Tag: Fund for Animals

Animal Activist Accused of Trying to Sabotage Rat Eradication Efforts

A few weeks ago, Channel Islands National Park announced that it now believes that Anacapa Island is now free of non-native black rats which were a threat to endangered bird species on the island. On June 20 an animal activist went on trial before a federal judge on charges of trying to sabotage the rat eradication program.

Bob Puddicombe, 52, is the founder of the Channel Islands Animal Protection Association which, along with the Fund for Animals, filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the eradication plan. Puddicombe is accused of attempting to sabotage the eradication plan by giving rats an antidote to the poison used in the eradication.

Prosecutors allege than on October 24, 2001, Puddicombe and another man, Robert Crawford, arrived at the island in an inflatable boat to spread food pellets with vitamin K. Vitamin K is an antidote to many common rat poisons.

Crawford plead guilty to interfering with the activities of a federal agency and illegally feeding the antidote to rats. He was fined $200.

Puddicombe denies the charges and his public defender argued before U.S. District Court Judge Willard McEwan that the government could not prove that Puddicombe actually scattered any food pellets on the island.

If convicted, Puddicombe could face up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Sources:

Attorneys clash in island rat case. Sylvia Moore, Ventura County Star (California), June 21, 2003.

News briefs from around California. Associated Press, June 21, 2003.

Anacapa Island Likely Free of Black Rats, Finally

Officials with the Channel Islands National Park announced in May that they believe Anacapa Island is now free of black rats after an eradication project that cost upwards of $1 million. Kate Faulkner, chief of natural resources management at the park, added that it would not be until 2004, however, until biologist could make the official determination that the black rat had been eradicated.

Anacapa Island is an important island for a number of species, including the rare Xantus? murrelet. The murrelet population was threatened by the rats who would eat the murrelet eggs. The rats were introduced to the island sometime before 1940, likely by a wrecked ship.

The American Trader Trustee Council used money it won as compensation for a 1990 oil spill, and which had to be used for restore seabird populations, to pay for the eradication.

But before it could get off the ground, the eradication effort had to overcome opposition from animal rights activists who offered a number of objections to the plan, ranging from claims that the poison to be used was cruel since it kills by causing internal bleeding to claims that a species of deer mice that is found on the island should be declared endangered.

In October 2001 the Fund for Animals and the Channel Islands Animal Protection Association filed a lawsuit arguing that the eradication plan had not adequately taken into account the effects of deer mice and birds eating the poison pellets. That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court in December 2001 and Phase I of the eradication plan, which targeted the eastern part of the island, was put into effect.

Phase II, which targeted the middle and western part of the island, was conducted last fall.

Source:

Anacapa Island’s black rats killed off. David Montero, Ventura County Star News, May 22, 2003.

Maryland Governor Signs Sunday Hunting Law

Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich signed a bill in late April that will allow hunting on two Sundays during the state’s next deer season. Under the new law, hunting will be allowed on private land in several rural counties on the first Sunday in November for bow hunting and on the first Sunday after the firearms season opens (Nov. 2 and Nov. 30 respectively this year.)

The bill had been passed in March by a vote of 87-41 in Maryland’s House and 33-11 in the state Senate. A similar bill was approved in 2002 but vetoed by then-Maryland Gov. Paris Glendening.

The Baltimore Sun quotes former Maryland delegate Michael Weir, who had tried to gain approval for SUnday hunting during his 28 years in office, as saying that the increasing size of the deer herd and the attendant problems explained the turnaround,

You have more people being hurt in car accidents with deer, and people are tired of deer eating their bushes and causing crop damage. Bambi’s lost a few friends over the years.

Bambi still has friends at the Fund for Animals, however, which was outraged that Ehrlich signed the bill after saying during the election that he opposed Sunday hunting. Fund for Animals president Michael Markarian said in a press release,

Sunday hunting threatens public safety, harms wildlife, and is bad for the economy. Governor Ehrlich stated during his campaign last year that he opposed Sunday hunting. He has flip-flopped on this issue, he has eviscerated a 30–year Maryland tradition, and he has gouged Maryland taxpayers in the process.

The state Department of Natural Resources supported the bill saying that allowing Sunday hunting is an important tool in controlling the size of Maryland’s deer population which is estimated at 250,000.

Source:

Sunday deer-hunt bill in Ehrlich’s hands. Candus Thomson, The Baltimore Sun, April 8, 2003.

Sunday deer hunt needs only Ehrlich signature. Associated Press, April 12, 2003.

Ehrlich signs Sunday hunting law. Candus Thomson, The Baltimore Sun, April 23, 2003.

Sunday hunting easy to defend. Gene Mueller, Washington Times, April 30, 2003.

Fund for Animals Condemns Gov. Ehrlich for Lifting 300-Year Ban on Sunday Hunting, Gouging Taxpayers. Press Release, Fund for Animals, April 22, 2003.

Md. Assembly Passes Bill Allowing Sunday Deer Hunting. Associated Press April 8, 2003.

