Botswana lions are ex-President Bush meat

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May 2001:
Botswana lions are ex-President Bush meat: Old George Bush lobbies for Safari Club; young Bush attacks ESA

GABORONE, Botswana; JOHANNESBURG, South Africa; HARARE, Zimbabwe; WASHINGTON D.C.–“You might call the lions of southern Africa potential Bush meat,” wrote Manchester Guardian correspondent Chris McGreal from Johannesburg on April 27. “Former U.S. President, George Bush, father of the current President, and his old Gulf War ally, General ‘Stormin’ Norman’ Schwarzkopf, are pleading with the government of Botswana to be allowed to revive their old alliance,” McGreal explained, “this time in pursuit of Africa’s endangered big cats. Bush is among the prominent members of Safari Club International who have asked Botswana to lift a ban slapped on the trophy hunting of lions in February. Bush’s former vice president, Dan Quayle, is also a signatory.”

Read more

Nine-year-old is victim of first deadly dingo attack in 21 years

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May 2001:

FRASER ISLAND, Queensland, Australia–Out for an early morning stroll near where their family had camped overnight on Fraser Island, off the Queensland coast, brothers Dylan and Clinton Gage, 7 and 9, along with an unidentified seven-year-old friend, found themselves being stalked by a male and female dingo. First they tried to walk back to the Waddy Point campsite, about half a kilometre away. As the dingos became bolder, they ran for their lives. Clinton fell and was fatally mauled, in the first lethal dingo attack on a human since the death of nine-week-old Azaria Chamberlain at Ayer’s Rock in August 1980.

Read more

Horsewhipping, tahrs, and political sacrifice

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 2001:

NEW DELHI–Lashing racehorses with “jockey bats” is now illegal in India, Indian Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Maneka Gandhi declared on February 20. The announcement, issued at the presentation ceremony for the Vanu Menon Animal Allies Awards, inadvertantly upstaged news media recognition of the winners. One winner was Visakha SPCA founder Pradeep Kumar Nath, familiar to ANIMAL PEOPLE readers from coverage of his work on behalf of nesting sea turtles, cattle rescued from the illegal slaughter traffic, and street dogs and cats.

The banned whips are defined by the 1998 edition of The Whole Horse Catalog as “heavy sticks, made of plastic or fiberglass [now, formerly made from whalebone] coated with leather or thread and furnished with leather, tape, or rubber handles,” with “wide leather ‘poppers,’ or flaps, to make a noise when slapped against the horse’s flank.”

Indian jockeys may still use lightweight rubber whips, Mrs. Gandhi stated, as Animal Welfare Board of India chair and retired judge Guman Mal Lodha clarified the details. But the rubber whips may be used only to signal to the horses, not to do them injury, Mrs. Gandhi stipulated. Mrs. Gandhi said that beatings with jockey bats had blinded many horses and sometimes caused horses to develop dangerous blood clots on their heads, beneath the skin.

“There have been several instances in which whipping has inflicted serious injury on horses,” Justice Lodha confirmed,
adding “I see no reason why we should tolerate this.”Delhi Race Club manager Kulwant Singh told Arun Kumar Das of
the Times of India that, “We have placed orders for the import of 15 whips from England,” and said that the race club would “propose to initiate action against jockeys who violate the order.” Agreed Delhi Race Club president P.S. Bedi, “We will embrace rubber whips as soon as they arrive.”

Mrs. Gandhi herself was 10 days later named winner of the prestigious Aadishakti Puraskar award, to be presented in April by singer Lata Mangeshkar on behalf of Dinath Mangeshkar Smruti Pratishthan, “in appreciation of her remarkable contribution in the field of environmental protection and animal welfare,” the announcement said.

Tahrs
But handing out and receiving laurels were not among Mrs. Gandhi’s uppermost concerns. Her top political priorities during a hectic February and March were dealing with the aftermath of the January 26 Gujarat earthquake and a cabinet crisis occasioned when a corruption scandal forced the resignation of Defense Minister George Fernandes and other ranking officials.

