Tag: Fund for Animals

Court Orders Halt to Makah Whale Hunt

In a case likely to end up in the Supreme Court, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals halted a planned Makah whale hunt. The panel ruled that the National Marine Fisheries Service had failed to provide an adequate environmental assessment in allowing the whale hunt to go forward.

The Fund for Animals and the Humane Society of the United States had sued the NMFS to overturn a lower court’s ruling allowing the hunt to go forward. Fund for Animals president Michael Markarian told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that he was,

. . . elated that the court has put a stop to this illegal and inhumane whale hunt. This court decision upholds the MMPA, which is a sweeping conservation measure to protect marine mammals in the U.S.

This victory, however, is likely to be short lived. The Makah intend to appeal the decision to the full 9th Circuit Court and to the Supreme Court if necessary.

And they are likely to succeed. There’s a reason the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is overwhelmingly the most overturned circuit court in the nation — because it consistently issues rulings like this that completely ignore its own and the Supreme Court’s established precedents.

As Bob Anderson, professor of law at the University of Washington, told The Post-Intelligencer,

It [the decision] is an unprecedented break with how every other court has analyzed general statutes and treaty rights. It seems flatly wrong on the Indian-law component of the analysis. They are definitely stretching to find federal regulatory authority to limit treaty rights when the Supreme Court has said that you have to find clear evidence that Congress intended to do so.

And, as Anderson points out, Congress made the Makah case for it in 1994 when it amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act to read, among other things, that “nothing in this act . . . alters or is intended to alter any treaty between the U.S. and one or more Indian tribes.”

Only the 9th Circuit Court would infer from that that Congress meant to limit the Makah’s treaty rights.

Sources:

Court stops Makah whale hunt. Paul Shukovsky, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 21, 2002.

Court stops Makah whale hunt. Fund for Animals, Press Release, December 20, 2002.

Fund for Animals Wants Activists to Register Opposition to License Plate

Earlier this year the Virginia legislature authorized a large number of various specialty license plates, including one that is to bear the slogan “Fox Hunting.” As soon as the Virginia Office of Motor Vehicles has enough requests for the specialty plate, it will begin producing them.

The Fund for Animals is urging people to write state legislators and register their disapproval for the fox hunting plate. According to the Fund for Animals,

The state of Virginia is beginning to sell a fox hunting license plate. The cruel practice of fox hunting releases baying hounds onto terrified wildlife for recreation. This special license plate was overwhelmingly authorized by the state legislature in 2002 in House Bill 680. Now the Department of Motor Vehicles is trying to sell enough of the special plate to justify beginning production. While it is too late to stop this horrific license plate, your legislators need to hear from you that you do not approve of their support for the vicious and indefensible practice of foxhunting.

Source:

Tally-No, Virginia!. The Fund for Animals, October 2002.

Gary Francione and Lee Hall Write Scathing Attack on the Animal Rights Movement

Rutgers law professor Gary Francione and Fund for Animals legal director Lee Hall wrote a scathing critique of the animal rights movement for the San Francisco Chronicle. The op-ed defended Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders who recently criticized a California proposal for a “humane education” curriculum in schools.

Francione and Hall raise some points which this author fully agrees with, but in general they disapprove of the mainstream of the animal rights movement because they do not think it is radicalized enough. In Francione and Hall’s view, a group like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is composed of a bunch of sellouts who are little better than cattle ranchers.

Francione and Hall agree with and expand on Saunders’ criticism that the animal rights movement tends to be inconsistent. They note, for example, how quickly people rushed to defend Peter Singer’s qualified defense of sex between humans and non-human animals. Francione and Hall write,

Remarkably, a large number of prominent animal advocates rushed to defend singer. Those advocates who did criticize Singer found themselves reprimanded for “divisive” conduct. Such a response befits a cult, not a social movement.

Francione and Hall also agree with Saunders that Singer does openly advocate infanticide — as is obvious to anyone who reads his writings on the topic — and express contempt at those in the animal rights movement who label as “animal enemies” (their term) those who criticize Singer for this and other absurd positions.

