.......Today, the HSUS and the Fund for Animals have decided it’s the Makah........

.......One can only wonder who's next........
 

Conservation v. Animal Rights 
Tribe at Center of Whaling Controversy

Dexter Van Zile is the Northeast Bureau Chief for National Fisherman.

Unless mainstream environmentalists are content to see meaningful laws get hijacked for purposes other than environmental protection, they better start filing friend-of-the-court briefs in response to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit’s Court of Appeals regarding the Makah tribe’s right to catch whales in Washington state. According to a three-judge panel, the right to whale conferred to the Makah in a U.S. treaty signed in 1853 can be trumped by environmental legislation enacted more 150 years later. So much for the Constitution declaring that U.S. treaty agreements are to be upheld as the "supreme law of the land."
The arrogation of whaling rights in favor of environmental protection may seem like a win for people interested in protecting biodiversity, but the ruling is a net loss for environmentalists. Not only does the ruling undermine the environmental movement’s ability to appeal to mainstream voters by allowing laws to be invoked in the pursuit of an animal rights agenda, the ruling undermines native fishing rights in Washington state which have been a powerful force for environmental protection in the Pacific Northwest.
The details of the case are this: In response to a complaint from a coalition of animal rights groups including the Fund for Animals, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the West Coast Anti-Whaling Society, the court ruled that the tribe's annual hunt of gray whales must stop until the National Marine Fisheries Service conducts an environmental impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. Under the ruling, NOAA Fisheries must determine whether the hunt poses a substantial risk to the local population of gray whales that reside off the coast of Washington. Additionally, the judges ruled the Makah hunt of gray whales can only be conducted after a review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act determines the hunt "will not threaten the role of gray whales as functioning elements of the marine ecosystem."
The ruling echoes the canard of anti-whaling activists -- that any harvest (however small) of whales (no matter how numerous) poses a huge environmental threat. The ruling states that the Makah harvest of whales "could be used as a precedent for other countries to declare the subsistence need of their own aboriginal groups, thereby making it easier for such groups to gain approval for whaling. If such an increase in whaling occurs, there will obviously be a significant impact on the environment."
A few facts are in order. The California gray whale, which migrates annually between the west coast of Mexico and the North Pacific, was placed on the endangered species list in 1970 when its population numbered less than 1,500 and was taken off the list in 1995 after a robust recovery. Scientists from the National Marine Fishing Service and the International Whaling Commission now estimate the species' population at 17,000 and have said that the species can support an annual harvest of 300 to 500 whales. In 1998, NOAA fisheries gave the Makah tribe a permit allowing the tribe to harvest five animals a year, but the tribe has so far only harvested one gray whale since the permit was issued. Another tribe, the Chukotkas of Siberia, are allocated an annual quota of 120 animals by the International Whaling Commission. Between the combined harvest of the Makah and the Chukotka, the depletion of gray whales is not a possibility.
In fact, a spike in the number of fatal strandings of California gray whales in 1999 and 2000 indicates the species recently exceeded its carrying capacity. From 1995 to 1998, the annual number of gray whale strandings hovered around 50, but in 1999, after the population estimate for California gray whales hit its all-time high of 26,000, strandings jumped to 274 and in 2000 the strandings increased to over 350. The emaciated condition of the stranded whales, combined with the high population count and the extraordinary high number of strandings suggests that after a 30-year recovery, California gray whales overshot their carrying capacity and that the strandings were part of an inevitable die-off that brought their population to sustainable levels.
Given the numbers, any suggestion that the harvest of even five whales threatens the role of gray whales as a functioning element in the ecosystem is ludicrous, indicating that the suit isn’t about environmental protection, but about preventing the hunt of whales in the name of animal rights. And while there is overlap between the two issues, there is a huge difference between arguing on behalf of ecosystem protection and the rights of individual animals. Most Americans can understand the need to protect animals from extinction, but to ask that they stop hunting or refrain from eating meat is another issue altogether. It is this agenda, not ecosystem protection, that is the ultimate goal of the plaintiffs.
But instead of arguing that the Makah hunt must stop on moral grounds -- an argument they know probably won’t win -- the plaintiffs have tried to turn the issue into a scientific debate. And in order to win the debate, they have based their arguments on a willful misreading of the scientific literature regarding feeding aggregations of whales that form off the west coast and judges cooperated. The main peg of the ruling is this: The Makah hunt could negatively impact a group of whales that spends its summers off the Washington coast, feeding in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Instead of seeing the aggregation for what it is -- an indeterminate number of whales avoiding a longer trip north by taking advantage of high concentrations of food available to them off the Washington Coast -- the judges accepted the notion that the aggregation forms a distinct subset of animals needing protection. Neither the International Whaling Commission nor NOAA fisheries regard feeding aggregations as distinct populations, but the court, in an astounding display of ecological gerrymandering, ruled otherwise.
The judges’ ruling doesn’t end with a willful misreading of scientific record. The judges also misread the Treaty of Neah Bay, which accords the Makah the right to harvest marine resources of Washington in common with the state’s other residents. Previous rulings have made clear that barring an overriding environmental concern, Washington’s tribes have an absolute right to harvest the state’s marine resources such as shellfish, finfish and yes, even whales. It’s a powerful right, but for this promise, the tribes extinguished their claims to millions of acres of land.
To protect their access to marine resources, the tribes have been accorded a legal right to insist the marine resources in question be preserved. As a consequence of a 1980 ruling, tribes in Washington state have legal standing to sue when officials fail to protect marine resources. While the tribes have so far chosen not to sue but instead negotiate with state and federal officials over the protection of marine resources, the threat of tribal lawsuits over salmon habitat has been a major force behind efforts to reform forestry practices, land use and water policy in the region. By convincing the judges to arrogate tribal fishing rights, the plaintiffs in this suit might end up weakening a powerful force for environmental protection in the Pacific Northwest.
Environmentalists concerned with conservation and the protection of ecosystems would regard this threat of tribal lawsuits as a tool worth protecting. The plaintiffs, however, see it differently. While they are putatively concerned with a healthy environment and the protection of ecosystems, the plaintiffs are ultimately concerned with the alleged right of whales to be free from human predation.
To the plaintiffs, the tribes’ right to file suit to protect marine resources is suspect because it is rooted in their protected right to harvest whales, which they think is inhumane, and morally wrong -- constitutionally protected or not.
Overlooking the Constitutional declaration that upholds U.S. treaties and the rights of the Makah is a function of the philosophy that motivates animal rights groups. When deciding how to behave and organize their communities, animal rights activists assert, humans should abandon anthropocentrism and quit regarding themselves as the center of the universe and take into account the rights of other species. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice somebody has to decide who gets shoved out of the center first. Today, the HSUS and the Fund for Animals have decided it’s the Makah.
One can only wonder who's next.
Source: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7274
 

