probe of HSUS Glen Wunderlich The Argus-Press 4 comments
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a national, tax-exempt organization not affiliated with local animal shelters and the most powerful anti-hunting group in the nation – has drawn fire from a group of lawmakers who question its status as a qualified 501 (c)(3) organization.
HSUS supported a ballot initiative in Missouri (Proposition B) by pouring in some $1.85 million (plus another $300,000 in non-cash contributions) into its Missouri front group’s bank account.
The measure passed by a slim three-point margin and sets regulations for the state’s dog breedersm including how many dogs are allowed per facility. At the root of the issue is whether the HSUS attempted to influence legislation as a “substantial part” of its activities.
In a letter to Inspector General Eric Thorson in Washington, D.C., six members of Congress from Missouri and Alaska — Don Young (R-Alaska), Vicky Hartzer (R-Missouri), Blaine Luetkemeyer
(R-Missouri), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri), Sam Graves (R-Missouri), and Billy Long (R-Missouri) — have requested a federal investigation into the level of funding and participation of HSUS in Missouri’s affairs.
The letter follows previous letters to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner that have resulted in no remedial action.
The members of Congress state the case this way, “We believe that HSUS’s own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a ‘substantial part’ of its activities, and feel that IRS’s failure to act is attributable to the politically-sensitive nature of HSUS’s activities.”
“We certainly understand that 501 (c)(3) organizations are allowed to participate in lobbying activities. However, lobbying not only is a substantial part of HSUS’s overall activities; it often appears to be the only reason for HSUS’s existence.”
By its own admission, HSUS spends more than twice as much on “Advocacy and public policy” than any other category of expenses. The Proposition B ballot initiative was heavily financed by HSUS. Campaign disclosure forms show that HSUS donated more than $2.1 million of the $4.8 million raised by proponents of the measure.
The lawmakers also cite other efforts in numerous examples of HSUS to influence legislation by having its employees urging the public to contact members of legislative bodies for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation.
As part of the investigation, the legislators are requesting the IRS to apply what it calls the “Substantial Part Test” to determine whether an organization has run afoul of conditions of its tax-exempt status.
According to IRS.gov, the test is conducted as follows: “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitutes a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”
“No group should be allowed to maintain tax-exempt status solely due to its political leanings or power. If HSUS is not complying with the law, it should be investigated and disciplined just like any other organization, as taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing a political organization.”
Amen.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Glen Wunderlich is an outdoors writer for The Argus-Press. He can be reached by sending email to glenway@tds.net.
Posted: Sunday, May 15, 2011 7:00 am Argus-Press
WUNDERLICH: Congress pushes for probe of HSUS Glen Wunderlich The Argus-Press 4 comments
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a national, tax-exempt organization not affiliated with local animal shelters and the most powerful anti-hunting group in the nation – has drawn fire from a group of lawmakers who question its status as a qualified 501 (c)(3) organization.
HSUS supported a ballot initiative in Missouri (Proposition B) by pouring in some $1.85 million (plus another $300,000 in non-cash contributions) into its Missouri front group’s bank account.
The measure passed by a slim three-point margin and sets regulations for the state’s dog breedersm including how many dogs are allowed per facility. At the root of the issue is whether the HSUS attempted to influence legislation as a “substantial part” of its activities.
In a letter to Inspector General Eric Thorson in Washington, D.C., six members of Congress from Missouri and Alaska — Don Young (R-Alaska), Vicky Hartzer (R-Missouri), Blaine Luetkemeyer
(R-Missouri), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri), Sam Graves (R-Missouri), and Billy Long (R-Missouri) — have requested a federal investigation into the level of funding and participation of HSUS in Missouri’s affairs.
The letter follows previous letters to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman and Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner that have resulted in no remedial action.
The members of Congress state the case this way, “We believe that HSUS’s own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a ‘substantial part’ of its activities, and feel that IRS’s failure to act is attributable to the politically-sensitive nature of HSUS’s activities.”