Montana Lawmakers Pass Bison Hunt Bill

In April the Montana Senate and House of Representatives approved a bill that would allow that states Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission to create a limited hunt of bison targeting those animals that stray out of Yellowstone National Park.

Before approving the bill, legislators removed a provision that would have prevented out-of-state hunters from taking part in such a hunt, and set the price for bison tags at $75 for Montana residents and $750 for out-of-state hunters. The hunt is motivated in part by the fact that bison in Yellowstone carry the bovine disease brucellosis which some fear could spread to cattle in that state.

Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director Jeff Hagener told the Billings Gazette that if the bill is signed into law by Montana Governor Judy Martz, any hunt is still at least a year away.

The Fund for Animals was quick with a press release decrying the proposed hunt. According to a Fund for Animals press release,

Hunting bison allegedly for disease control purposes lacks scientific basis. Given that there has never been a documented case of bison transmitting the disease brucellosis to livestock in the wild, there is no justification for hunting bison for disease “management.” To claim otherwise, is to mislead the public and to cave in to the unsubstantiated fears of the livestock industry.

The Fund is apparently planning to launch a tourist boycott of Montana if the bison hunt resumes.

Sources:

Fund for Animals Alert, April 9, 2003.

Panel OKs opening bison hunt. Jennifer McKee, Billings Gazette, April 17, 2003.

Fund for Animals Files Lawsuit Over Hunting in Wildlife Refuges

According to ABCNews.Com, The Fund for Animal has filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department asking the department to ban hunters from 39 areas in federal wildlife refuges that have recently begun to allow hunting.

The lawsuit alleges that the decision to open up the 39 areas in the refuges has been made “without analyzing or disclosing the potential direct, indirect and cumulative environment impacts.” Hunting is currently allowed in more than half of the 540 federal wildlife refuges according to ABC News.

Fund for Animals president Michael Markarian told ABC,

We believe it is obscene that refuges should be turned into killing fields. There’s plenty of public land in this country where hunters can hunt. Unfortunately there’s a lot of political pressure to allow hunting on refuges.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife spokesman Mitch Snow derided the lawsuit saying,

It’s completely historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. The refuges were never created to be sanctuaries where no hunting would be allowed. Ever since the inception of the refuge system, hunting has been allowed, largely because hunting is good for conservation — hunters contribute enormously to conservation. Without hunting, we couldn’t do what we do.

Another Fish and Wildlife spokesman, Nicholas Throckmorton, noted that the federal duck stamp program — initiated in 1934 — has raised $622 million since its creation in 1934 (though it needs to be noted that while hunters must buy a federal duck stamp before hunting waterfowl, nonhunters can also purchase the stamp).

Source:

Conservation Group Cries Foul Over Growing Hunting in Wildlife Refuges. Dean Schabner, ABCNews.Com, March 18, 2003.

The Fund for Animals Poll on Neiman Marcus

The Fund for Animals issued a press release in February about its ongoing campaign against Neiman Marcus. On February 22 it was to hold a protest at a San Francisco Neiman Marcus. The Fund’s Pierre Grzybowski said in the press release,

We are holding this vigil to draw attention to the millions of animals who suffer each year for the unnecessary fur trade. There are plenty of warm and elegant alternatives that don’t involve animal cruelty. Causing animals to suffer will never be back in fashion.

But it was this paragraph at the end of the release that caught my attention,

Last fall, a Decision Research poll of high-income shoppers, conducted in four metropolitan areas where Neiman Marcus has stores, revealed that a majority of consumers consider selling fur to be socially irresponsible.

This poll was actually conducted by Decision Research in September 2001 rather than last Fall as The Fund claimed. But more importantly, there is very little on The Fund’s web site about exactly what this poll asked individuals.

The Fund reported at the time that the poll found 54 percent of the 400 high-income shoppers interviewed for the poll said that stores selling fur were socially irresponsible. It also claimed that consumers overwhelmingly favored shopping at stores that did not carry fur.

But the actual poll questions and breakdown of answers is not available anywhere at The Fund’s web site nor at Decision Research’s web site.

The suspicion that this was likely a push poll is reinforced by Decision Research’s blatant statement on its web site that it is not simply an objective polling organization, but considers itself to be actively trying to improve animal welfare. According to Decision Research,

Since the early 1990’s Decision Research has been an active participant in efforts to use the ballot box to further animal welfare. Working closely with the Humane Society of the United States and other animal welfare organizations, Decision Research has conducted focus groups and surveys on issues ranging from limits on factory farming to bans on hunting mountain lions to eliminating inhumane methods of trapping and hunting, and banning cockfighting outright. Our research has been critical to the success of a dozen ballot measures by helping determine the ballot language, and best arguments to use during the campaign.

Fine, but don’t expect anyone to consider your polls about animal issue to be objective.

Sources:

Fund for Animals holds massive candlelight vigil to protest sale of fur at “Neiman Carcass”. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, February 20, 2003.

Public Policy Clients — Animal Welfare. Decision Research web page, Accessed: March 14, 2003.

Poll Reveals Upscale Shoppers Strongly Prefer Fur-Free Department Stores. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, October 24, 2001.