122 wolves in Washington State, struggling to recover their population since the 1990s – two dead in the last month, one the breeding female in the Profanity Peak pack. After a decision allowed state wildlife officials to shoot wolves in the Northeast Washington State area, two wolves have lost their lives. The female just shot this previous Friday was one of only a few members of the pack left, after Washington State officials decimated the pack in 2016.

It is a fragile existence for wolves, and their lives are constantly under threat. The last few years have been a massacre. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, many of the wolves killed in the last few years have been at the request of one cattle rancher.

These are not just individuals either – they are family members with important roles in the pack structure. It is incredibly tragic to think of the remaining, embattled wolves in these tiny packs, eking out their existence without the wolf family members they have lost.

Please read more about this situation and ask the state to find a better way to care for Washington’s wolves.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/wolf-08-20-2018.php

https://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/lethal-action-against-new-washington-wolf-pack-approved-by-state/281-593202277

I am in line for the Killbox. I am standing with the Others who love me, and whom I love. We are living beings. We have lives. Goals. Culture. We like shelter and good food. We like the sun on our brow. We like the clean crisp air of the morning. But today we are being driven toward the place. We know what is coming. We are terrified. We are sad. We tremble and our bodies start to shake. Tears come. Our legs nearly give out to escape this vile place. This Nazi place. This black evil place. We are pushed there harder – quickly. I can smell death. I don’t want to die in this place. Yet they make me go there, closer. Then it is my turn. This is wrong. It is illogical. It is the place of abject poverty. It is the place of shame. This is the place of the humans.

The comment period is coming to an end on a series of changes to the Endangered Species Act today. These changes have been portrayed as a way of giving industry “incentives” to protect wildlife. This is a roundabout way of saying that important regulations to protect wildlife will be removed to make way for industry. The argument for the changes revolve around the idea that since species are still endangered, the act isn’t working. This is like saying that we should remove social welfare because people are still poor.

The Endangered Species Act doesn’t protect all animals, but it has protected 99 percent of the animals it covers from extinction. It’s imperative for animals that we see through the deceitful arguments of the “regulation-shy.” These are nothing more than a veil for shifting the focus of conservation towards human interests and away from animal interests. The changes will:

– Remove protection from threatened species, if they are not officially endangered, allowing them to be hunted and trapped
– Exclude scientists from federal findings
– Change language to make it less clear-cut that species’ interests should trump economic ones

What is most outrageous is that these actions have been portrayed as reasonable. Handing power to business owners and vested economic interests is a recipe for disaster. What will it take for human beings to learn that a superior force will always harm the vulnerable if left unchecked? This is not an abstract philosophy, it’s the basic physics of how beings interact. It’s time to refuse this cowardice and shift the weight of our choices towards protecting the vulnerable. Please make your comment today and join the fight to protect endangered species.

Read more:

https://billingsgazette.com/opinion/columnists/guest-opinion-speak-up-by-sept-to-save-endangered-species/article_ad64ea21-2c1a-5c4e-9fe1-e0f6bdcdc072.html

https://www.missoulacurrent.com/outdoors/2018/09/endangered-species-act-3/

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/407847-proposed-changes-will-help-recover-endangered-species

At the Wheeler Wildlife Refuge, there are 285 bird species, as well as a wide variety of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mussels, snails and plants. These species are already vulnerable to pesticides dumped on the 3000 acres of land given over to private commercial agriculture. Since the Fish and Wildlife Service recently decided to allow bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides and genetically engineered crops requiring more pesticide use, the refuge and the creatures who inhabit the refuge have become more vulnerable to harm. Conservation groups filed a petition asking the Fish and Wildlife Service to end toxic pesticide use on the refuge. This is to take advantage of federal law’s requirement for the service to evaluate every 10 years whether previously approved economic, rather than conservation uses of the land is appropriate. Uses that aren’t compatible with the purpose of the refuge must be ended.

Is there any way that the use of chemicals known to be disastrous for the environment and the life it supports can be approved? Perhaps, if the service decides to abandon its conscience and its responsibility to these animals, and to people. This is why raising your voice to protect the refuge will draw attention to the issue. Agency decisions have huge consequences, but lately they have been slipped under the public’s radar in a cowardly way. It’s time to hold the Fish and Wildlife Service accountable to the animals it claims to protect.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/wheeler-national-wildlife-refuge-09-06-2018.php

Two horrific acts of animal cruelty — only one prison sentence. Dunky the Chihuahua was dragged from his owner’s car and thrown from the top of a parking garage. The woman who killed Dunky got 3 years for his death and for auto burglary and vandalism. Meanwhile, a woman who poured accelerant over a dog called Denali and set her on fire is facing charges for arson, but not a single one for animal cruelty. There were 7 other dogs in the house at the time. The attack on Denali was an act of deliberate vengeance against the woman’s ex-husband.

Since animals are mostly considered property by the law, punishment for animal cruelty has been mixed up with these ideas. Perhaps the police involved in Denali’s case see the dogs as merely the property of the ex-husband? Is it easier to charge a woman with a known criminal record (Dunky’s killer), who is also being charged for crimes against property?

Animal cruelty is a charge that doesn’t seem to be taken very seriously by itself, but it should be. When prison sentences are served for animal cruelty, that means people who are a danger to animals can’t hurt them. Denali’s killer should be serving time for the attempted murder of 8 animals. Please sign and share the petition.