Hundreds of caged roosters discovered in suspected cockfighting operation

Saturday, February 15, 2003

Daily News staff

Three hundred caged roosters, suspected of being used in cockfighting contests, were discovered at an East Naples residence on Friday.



Victor Arrturo Valdes

Victor Arrturo Valdes, 41, of 11621 Lafayette Lane, was arrested and charged under the animal fighting act, a felony criminal charge.

Sheriff's deputies say they found the 300 or more fighting roosters in cages and a cockfighting ring on Valdes' property.

Deputies say they also found ledgers of previous fighting contests and spurs for the roosters' feet which are meant to harm their opponents in the ring.

Domestic Animal Services officers also came to the scene and said the roosters displayed injuries consistent with cockfighting. Investigators also say they found rooster carcasses.

The cages and roosters were seized.

Cockfighting was banned in Florida in 1986, although people can raise and train the roosters for export to places were the sport is still allowed.

Source: http://www.naplesnews.com/03/02/naples/d901703a.htm
 

Activists strike at fighter's hobby

Brett Norman
@PensacolaNewsJournal.com

Roy Jones Jr. isn't afraid to tout his love for cockfighting - not even to the New York Times - but animal rights activists want him to eat his words.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals fired off a letter Friday urging the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to investigate Jones' controversial pastime, claiming recent interviews with the world light heavyweight champion suggest he is breaking Florida law.

That Jones breeds cockfighters on his 88-acre ranch in Cantonment is no secret, but he always has maintained that he fights them in Louisiana, where the sport is legal.

No evidence in the letter suggests otherwise. Jones, who was training in New Orleans, could not be reached for comment.

Escambia County Sheriff's officials had not received the letter - mailed Friday - but said they could not recall any complaints against Jones or, for that matter, any cases of cockfighting.

"I have heard rumors - and that's all - that he raises chickens," said Capt. Randy Brown, who oversees the patrol division. "But I have heard nothing to indicate that he fights them in our jurisdiction."

Brown said deputies investigate all credible reports of animal fighting, whether dogs or roosters. Fighting roosters is a third-degree felony in Florida.

PETA's letter bases its allegations on interviews Jones gave to reporters from throughout the nation Wednesday. He was promoting his March 1 bout with WBA heavyweight champion John Ruiz but also mentioned his passion for cockfighting.