Mrs. Gandhi found time in between to interrupt the scheduled South African National Park Service massacre of the last 31 feral Himalayan tahrs left on Table Mountain, near Cape Town, offering them sanctuary in Himachal Pradesh. The tahrs established themselves on the mountain after a pair escaped from the Groote Schnur Zoo in Cape Town. They had arrived in 1935 from a zoo in Pretoria. Unwanted in South Africa, Himalayan tahrs are highly endangered in
their native India, with only a few hundred believed to remain in the wild.

The South African government on March 23 suspended the massacre for six months to give Mrs. Gandhi, the Wildlife Trust of India, and Friends of the Tahr time to arrange for the tahrs to be net-gunned from helicopters by a New Zealand team and flown to India–and to seek funding for the work. A last-minute complication was the risk that quarantines on the movement of all hooved stock, meant to slow the spread of hoof-and-mouth disease, might cause delay.

A further complication may be reported objections from the World Conservation Union that the Table Mountain tahrs are “invasive,” should therefore be removed immediately, and should not be allowed to mix with the remaining wild tahrs lest they carry negative inbred genetic traits.

Sacrifice

Never one to spare the verbal lash against cruelty and corruption, Mrs. Gandhi also found time to demand that Karnataka state minister for primary and secondary education H. Vishwanath be criminally prosecuted for attending an allegedly illegal sacrifice of two rams on February 16.

“The minister’s cousin reportedly bought the animals and kept them in a police officer’s house before sacrificing them,” the Times of India reported. “The minister attended the prayer service, but did not witness the sacrificial ceremony. He left the place only after the rituals of sacrifice were over. Chamarajnagar Deputy Commissioner Bhimaiah and Police Superintendent Anne Gowda reportedly accompanied the minister. It is learnt,” the Times of India continued, “that the minister spurned the invitation of his cousin to partake of the rams’ meat.” Mrs. Gandhi demanded that Vish-wanath be prosecuted.

Reported the Deccan Herald of Mysore on March 3, “A public interest litigation petition will be filed in the High Court against Viswanath, said Progressive Organ-ization convenor K. Ramadas.” A noted rationalist author, Ramadas made the sacrifices public knowledge by confronting Vishwanath as Vishwanath prepared to speak on “Anthropology in the service of humankind” at the Fine Arts College for Women in Manasagangothri.

A prominent member of the Congress Party, which ruled India from 1947 to 1998, Vishwanath was defended by Congress officials who accused Ramadas of “abusing Vishwanath by caste name.” Ramadas said he would apologize if anyone could produce evidence that he had done it.

The incident stimulated reportage all over India about ongoing open defiance of the 1960 national prohibition of animal
sacrifice–and was scarcely the first time Mrs. Gandhi denounced influential politicians for tolerating it. In April 2000, for
instance, she fingered Andhra Pradesh chief executive N. Chandrababu Naidu.

“Andhra is the only state where animals are sacrificed on the premises of the Legislative Assembly in what they claim are purification exercises,” Mrs. Gandhi told Asian Age. “My ministry has received letters from all over the state informing us about animal sacrifices and the complete ignorance and, in some cases, connivance of local authorities. We have set up a fact-finding committee,” she said, “to inquire into these complaints and identify the areas where action is necessary.”

Asian Age published details furnished by Mrs. Gandhi including calendars of sacrifices at prominent temples and a
description of a rite in Medak in which day-old lambs are reportedly killed by the priests’ teeth.

“In most cases,” Mrs. Gandhi charged, “there is a nexus among the temple priest, the village moneylender, and the butcher, wherein the priest concocts a reason for a particular sacrifice, the moneylender steps in to provide the money, and then the priest sells the carcass to the butcher at the wholesale price. This is the reason why most temples have meat markets behind them. It is absolutely obscene.”

The only animal sacrifices specifically exempted from the 1960 law are the sheep and goat slaughters undertaken by Muslims at Ramadan, called Bakr-Id in India–but Mrs. Gandhi said there is no effective enforcement of the restriction on which species may be killed, nor of the requirement that the slaughtering be done only at designated locations, in the prescribed Halal manner.