Woman Gets 3 Years For Throwing Dog Off Building From 7th Floor

SIGN: Justice for Dog Doused in Accelerant and Set on Fire

This week, a chance to vote on a bill to ban the live sheep trade fell flat in the Australian House of Representatives. It had passed the Senate and had wide support among Australian politicians across both sides of the aisle. It failed because two politicians refused to “cross the floor” and take a stand to support the bill. Earlier this year, video footage exposed the horror of the live sheep trade, showing sheep packed together, afflicted from the heat and dying on the long voyage north to the Middle East. An Australian Green politician has rightly said the live sheep trade is “simply incompatible with animal welfare.” It just won’t do to slightly improve conditions, as the Liberal party have suggested, by increasing space and ventilation. Travel will still be hard on the animals, and exporters will likely cut corners to save money on power etc.

Australian politicians have made this ban political by choosing to treat it as a partisan issue. The Liberals don’t want to vote with the opposition party because the opposition have made this a policy issue for the next election. If politicians prefer to be political rather than vote for animal welfare, that is their choice. It now represents an opportunity – an opportunity for Australians to put pressure on their politicians to end this trade, or suffer in the next election. It can also be an opportunity to take more comprehensive action to protect animals. No one is even talking about live exports of other animals, such as cattle. Please read more, sign and share, and if you’re an Australian voter, contact your representatives!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/10/live-exports-ban-coalition-pressured-to-allow-lower-house-vote-after-bill-passes-senate

https://secure.animalsaustralia.org/take_action/live-export-shipboard-cruelty/?r=5b9a9f999e7521536860057&ua_s=e-mail#action

The USDA have been silently slaughtering kittens for years. We know this because of Freedom of Information Act requests made by White Coat Waste Project that revealed the slaughter. After White Coat Waste Project noticed a casual reference on the website to kittens at the Beltsville Agricultural Center Research facility, they requested information from the USDA showing that the kittens have been used in experiments for years and then incinerated.

It’s not just that the kittens died – lives casually thrown away year after year – but the ordeal these animals had to go through before they died. During the course of the experiments, the kittens were force-fed raw meat so their feces could be inspected for parasites. It’s not clear how this affected the health of the animals, but they were clearly deemed unfit to be rehabilitated. Did they receive care after these experiments? The USDA has refused to comply with the most recent FOIA request, so White Coat Waste Project is suing them.

The USDA is the body responsible for setting standards and holding agriculture accountable. Their casual hypocrisy on this matter is unconscionable. Please read more about this horrific cover-up, share on social media and sign the petition.

https://petitions.whitecoatwaste.org/sue-usda/?pid=6879934&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=usda_lawsuit&utm_medium=hf&red=caged-kittens-2%2f%3finitiativekey%3dXAPAAAVEGSKG

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/politics/usda-cat-experiments/index.html

If you care about animal rights, you might have countless petitions arriving in your inbox alerting you to the tragedy of kill shelters (that is shelters that euthanize animals they can’t find a home for). You could react by being outraged or you could stop to see a broader pattern.

Some shelters have a higher kill rate than others, such as this one at Randolph County, NC. There are usually several reasons for this – but one major reason is lack of money. Animal shelters just can’t handle the high volume of stray animals they accommodate. The aim is not to name and shame, the aim is to support and reform.

A very simple way of making a difference is to find out more about animal shelters near you and see what you can do. Do they have a high kill rate? Do they suffer from a lack of funding? Could more be done to connect animals with new owners via advertising, social media etc.?

You can volunteer for these shelters, support them financially and hold them accountable for their practices. By doing this you’ll be saving the lives of healthy, loving animals who deserve a chance at a new life.

The USA’s biggest economy just aimed right at the heart of cruel testing on animals. The California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act SB-1249 passed after an 80-0 vote. This is a major victory for animals and its effects should have an influence far beyond California itself. The law doesn’t just outlaw cosmetics tested on animals, it bans cosmetics containing any components tested on animals. As California is such a huge market (in fact recently listed as the 5th biggest economy in the world), it should encourage better practices the world over.

A lot of people still believe that testing on animals is for “the greater good”, but science and technology have increasingly shown we can use alternative methods. Please read more about this topic and spread the word that animal testing is unnecessary and cruel!

The Bureau of Land Management’s brutal sterilization program for wild horses should not be allowed to take place. The plan calls for the least safe and most invasive method of sterilizing wild horses – even though controlling wild populations is already legally suspect (according to this op-ed).

The sterilization could hardly be called a procedure, as it involves vets literally reaching inside female horses for their ovaries and removing them right there on the spot. Without follow-up, a plan for administering antibiotics, pain relief, or a period of care, horses could hemorrhage or get sepsis and die out in the wild.

The BLM is ignoring other alternatives that could be safer, because of so-called cost, even though the scale of this sterilization program would be massive (and therefore costly) as well as the huge risk of failure. If the program is doomed to fail, it’s been suggested, it would be easier to justify mass cullings of horses by offering the excuse that other alternatives have failed. There is something callous and cynical about the sudden leap to board a large scale program that is not strongly backed by experts, that puts horses through so much unnecessary damage – without even giving pain relief.

Brutality is often justified by “necessity”. This program is crude, unnecessary and incredibly harmful to horses. Please sign the petition and share to protect wild horses.