“We certainly understand that 501 (c)(3) organizations are allowed to participate in lobbying activities. However, lobbying not only is a substantial part of HSUS’s overall activities; it often appears to be the only reason for HSUS’s existence.”
By its own admission, HSUS spends more than twice as much on “Advocacy and public policy” than any other category of expenses. The Proposition B ballot initiative was heavily financed by HSUS. Campaign disclosure forms show that HSUS donated more than $2.1 million of the $4.8 million raised by proponents of the measure.
The lawmakers also cite other efforts in numerous examples of HSUS to influence legislation by having its employees urging the public to contact members of legislative bodies for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation.
As part of the investigation, the legislators are requesting the IRS to apply what it calls the “Substantial Part Test” to determine whether an organization has run afoul of conditions of its tax-exempt status.
According to IRS.gov, the test is conducted as follows: “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitutes a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”
“No group should be allowed to maintain tax-exempt status solely due to its political leanings or power. If HSUS is not complying with the law, it should be investigated and disciplined just like any other organization, as taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing a political organization.”
Amen.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Glen Wunderlich is an outdoors writer for The Argus-Press. He can be reached by sending email to glenway@tds.net.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Wolves Off U.S. Endangered Species List, Lawsuit Seeks Reinstatement
WASHINGTON, DC, May 5, 2011 (ENS) - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today issued a final rule to remove protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies under the Endangered Species Act. The rule is identical to the 2009 delisting rule that was struck down by a federal court in August 2010.
Effective immediately, the rule will return management authority over wolves to the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Utah, while retaining federal control in Wyoming until an adequate state management plan is developed.
The rule is required by a rider added to the continuing budget resolution passed by Congress last month that funds the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year.
The rider was attached to the federal budget bill by Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, and Representative Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, and marked the first time an animal or plant has been removed from the endangered species list by Congress.
That rider was challenged in court today by the Center for Biological Diversity. The nonprofit group filed a challenge in federal court in Missoula, Montana, arguing that a congressional rider requiring removal of Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is unlawful because it violates the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.
"The wolf rider is a clear example of overreaching by Congress that resulted in the wrongful removal of protections for wolves," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The rider is not only a disaster for wolves but for any endangered species that a politician doesn't like. Congress has set a terrible precedent that we hope to overturn."
The group's case is based on Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the principle of "separation of powers." This principle dictates that the judicial power of the United States lies in the federal courts and not in Congress.
In this case, the Center argues, "Congress violated the principle by inserting itself into an ongoing legal case brought by conservation groups over the fate of wolves in the northern Rockies."
Rodger Schlickeisen, president of the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife, said, "While today's announcement comes as no surprise, the action taken by Congress and the Obama administration last month to strip federal protections for wolves was unwarranted and extremely disappointing. It has undermined our nation's commitment to good stewardship and sets a terrible precedent for side-stepping America's bedrock environmental laws whenever it's politically convenient to do so.
"However, wolves can still have a bright future in the Northern Rockies if states manage them responsibly as they have promised in the past. The elected leaders of Montana and Idaho, in particular, continue to assert that their states know best how to manage wildlife. Now is their chance to prove it." Full story at link
Related Articles:
U.S. Department of Interior Begins Delisting of Gray Wolves in Eight States
Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- On the heels of legislation passed last month with the support of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) as part of the FY 2011 budget agreement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced this week that it is lifting Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for 5,500 grey wolves in eight states in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes and has published a proposed rule to remove gray wolves from ESA designation in the Western Great Lakes.
Groups sue to regain wolf protection
Three environmental groups joined to file a lawsuit Thursday to return federal protection to gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, arguing that politicians are deciding the fate of an endangered species.
Effective immediately, the rule will return management authority over wolves to the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Utah, while retaining federal control in Wyoming until an adequate state management plan is developed.
The rule is required by a rider added to the continuing budget resolution passed by Congress last month that funds the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year.
The rider was attached to the federal budget bill by Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, and Representative Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, and marked the first time an animal or plant has been removed from the endangered species list by Congress.
