US Senate must not allow barbaric methods of killing wildlife on federal lands

House Joint Resolution 69 would allow the killing of bear cubs, along with their mothers, as they sleep in their dens.

 

By Jo Miller, Executive Producer of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and Jeff Flocken, North American Regional Director, International Fund for Animal Welfare

 

UPDATE: The U.S. House and Senate both passed H.J. Res. 69, and the President has signed it into law despite fierce opposition from the public and many members of Congress. In the wake of this distressing loss, IFAW—with your help—will continue to fight for wildlife and habitat protections in Congress.

High-caliber weapons, GPS tracking, and all-weather tech gadgets have made a mockery of the concept of “sportsmanship” in the hunting of wild animals. Some members of Congress are now proposing measures that would add archaic and sadistic practices to the stacked deck for hunters in pursuit of Alaska’s supposedly protected bears, coyotes, wolves, and other flagship species. The mental images are tough to stomach.

House Joint Resolution 69 would allow the killing of wolf pups and bear cubs, along with their mothers, as they sleep in their dens. It would reintroduce barbaric steel-jaw traps, which slam shut on an animal’s limb, leaving it to struggle in agony for days, sometimes chewing its leg off to escape. The traps have been banned in dozens of countries. Then there are the snares—wire nooses designed to tighten around an animal’s neck, slowly strangling it to death.

These torture devices belong on the set of horror movie franchise, not on Alaska’s federal lands. The word federal is crucial here. The special-interest proponents of H.J. Res. 69 claim that this issue is, at its core, a matter of “states’ rights.” Not true. Federal agencies’ authority to manage federal lands across all fifty states has been reaffirmed countless times. But the more fundamental point is that their argument goes against core American values—the public’s right to connect with nature and enjoy wildlife that is protected and managed on public lands; our right to the assurance that our children and grandchildren will be able to see the iconic species native to the lands we share with them.

On her TBS show, Full Frontal, Samantha Bee pointed out how detached such legislation is from the feeling of most of the nation: “The vast majority of Americans support wildlife protection [84 percent]. …‘Animals are awesome’ is the only safe topic of conversation most American families have left. Left, right; old, young; black, white—Americans agree: ‘four legs good.’”

But even if you’re in the minority, note that these Draconian practices will infringe on the rights, and safety, of hikers, wildlife watchers, photographers, and other users of these lands. Their contributions to local economies substantially outweigh those of hunters. In fact, according to a US Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS report, more than 70 percent of total expenditures tied to refuges are generated by non-consumptive (non-hunting) recreation. These people, along with the responsible sportsmen and sportswomen who hunt and fish relying on “fair chase principles,” are also at risk of encountering traps and snares, as are their dogs. Yes, hunting and fishing are already permitted in some form or another on all of Alaska’s wildlife refuges – 76 million acres of habitat that is home to a rich array of plants and animals.  The current USFWS rule simply restricts the most inhumane practices. So why do proponents of H.J. Res. 69 want to pass such an excessive proposal? Because killing off bears, wolves, and coyotes will artificially boost prey populations—in other words, ruthlessly eliminating natural predators to make it easier for hunters to kill other animals. To make matters worse, it will also knock the ecosystem out of balance.

While the rest of the US marks the 114th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the House is setting about to eliminate the baseline protections for wildlife, on the very lands that were designated as safe havens. So we have to decide, as a country, what kind of stewards we want to be for our vulnerable wildlife. Do we at least have enough compassion to spare them from unimaginably cruel fates: suffering for days in leg traps, slowly suffocating in neck snares, mother bears and wolves slaughtered alongside their young? There should be no ideological divide—the Senate must acknowledge their moral responsibility, and the rights at stake for Americans and wildlife, and reject H.J.Res.69.

--JF and JM

This blog also appeared in Huffington Post.

Post a comment

Experts

Azzedine Downes,IFAW President and CEO
President and Chief Executive Officer
Beth Allgood, US Country Director
US Country Director
Cynthia Milburn, Director, Animal Welfare Outreach & Education
Senior Advisor, Policy Development
Faye Cuevas, Esq.
Chief of Staff, International Fund for Animal Welfare
Grace Ge Gabriel, Regional Director, Asia
Regional Director, Asia
Kelvin Alie, Vice President for Conservation and Animal Welfare
Vice President for Conservation and Animal Welfare
Patrick Ramage, Program Director, Whales
Program Director, Marine Conservation