HELENA, Mont. The way Congress went about removing endangered species protections from the Northern Rockies gray wolf undermines the rule of law, but it did not violate the Constitution, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy reluctantly upheld a budget rider passed by Congress in April that stripped wolves of federal protections in Montana, Idaho and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah.
The provision was inserted by Republican Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho and Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. The measure marked the first time since the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 that Congress forcibly removed protections from a plant or animal.
Molloy, who twice blocked attempts to lift federal protections for the predators before Congress' action, did not hide his distaste for the provision.
"The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law," Molloy wrote in his order.
Full story
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Bear attacks
Yesterday Field & Stream reposted photos of a very lucky game warden who survived a grizzly attack. The post reads: With the number of bear attacks on the rise in the U.S., it's time to be reminded of how powerful a grizzly truly is. Take another look at these photos of a Montana DNR officer who was attacked by a male grizzly during a relocation. Photo gallery here
Related:
Two boys injured in bear attack at Stokes State Forest
And also in yesterday's news 4 teenagers taking a survival course were injured: Teen recounts Alaska bear attack
Gilbert woman dies after Pinetop bear attack
Related:
Two boys injured in bear attack at Stokes State Forest
And also in yesterday's news 4 teenagers taking a survival course were injured: Teen recounts Alaska bear attack
Gilbert woman dies after Pinetop bear attack
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Updated: Wyoming, Feds, reach deal on delisting wolves
By JEREMY PELZER Star-Tribune capital bureau trib.com
CHEYENNE - After years of fighting, the state of Wyoming and the federal government have reached an agreement to remove the state's roughly 340 wolves from the endangered species list and put them under state control.
Under the so-called dual-status plan, wolves in the northwest part of the state would be protected as trophy game, meaning they could only be hunted with a license.
The 60 or so wolves in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks -- which includes five to six breeding pairs -- would be delisted but wouldn't be under state control.
In a media release announcing the deal, Mead said wolves have long preyed on livestock and game animals such as moose and elk in the state.
"This is far from the end of this process, but I think we have come up with something that fits with Wyoming's values and economy," Mead said in the release. "Wolves are recovered in Wyoming; let's get them off the endangered species list."
U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, who last month inserted a no-litigation clause for any Wyoming wolf deal into a still-pending appropriations bill, praised Mead for reaching a deal over an issue that's been simmering since wolves were re-introduced by the federal government to the state in 1995.
"Today marks one more step in the considerable progress Wyoming has recently made in returning management of the fully recovered gray wolf to our own state experts," Lummis said in a media release. "For years, Wyoming has worked in good faith to produce and defend a wolf management plan. These labors have been difficult and, frankly, haven't produced results -- until today."
Republican Sens. John Barrasso and Mike Enzi also lauded the deal, saying it was long overdue.
However, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the top-ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, wrote Salazar today to "express grave concern" about the agreement. The minimum population standards in the deal would mean 40 percent of Wyoming's current estimated wolf population will die, he wrote, and suggested that the agreement was based on politics, not just science. "Science, not politics, should ensure the conservation and management [of] the gray wolves in Wyoming, should they be delisted," Markey wrote in the letter.
Full story at link
CHEYENNE - After years of fighting, the state of Wyoming and the federal government have reached an agreement to remove the state's roughly 340 wolves from the endangered species list and put them under state control.
Under the so-called dual-status plan, wolves in the northwest part of the state would be protected as trophy game, meaning they could only be hunted with a license.
The 60 or so wolves in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks -- which includes five to six breeding pairs -- would be delisted but wouldn't be under state control.
In a media release announcing the deal, Mead said wolves have long preyed on livestock and game animals such as moose and elk in the state.
"This is far from the end of this process, but I think we have come up with something that fits with Wyoming's values and economy," Mead said in the release. "Wolves are recovered in Wyoming; let's get them off the endangered species list."
U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, who last month inserted a no-litigation clause for any Wyoming wolf deal into a still-pending appropriations bill, praised Mead for reaching a deal over an issue that's been simmering since wolves were re-introduced by the federal government to the state in 1995.
"Today marks one more step in the considerable progress Wyoming has recently made in returning management of the fully recovered gray wolf to our own state experts," Lummis said in a media release. "For years, Wyoming has worked in good faith to produce and defend a wolf management plan. These labors have been difficult and, frankly, haven't produced results -- until today."