That rider was challenged in court today by the Center for Biological Diversity. The nonprofit group filed a challenge in federal court in Missoula, Montana, arguing that a congressional rider requiring removal of Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is unlawful because it violates the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.
"The wolf rider is a clear example of overreaching by Congress that resulted in the wrongful removal of protections for wolves," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The rider is not only a disaster for wolves but for any endangered species that a politician doesn't like. Congress has set a terrible precedent that we hope to overturn."
The group's case is based on Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the principle of "separation of powers." This principle dictates that the judicial power of the United States lies in the federal courts and not in Congress.
In this case, the Center argues, "Congress violated the principle by inserting itself into an ongoing legal case brought by conservation groups over the fate of wolves in the northern Rockies."
Rodger Schlickeisen, president of the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife, said, "While today's announcement comes as no surprise, the action taken by Congress and the Obama administration last month to strip federal protections for wolves was unwarranted and extremely disappointing. It has undermined our nation's commitment to good stewardship and sets a terrible precedent for side-stepping America's bedrock environmental laws whenever it's politically convenient to do so.
"However, wolves can still have a bright future in the Northern Rockies if states manage them responsibly as they have promised in the past. The elected leaders of Montana and Idaho, in particular, continue to assert that their states know best how to manage wildlife. Now is their chance to prove it." Full story at link
Related Articles:
U.S. Department of Interior Begins Delisting of Gray Wolves in Eight States
Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- On the heels of legislation passed last month with the support of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) as part of the FY 2011 budget agreement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced this week that it is lifting Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for 5,500 grey wolves in eight states in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes and has published a proposed rule to remove gray wolves from ESA designation in the Western Great Lakes.
Groups sue to regain wolf protection
Three environmental groups joined to file a lawsuit Thursday to return federal protection to gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, arguing that politicians are deciding the fate of an endangered species.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Maine lawmakers nix ban on bear trapping, dog use
GLENN ADAMS, Associated Press
Updated 02:40 p.m., Monday, May 2, 2011
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Maine lawmakers voted Monday to continue allowing bear hunters in the state to use traps and dogs, maintaining the status of the law since voters made the same decision seven years ago.
While voting 11-0 to kill a bill that would have outlawed the use of traps and dogs, the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee kept alive other bear hunting proposals for further consideration. Two members were absent from Monday's vote on the trapping and dog bill.
Similar proposals have come up and been rejected since 2004, when Maine voters defeated a referendum proposal to outlaw bear trapping and hunting bear with bait or dogs. Supporters of the proposed ban had portrayed baiting, trapping and use of dogs as unsportsmanlike and unnecessary.
No one spoke in favor of the latest bill Monday before the committee rejected it. But other bear hunting bills are still pending in committee following hearings.
A bill seeking to establish a spring bear hunting season, from the third Monday in May to the fourth Saturday in June, drew mixed reactions.
Rep. Dennis Keschl, R-Belgrade, said he was motivated to sponsor the bill by a constituent who said the spring hunt would help Maine sporting camps.
Full story
Updated 02:40 p.m., Monday, May 2, 2011
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Maine lawmakers voted Monday to continue allowing bear hunters in the state to use traps and dogs, maintaining the status of the law since voters made the same decision seven years ago.
While voting 11-0 to kill a bill that would have outlawed the use of traps and dogs, the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee kept alive other bear hunting proposals for further consideration. Two members were absent from Monday's vote on the trapping and dog bill.
Similar proposals have come up and been rejected since 2004, when Maine voters defeated a referendum proposal to outlaw bear trapping and hunting bear with bait or dogs. Supporters of the proposed ban had portrayed baiting, trapping and use of dogs as unsportsmanlike and unnecessary.
No one spoke in favor of the latest bill Monday before the committee rejected it. But other bear hunting bills are still pending in committee following hearings.
A bill seeking to establish a spring bear hunting season, from the third Monday in May to the fourth Saturday in June, drew mixed reactions.
Rep. Dennis Keschl, R-Belgrade, said he was motivated to sponsor the bill by a constituent who said the spring hunt would help Maine sporting camps.
Full story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