Other mass ritual killings are commonly reported. At Kushtagi, for instance, 80,000 people reportedly attended three
days of sacrifices that began on February 25. “Despite heavy police presence, 1,000 buffaloes were reportedly killed and 10,000 sheep,” said the Deccan Herald. “The police are said to have left utterly helpless.”

At Pauri Garwhal in December 2000, 40,000 people watched the sacrifice of “76 male buffaloes and an endless number of goats and rams,” according to Aarti Aggarwal of the Times of India. “The swinging axes, the bleating of the animals, the frenzied worshippers created a sickening scene. The carcasses were eventually thrown off a mountaintop, creating a virtual mountain by themselves. The stench was unbearable. By evening the earth was as red as the
setting sun. Vultures blanketed the sky.”

But animal welfare activists and civic authorities claimed a victory of sorts, in that the number of buffaloes killed has fallen annually since 1998, when 150 were killed. More successes–but involving much smaller numbers of animals–are claimed in halting “sacrifices” and other ritual use of wildlife. Many of the events are just thinly disguised destruction of animals who may raid crops or attack livestock, and fade as wildlife populations diminish.

The biggest single-day ritual killing of wildlife in India, however, appears to occur each August at Nagapanchami, the snake festival, when most participants appear to believe they are doing cobras and rock pythons a kindness by feeding them milk, butter, and sweetened rice–paying snake charmers for the privilege. The captures, defanging, mouth-stitching, and other procedures done by the charmers to make the feedings possible, however, kill an estimated 50,000 snakes per year. ANIMAL PEOPLE receives reports of ritual wildlife abuses being interrupted or halted by activists at the rate of about one case per week.

How sonar kills whales: new theory

From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  April 2001:

Washington,  D.C.;  FRIDAY HARBOR,  Washington–Five years of rising controversy over U.S. Navy deployment of low-frequency active sonar moved toward head-on collision when Center for Whale Research founder Ken Balcomb on February 23 published details of his contention that LFA kills whales with harmonic resonance that destroys their inner ears,  while on March 19 the National Marine Fisheries Service served notice in the Federal Register  that it is almost ready to give the Navy a five-year Incidental Take permit which would allow full deployment to proceed.

The Federal Register notice opened a 45-day public comment period,  to close on May 3,  on a proposed rule to govern “Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar,”  called SURTASS-LFA for short.

The Federal Register notice explained that the U.S. Navy wants “a small take exemption under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act,  for the taking of marine mammals incidental to operation of the SURTASS-LFA sonar for a period of time not to exceed five years…There would be a maximum of four SURTASS-LFA sonar systems with a nominal maximum of two systems at sea at any one time.

“The purpose of SURTASS-LFA sonar is to provide the Navy with a reliable and dependable system for long-range detection of quieter, harder-to-find submarines,”  the often highly technical notice continued.  “Low-frequency sound travels in seawater more effectively and for greater distances,”  than the high-frequency sound used by most other sonar.

“The SURTASS-LFA sonar system would meet the Navy’s need for improved detection and tracking of new-generation submarines at a longer range,”  NMFS said.  The idea behind it would be to detect and intercept enemy submarines before they could get close enough to the U.S. to launch nuclear weapons.

“Because of the offshore nature of SURTASS-LFA sonar operations,”  NMFS said,  “the Navy does not believe that there is a potential for SURTASS-LFA sonar to result in marine mammal stranding incidents.”

But NMFS said that “the Navy plans to coordinate with worldwide marine mammal stranding networks and report any correlations between SURTASS-LFA and strandings.”

 

Brainstorms

 

Strandings,  indicated Balcomb,  are relevant to how SURTASS-LFA harms whales only as a source of physical evidence confirming killings which he believes may occur wherever the sonar system is used.  Most of the remains of whales killed by SURTASS-LFA, Balcomb believes,  will not drift ashore.

Details of the SURTASS-LFA system have leaked out to the marine mammal protection community in bits and pieces for more than 10 years.  The scraps of information began to rouse opposition in mid-1996.