Republican Sens. John Barrasso and Mike Enzi also lauded the deal, saying it was long overdue.
However, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the top-ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, wrote Salazar today to "express grave concern" about the agreement. The minimum population standards in the deal would mean 40 percent of Wyoming's current estimated wolf population will die, he wrote, and suggested that the agreement was based on politics, not just science. "Science, not politics, should ensure the conservation and management [of] the gray wolves in Wyoming, should they be delisted," Markey wrote in the letter.
Full story at link
Closing of U.S. horse slaughter plants still reverberates
By Malinda Larkin. JAVMA News August 15, 2011
After four years without domestic horse slaughter facilities in operation and a thorough study of the results, one thing is clear: the same number of horses from the United States, if not more, are being killed for their meat every year.
According to a recently released report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the plant closures have shifted the slaughter horse market to Canada and Mexico and driven down the sale prices of lower-grade horses. They've also worsened an already bad welfare situation by forcing horses to travel long distances to slaughter, often in unregulated trips.
Since fiscal year 2006, Congress has annually prohibited the use of federal funds to inspect horses destined for food, effectively halting domestic slaughter. With the cessation of domestic slaughter in 2007, Congress directed the GAO to examine horse welfare.
The organization's 68-page report, "Horse Welfare: Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter," came out June 22, more than a year after its scheduled release date (see JAVMA, Nov. 1, 2009, page 1026).
The GAO examined the effects, if any, of the plants' closures on the U.S. horse market; the impact of such market changes on horse welfare and on states, local governments, tribes, and animal welfare organizations; and the challenges, if any, to the Department of Agriculture's oversight of the transport and welfare of U.S. horses exported for slaughter.
From its analysis, the GAO recommended that Congress reconsider restrictions on the use of federal funds to inspect horses for slaughter or institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter in the U.S. Further, the agency recommended that the USDA issue a final rule to protect horses during more of the transportation chain to slaughter, and consider ways to better leverage resources for compliance activities.
Worsening horse welfare
According to the GAO, from 2006 through 2010, the number of horses exported from the U.S. to Canada for slaughter increased by 148 percent and the number exported to Mexico increased by 660 percent. As a result, nearly the same number of U.S. horses were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010—almost 138,000—as were slaughtered before domestic slaughter ceased in 2007. For reference, 104,899 horses were slaughtered in 2006, the last full year of domestic slaughtering operations, according to the report. Full story
After four years without domestic horse slaughter facilities in operation and a thorough study of the results, one thing is clear: the same number of horses from the United States, if not more, are being killed for their meat every year.
According to a recently released report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the plant closures have shifted the slaughter horse market to Canada and Mexico and driven down the sale prices of lower-grade horses. They've also worsened an already bad welfare situation by forcing horses to travel long distances to slaughter, often in unregulated trips.
Since fiscal year 2006, Congress has annually prohibited the use of federal funds to inspect horses destined for food, effectively halting domestic slaughter. With the cessation of domestic slaughter in 2007, Congress directed the GAO to examine horse welfare.
The organization's 68-page report, "Horse Welfare: Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter," came out June 22, more than a year after its scheduled release date (see JAVMA, Nov. 1, 2009, page 1026).
The GAO examined the effects, if any, of the plants' closures on the U.S. horse market; the impact of such market changes on horse welfare and on states, local governments, tribes, and animal welfare organizations; and the challenges, if any, to the Department of Agriculture's oversight of the transport and welfare of U.S. horses exported for slaughter.
From its analysis, the GAO recommended that Congress reconsider restrictions on the use of federal funds to inspect horses for slaughter or institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter in the U.S. Further, the agency recommended that the USDA issue a final rule to protect horses during more of the transportation chain to slaughter, and consider ways to better leverage resources for compliance activities.
Worsening horse welfare
According to the GAO, from 2006 through 2010, the number of horses exported from the U.S. to Canada for slaughter increased by 148 percent and the number exported to Mexico increased by 660 percent. As a result, nearly the same number of U.S. horses were transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010—almost 138,000—as were slaughtered before domestic slaughter ceased in 2007. For reference, 104,899 horses were slaughtered in 2006, the last full year of domestic slaughtering operations, according to the report. Full story
Washington state court upholds kosher slaughter law
August 2, 2011 posted on JTA
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A Washington state appellate court ruled against an animal protection group's bid to strike down as unconstitutional a law protecting religious slaughter.