"He took a bunch of reporters around and showed them his compound, which seemed pretty stupid to us, frankly. We just think that put the nail in the coffin," said Dan Shannon, the campaign coordinator for PETA who penned the letter. "This just seemed like the perfect opportunity to bring it to the attention of authorities."

The letter also cites a profile in the March 2003 issue of "Esquire" magazine that quotes Jones as saying, "I give my roosters the best of food. I give them the best of care. I give them everything they want before I ask them to sacrifice. Get a rooster comfortable and he'll fight his (butt) off."

Shannon said whether or not Jones fights the birds in Florida will not matter come May, when a federal law takes effect prohibiting the transport of birds across state lines to fight.

Source: http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/021503/Local/ST005.shtml

New Mexico Considers Cockfighting Ban
Sat February 15, 2003 08:53 AM ET
By Zelie Pollon

SANTA FE, N.M. (Reuters) - Lawmakers in New Mexico are struggling to decide whether it should remain one of just two states in the country that allows cockfighting.

Hundreds of cockfighting enthusiasts and animal rights activists recently crowded the state capitol to testify on a proposal that would make sponsoring, arranging, holding or participating in cockfighting a fourth-degree felony.

Supporters of the ban say it is long overdue. Opponents argue the blood sport is misunderstood and an important source of revenue for parts of the state.

Earlier this month, the cockfighting lobby scored a victory when a proposed ban died in the Senate. The battle switched to the state's House, where another bill to ban cockfighting has been introduced.

"My view is that 80 percent of New Mexicans, including myself, think cockfighting is a barbaric practice," said Republican Rep. Ron Godbey, who introduced the bill.

Godbey said the first hearing on his bill should take place in the coming days.

New Mexico and Louisiana are the only U.S. states that permit cockfighting, in which roosters with razor-sharp metal spurs affixed to their legs are placed in an enclosure to fight, often to the death.

Oklahoma banned cockfighting last November. But now it faces court challenges, mostly from rural counties. Opponents of the ban gained temporary injunctions against the law in 22 Oklahoma counties.

The urban centers of Tulsa and Oklahoma City overwhelmingly support the ban.

"Forty-eight other states in this country have banned cockfighting, most of them over 100 years ago," said Danielle Bays, a lobbyist with Animal Protection Voters of New Mexico. "New Mexico's time has come."

TRADITION, FREEDOM AND MONEY

New Mexico cockfighters, mostly Hispanic men from southern and rural areas of the state, say the sport is a matter of culture, tradition and freedom.

It is also a significant source of income for some of the state's impoverished areas that depend on exports of fighting fowl to places such as the Philippines.

"This is about people coming from out of state and trying to control the culture here -- a culture they don't understand," said Ronald Barron, president of the New Mexico Game Birds Association, which has more than 7,000 members.

"Cockfighting has been in my family for four generations," said Steve Rodriguez, an association member. "Why don't they worry about people starving or schools? A lot of people make a living doing this."

Barron said New Mexico's cockfighting industry, including items such as the animals, feed, restaurants and lodging, brings in more than $51 million dollars a year to a state that ranks among the country's poorest.

It remains to be seen whether the perception of animal cruelty will outweigh the industry's economic and entertainment benefits for rural communities. As in the battle in Oklahoma, the fight to ban cockfighting pits urban areas against rural regions.

According to a poll by Animal Protection of New Mexico, 81 percent of New Mexicans support a ban on cockfighting, which is already banned in 13 New Mexico counties and in 28 municipalities including Albuquerque.

Despite the support to end the blood sport, a similar ban failed to pass in the legislative session two years ago.

In Oklahoma, judges in counties that have been home to cockfighting said they needed to see if the ban unfairly interferes with commerce or deprives game fowl breeders of property without just compensation -- or simply makes felons out of chicken farmers.

Asked if New Mexico cockfighters would consider a legal battle to fight a ban, Barron said, "You bet we'll take this to the courts. There's no doubt about it."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2234361

 
Animal cruelty charges dropped in plea agreement

02/15/2003

By AP Staff

A husband and wife have been sentenced to short jail terms and probation on weapons charges stemming from a police raid last summer at their home west of Junction City.

Animal cruelty and cockfighting charges were dropped as a part of a plea agreement.

Jerry Donald Palmer pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and one count each of identity theft and criminal possession of a forged instrument. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail and five years probation.

Linda Sue Palmer pleaded guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. She was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 36 months probation.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Source:  http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_0215_news_animal_cruelty.111248f7.html