“Between August 1988 and July 1994,  the U.S. Navy conducted 22 LFA field exercises,”  Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Joel Reynolds disclosed via MARMAM,  an electronic bulletin for marine mamologists,  in September 1996.  “The Navy states that they were conducted ‘without known adverse impact on marine mammals.’ Other exercises have been conducted since then,”  Reynolds continued, citing times and places.  The Navy has concluded that no ‘takes’ by harassment or otherwise would occur from operation of LFA.  Therefore no permits have been obtained either under the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Endangered Species Act.  Any comments?”

As previously unexplained observations of apparent relevance to the various LFA tests surfaced from all over the world, opposition to SURTASS-LFA developed.  Freedom of Information Act requests have confirmed that by mid-1997 government agencies were already receiving warnings from their senior scientists that SURTASS-LFA might be a disaster-in-the-making for whales, though no one could quite explain why the whales were harmed.

Responding to the accumulating evidence,  NMFS began requiring the Navy to seek incidental take permits for further tests.

Lawsuits and public protest greeted the Navy when tests were held off Hawaii in early 1998,  and have dogged SURTASS-LFA ever since–especially after NMFS-commissioned whale acoustics expert Darlene Ketten reported in June 2000 that Navy anti-submarine sonar tests off the northern Bahamas on March 15,  2000 may have caused 16 whales of four different species to beach themselves on the islands of Abaco,  Grand Bahamas,  and North Eleuthera during the next 48 hours.

Seven of the whales died,  including four Cuvier beaked whales and a Blainville’s dense beaked whale,  all of whom are considered extremely rare.

“I’m not ready to say the Navy did it,”  Ketten said,  but added that “The coincidence of the timing and the pattern of the stranding with the presence of Navy sonars raises a red flag.”

After the strandings,  the Navy suspended sonar tests which had been scheduled for May 2000 off the New Jersey coast.

Most of the remains of whales allegedly killed by the Bahamian testing decomposed too soon to provide definitive answers, but the Center for Whale Research, begun at Friday Harbor, Washington,  in 1976,  now has a Bahamian headquarters as well,  and founder Ken Balcomb was present when several stranded beaked whales came up nearby.  Balcomb saw fresh blood in their eyes,  inner ears, lungs,  and brain tissue.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society founder Paul Watson amplified attention to the strandings from aboard the Ocean Warrior, which was already in the vicinity en route to campaign against whaling in the Faroe Islands of the North Atlantic.

 

Bodies of evidence

 

Balcomb had already stated opposition to SURTASS-LFA in comments sent to NMFS during November 1999.  He took almost a year to study the Bahamian strandings before formally commenting again.  His February 23 statement came as an open letter to SURTASS-LFA environmental impact surveillance program manager Joseph S. Johnson, amplified via posting to MARMAM.

The Bahamian strandings,  Balcolm said,  “unequivocally demonstrated the lethality of high-powered sonars,  and provided the opportunity to understand how sonar has been inadvertently killing whales in vast expanses of ocean around the world,”  as had been suspected without anyone being able to verifiably explain the cause-and-effect links.

“The killing is largely due to resonance phenomena in the whales’ cranial airspaces that are tearing apart delicate tissues around the brains and ears,”  Balcolm argued.  “This is an entirely separate issue from [the alleged] auditory thresholds and traumas that the Navy has fixated upon.  In my earlier comments,”  Balcolm said,  “I questioned whether there might be a problem with injurious resonance,  but now I have seen the problem and can attest to the fact that there is massive injury to whales caused by sonar.”

In other words,  Balcolm contends now that the sound volume generated by SURTASS-LSA is not the problem,  contrary to most previous discussion,  which has always been confounded by awareness that many other oceanic activities–both natural and human-created–put out more loud sound.

Instead,  according to Balcolm,  the threat to whales results from the regular,  repetitive emission of sounds at a particular frequency and volume which rarely occurs in nature,  and to which whales seem to be extremely sensitive–perhaps in part because some species use modulated low-frequency sound for communication.