The three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals on July 25 was unanimous in rejecting the suit brought by Pasado's Safe Haven.
The state law defines as humane stunning an animal before slaughter, which is the conventional means of slaughter, and severing the carotid artery, which it says is "in accordance with the ritual requirements of (a) religious faith." The latter method is used in Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter.
Pasado's said the law was unconstitutional in part because it favored religious ritual over other methods. The court rejected the claim, saying that invalidating part of an act while upholding another would usurp the state Legislature.
The Orthodox Union, an umbrella body for synagogues and a kosher certifier, praised the ruling.
"Kosher slaughter has been targeted by various fringe activists, but it is a necessary component of our community’s religious life," it said in a statement. "We appreciate that elected officials, such as those in the Washington legislature, recognize the humane nature of shechita, and ensure its protection and thereby the flourishing of Orthodox Jewish life. "
Related article
Where's the beef?
For Adam Karp, it’s usually about the animals. This time, religion has gotten involved. “The question is whether the state has created an unconstitutional exemption in favor of religion,” said Karp, who founded the Washington State Bar Association’s Animal Law Section.
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A Washington state appellate court ruled against an animal protection group's bid to strike down as unconstitutional a law protecting religious slaughter.
The three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals on July 25 was unanimous in rejecting the suit brought by Pasado's Safe Haven.
The state law defines as humane stunning an animal before slaughter, which is the conventional means of slaughter, and severing the carotid artery, which it says is "in accordance with the ritual requirements of (a) religious faith." The latter method is used in Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter.
Pasado's said the law was unconstitutional in part because it favored religious ritual over other methods. The court rejected the claim, saying that invalidating part of an act while upholding another would usurp the state Legislature.
The Orthodox Union, an umbrella body for synagogues and a kosher certifier, praised the ruling.
"Kosher slaughter has been targeted by various fringe activists, but it is a necessary component of our community’s religious life," it said in a statement. "We appreciate that elected officials, such as those in the Washington legislature, recognize the humane nature of shechita, and ensure its protection and thereby the flourishing of Orthodox Jewish life. "
Related article
Where's the beef?
For Adam Karp, it’s usually about the animals. This time, religion has gotten involved. “The question is whether the state has created an unconstitutional exemption in favor of religion,” said Karp, who founded the Washington State Bar Association’s Animal Law Section.
HSUS, UEP: Strange bedfellows
July 8, 2011 By Steve Kopperud
When I first got wind of the July 7 United Egg Producers (UEP)-Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) agreement on “enriched cages,” egg carton labeling, euthanasia, molting, ammonia levels and so on, I was surprised, but not completely. UEP has been fighting a long, expensive and sometimes (often?) lonely battle to stop HSUS state-by-state, and it was expecting to do battle again in 2012 in Oregon.
I understand the industry’s frustrated desire to end the seemingly unending attack on how it does business, the crazy quilt of state laws that have evolved over the last few years governing how it raises birds, and I know the retailer pressure UEP has been under as company by company – albeit only a few of the truly unenlightened within the retailer community — announce plans to “go cage-free” at some undefined time in the future, honestly believing they’re doing the consumer some kind of favor.
What truly struck me dumb – and this is not generally an easy thing to do – was that part of the announcement where UEP and HSUS announced they would jointly seek federal legislation to enshrine their agreement. At this point my only reaction was: UEP has gone a step too far.
There are currently no federal laws governing how a U.S. farmer husbands animals for food. There are unending laws and regulations on how to make feed, how to practice animal health, how food safety is maintained, how animals are killed, but no federal regulation on husbandry practices per se. Why? Because there’s no reason to regulate how farmers farm or how ranchers ranch. There is no problem that must be solved by federal intervention. Animal ag has battled for 30 years to keep it this way. For 30 years, HSUS has tried to put Uncle Sam in the middle of every farm and ranch in America. For 30 years, Congress has sided with farmers and ranchers.