But it is their wholesale attack on the humane education proposals that show Francione and Hall’s true perspective — they consider any attempt at improving animal welfare to be collaborating with the enemy that ultimately undermines the entire movement. Francione and Hall write,

Saunders correctly perceives the meaninglessness of such [humane education] legislation. Who disagrees with the position that we ought to be “kind” to animals? The problem is that as long as animals are our property, as long as we can buy them, sell them, kill them and eat them, it does not matter whether we call ourselves “guardians” or how much we ramble about “humane” treatment. In reality, we are still their masters and they are our slaves.

. . .

It is our view that animals should not be brought under the control of human owners in the first place and, therefore, that humans should stop producing domestic animals for human use.

With Francione and Hall, the problem then is not that procedures for slaughtering cattle is inhumane, but rather that animal rights activists seem to accept things like human beings having pets or abominable practices such as the provision of guide dogs for the blind.

Rather than advocate for humane treatment of non-human animals, Francione and Hall argue for essentially a complete separation and end all contact between humans and animals (except, perhaps, where humans are simply unnoticed observers).

Source:

A deeply confused animal rights movement. Gary L. Francione and Lee Hall, San Francisco Chronicle, August 21, 2002.

Fund for Animals Can't Shoot Straight on Worst Canned Hunts

The Fund for Animals today sent out a press release listing the “Top Ten States with the Cruelest Canned Hunts.” According to The Fund,

The states making The Fund’s “top ten” list are: Texas, Michigan,
Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Ohio, Maine, Missouri, New Mexico,
Tennessee, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Although advertised under a variety
of names—most frequently “hunting preserves,” “game ranches,” or
“shooting preserves”—canned hunts violate the hunting community’s
standard of “fair chase” by confining animals to cages or fenced
enclosures. The types of animals killed can range from native species
such as elk and deer to exotic animals such as zebras, Corsican rams,
blackbuck antelope, and water buffalo.

Apparently compiling that list of ten states stretched The Fund for Animals’ limited research capabilities. A few hours after releasing it, Fund media coordinator Tracey McIntire was forced to send out a correction that read,

The list of the states with the worst canned hunts should NOT include
New Mexico and Kentucky.

Oops. No word on which states would take New Mexico and Kentucky’s places. The odds are good, however, that The Fund for Animals would be well at home on a list of top 10 animal rights groups that can never seem to get their act together.

Sources:

The Fund For Animals Announces The Top Ten States With The Cruelest Canned Hunts. The Fund for Animals, Press Release, August 12, 2002.

Correction on press release. Tracey McIntire, The Fund for Animals, August 12, 2002.

Animal Rights Groups Fail to Stop Makah Whale Hunt

For the second time in recent months, animal rights activists have failed to get a permanent injunction to prevent the Makah tribe from conducting a whale hunt this summer.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Franklin Burgess denied efforts by The Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the United States, and other groups to obtain an injunction against the whale hunt. Among other things, the groups claim that the hunt violates the National Environmental Policy Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

At the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission, the Makah were granted the right to kill up to four whales per year.

Source:

Court Again Rejects Effort To Prevent Whale Hunt. David Fisher, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 8, 2002.

Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order in Makah Whale Hunt Dispute

A federal judge granted a 10-day restraining order barring the Makah Indians from hunting any gray whales pending a May 15 hearing on the matter.

At that hearing, U.S. District Judge Franklin D. Burgess will hear arguments from The Fund for Animals on their request for a preliminary injunction barring the Makah whale hunt until a lawsuit it has filed has been settled one way or the other.

Under the provisions of a treaty the Makah signed with the United States in 1855, the Makah retain rights to hunt whales. After the gray whale was removed from the Endangered Species List in 1994, the Makah sought to resume hunting them.

In 1999, they resumed hunting and managed to kill a whale. The tribe also hunted in 2000, but did not manage to kill any whales.

In 2001, Makah whale hunting was suspended for a year after anti-whaling forces successfully sued and a court ordered the National Marine Fisheries Service to draw up a study of the environmental impact of the limited Makah whale hunt. That initial success turned into a nightmare for anti-whaling forces when the report not only said that hunting five whales would not impact the population of 26,000 gray whales, but also extended the area where the Makah could hunt.

The Fund for Animals and other groups are now challenging that report in court, arguing that the study was not done properly.

Sources:

Federal judge grants temporary restraining order against whale hunt. Elizabeth Murtaugh, Associated Press, May 4, 2002.

Makah ordered not to whale for at least 10 days. KomoTV.Com, May 3, 2002.