The problem might be compared to what happens when an opera singer uses her voice to shatter a crystal glass,  although it occurs in the opposite sound range.

“Resonance,”  Balcolm explained, “can contribute to shear forces that can be quite damaging–wings tear off airplanes,”  as occurred to several experimental aircraft in the early days of jet-powered flight,  “bridges gallop,”  like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge which fell in 1938,   “and buildings collapse,”  as in some long-tremoring but otherwise mild earthquakes,  “due to unanticipated resonance phenomena which can afterward be explained by simple physics and mechanics.

“The scientific and medical literature contains numerous examples,”  Balcolm continued,  “of hemorrhagic injuries and death occurring in humans when they are inadvertently exposed to loud sound,  particularly at their lung airspace resonance frequency. Undoubtedly such damage could also be demonstrated as occurring to whales,  if they could be tested and did not sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die.

In the whales stranded after SURTASS-LFA testing in the Bahamas,  however,  “It is the volume of air in the individual pterygoid sacs and the laryngeal airspace,  not the lungs,  for which resonance should be calculated,”  Balcolm said.

 

Football

 

“Below about 100 meters,”  Balcolm explained,  “virtually all of the air that was in the whales’ lungs at the surface is forced into laryngeal and cranial airspaces.  It has a total volume less than that of a football.  The two largest of the remaining airspaces are bilaterally adjacent to the earbones and the base of the brain. Their diminishing volume at depth is compensated for by retia mirabilia,  a vascular network extending to the middle ear.

“Envision the football-sized airspace further squeezed to the size of a ping-pong ball,”  Balcolm offered,  “with 1,500 pounds per square inch of air pressure [50 times the pressure that keeps a car tire rolling],  now tucked between the ear bulla and the skull on each side of the head,  thinly separated from a bag of blood next to it on the soft side.

“The frequencies of LFA,  and other powerful mid-frequency sonars,  match the cranial airspace resonance frequencies in these whales at the depths where they normally forage,”  Balcolm asserted.

“Now envision rapidly compressing and decompressing the ping-pong ball many times per second,  until ultimately the amplitude is exaggerated by resonance. The result is both astonishing and bloody.  Many whales died due to this sonar resonance,”  both in the Bahamas and in earlier LFA testing off Greece,  Balcolm said. “Unfortunately,   the Greek incident passed into relative obscurity,” because investigators “missed the crucial point of matching resonance in critical airspaces,  and because suitable specimens were not collected for discovering the problem.”

Balcolm necropsied four of the whales who came ashore in the Bahamas.

“All of them evidenced hemorrhage in the acoustic regions of the cranium and mandible and in tissues adjacent to airspaces around the earbones,”  Balcolm reported.

“One fresh specimen evidenced a brain hemorrhage with a direct path to the ear hemorrhage.  This same specimen [also] evidenced lung hemorrhage and laryngeal hemorrhage upon dissection. These hemorrhages are of the type reported in laboratory animals exposed to LFA at lung resonance frequency,  and they strongly corroborate the theoretical explanation of such injuries in these whales.

“I have been told,”  Balcolm added,  “that the Bahamian situation may have been complicated by oceanographic conditions and other factors that could have resulted in a surface sound duct in which most of the acoustic energy was trapped;  but I also documented that the whales stranded over an area 200 kilometers across!

“The Navy cannot reasonably mitigate the problem using visual,  active acoustic,  or passive acoustic monitoring,”  Balcolm concluded,  “nor can the Navy redesign the whales.  At best,  it can only reconsider and perhaps redesign the SURTASS-LFA system.”

Receiving Balcolm’s comments,  SURTASS-LFA environmental impact study chief Joseph A. Johnson told Bremerton Sun reporter Christopher Dunagan that he did not see how resonance could be the problem that Balcolm says it is.

Claimed Johnson,  “The frequency changes and sound levels used in LFA are not great enough to cause injury in whales,  although they may cause behavioral changes,”  and opined that LFA cannot be harming whales because blue whales and humpbacks emit sounds at similar volume and frequency.