It’s clear had UEP been able to craft this “partnership” its way, it would have been an industry voluntary program of transition from conventional cages to enriched environment cages. But my guess is UEP couldn’t keep HSUS at the table if it only agreed to a voluntary transition. Full story
When I first got wind of the July 7 United Egg Producers (UEP)-Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) agreement on “enriched cages,” egg carton labeling, euthanasia, molting, ammonia levels and so on, I was surprised, but not completely. UEP has been fighting a long, expensive and sometimes (often?) lonely battle to stop HSUS state-by-state, and it was expecting to do battle again in 2012 in Oregon.
I understand the industry’s frustrated desire to end the seemingly unending attack on how it does business, the crazy quilt of state laws that have evolved over the last few years governing how it raises birds, and I know the retailer pressure UEP has been under as company by company – albeit only a few of the truly unenlightened within the retailer community — announce plans to “go cage-free” at some undefined time in the future, honestly believing they’re doing the consumer some kind of favor.
What truly struck me dumb – and this is not generally an easy thing to do – was that part of the announcement where UEP and HSUS announced they would jointly seek federal legislation to enshrine their agreement. At this point my only reaction was: UEP has gone a step too far.
There are currently no federal laws governing how a U.S. farmer husbands animals for food. There are unending laws and regulations on how to make feed, how to practice animal health, how food safety is maintained, how animals are killed, but no federal regulation on husbandry practices per se. Why? Because there’s no reason to regulate how farmers farm or how ranchers ranch. There is no problem that must be solved by federal intervention. Animal ag has battled for 30 years to keep it this way. For 30 years, HSUS has tried to put Uncle Sam in the middle of every farm and ranch in America. For 30 years, Congress has sided with farmers and ranchers.
It’s clear had UEP been able to craft this “partnership” its way, it would have been an industry voluntary program of transition from conventional cages to enriched environment cages. But my guess is UEP couldn’t keep HSUS at the table if it only agreed to a voluntary transition. Full story
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Animal rights activist charged with trespassing at UF
By Nathan Crabbe, Staff writer, The Gainsville Sun
Published: Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.
An animal rights activist has been charged with trespassing in a University of Florida building where she allegedly posted fliers offering a reward for information about students who experiment on animals.
Lisa Ann Grossman, 50, of Jacksonville, had been issued a trespass warning for a protest in December inside a fundraiser at UF’s Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. The warning barred Grossman, a member of the animal rights group Negotiation is Over, from the UF campus for three years.
She is accused of violating that warning July 9 by entering the UF Cancer/Genetics Research Complex to post about 100 fliers. The fliers offer $100 in cash for personal information such as the name, picture, address or phone number of any student learning to experiment with animals.
The State Attorney’s Office last week filed a trespassing charge against Grossman. The second-degree misdemeanor is punishable by as many as 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Grossman couldn’t be reached for comment Monday.
UF police allege that someone let Grossman into the locked cancer and genetics building to post the fliers. A Health Science Center official subsequently warned employees against admitting strangers to locked facilities and encouraged them to contact police to report suspicious persons.
Negotiation is Over previously has put the addresses and phone numbers of UF faculty researchers on its website over claims they conducted animal research. The website describes a campaign involving students as a way to show them that animal research can result in “car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear.”
Contact Nathan Crabbe at 338-3176 or nathan.crabbe@gvillesun.com.
Published: Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.
An animal rights activist has been charged with trespassing in a University of Florida building where she allegedly posted fliers offering a reward for information about students who experiment on animals.
Lisa Ann Grossman, 50, of Jacksonville, had been issued a trespass warning for a protest in December inside a fundraiser at UF’s Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. The warning barred Grossman, a member of the animal rights group Negotiation is Over, from the UF campus for three years.
She is accused of violating that warning July 9 by entering the UF Cancer/Genetics Research Complex to post about 100 fliers. The fliers offer $100 in cash for personal information such as the name, picture, address or phone number of any student learning to experiment with animals.
The State Attorney’s Office last week filed a trespassing charge against Grossman. The second-degree misdemeanor is punishable by as many as 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Grossman couldn’t be reached for comment Monday.
UF police allege that someone let Grossman into the locked cancer and genetics building to post the fliers. A Health Science Center official subsequently warned employees against admitting strangers to locked facilities and encouraged them to contact police to report suspicious persons.
Negotiation is Over previously has put the addresses and phone numbers of UF faculty researchers on its website over claims they conducted animal research. The website describes a campaign involving students as a way to show them that animal research can result in “car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear.”
Contact Nathan Crabbe at 338-3176 or nathan.crabbe@gvillesun.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