“The Navy can throw up all kinds of theoretical reasons why it didn’t happen,”  responded Balcolm,  who was a Navy pilot for eight years before beginning his whale studies in 1976.  “But it happened.  There has to be something wrong with the theory.  I’m trying to get them to look.”

Seeking the bear truth about World Society work in India

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 2001:

LONDON, NEW DELHI–“A major story should come out on the World Society for the Protection of Animals, especially the campaign on behalf of dancing bears,” wrote Maneka Gandhi on March 4 to ANIMAL PEOPLE publisher Kim Bartlett.

The WSPA web site was full of pages describing relief work in India after the January 26 earthquake that shattered the Kutch region of Gujarat–but Mrs. Gandhi, the Indian federal minister for social justice and empowerment, did not have praise in mind. “Ask WSPA president Andrew Dickson how much money they have collected from the bear campaign,” suggested Mrs. Gandhi.

To build and operate a 30-acre bear sanctuary in India, Mrs. Gandhi said, “WSPA finally coughed up, after four years of
haranguing them, the miniscule sum of $24,000. This was after they had collected more than a million pounds for the [promised] bear centers of Pakistan and India. Even this money came only when I wrote an official letter of complaint to the Charities Commissioner in Britain and he instituted an inquiry.

“However,” Mrs. Gandhi added, “they got away scot-free. The Charities Commission said that while WSPA had collected $1.6 million or thereabouts,” from mailings about dancing bears in India and elsewhere, “according to their charter they could spend it on anything, not just the bear sanctuaries. So that is all we got. They, in turn, got to come to India and stay in fine hotels at least three times a year, have cocktail parties, travel all over, and lament the corruption of India and the impossibility of doing anything here. They told me that they could not set up anything here because Indians are dishonest! This, from people who are getting huge salaries on our bear account! Anyway, the bear shelter is coming up,” Mrs. Gandhi acknowledged, “but very slowly, because WSPA has washed its hands of providing further funding and disappeared.”

Mrs. Gandhi charged that the Indian experience reflects a global pattern. “WSPA collected a large amount for the bears in Ecuador,” Mrs. Gandhi said. “Then they sent an Australian expert and another person to Ecuador several times. They traveled all over South America. Ultimately they did not build a rescue center, or give money to any local groups to build one, as they found everyone was too corrupt. The same thing happened in Pakistan. They have sent
photographers over the years to take pathetic pictures to use in collecting money–but no rescue center. They claim to have rescued some bears in Turkey,” Mrs. Gandhi continued, “but I found that it was a government-funded effort. They also claim to have a few bears in a sanctuary in Thailand. This needs to be checked out. Our ambassador there has never heard of it.”

Long delay

The ANIMAL PEOPLE files affirm that WSPA mailings and press releases have repeatedly promised since 1993 that rescue centers would be built in Pakistan and India, as well as Greece, Hungary, Turkey, and Thailand, to house bears confiscated from abusive traveling shows.

The 1993 WSPA materials refer to a directive Mrs. Gandhi issued in 1990, when she was federal minister for environment and forests, ordering that in compliance with the Wildlife Act of 1972, all bears and other large carnivores should be confiscated from traveling shows and placed in sanctuaries. Like much of the Wildlife Act itself, the 1990 directive went ignored until late 1999, as Mrs. Gandhi lost her office in 1991, and was ousted from the then-ruling Congress Party for forcefully denouncing corruption.

Re-elected to the Indian Parliament as an independent, Mrs. Gandhi was not able to compel enforcement until after the Hindu nationalist Bharitiya Janata party toppled 51 years of Congress rule in 1998 and invited her to join the ruling coalition.WSPA mailings and press releases during those years asserted that bears were not being confiscated and sent to sanctuaries because no sanctuaries existed.

There are still no bear sanctuaries funded by WSPA up and running in India. In the interim, however, many other organizations have started sanctuaries in India, and while at least one attempts by a U.S. citizen to start a sanctuary collapsed due to alleged corruption involving Indian trustees, projects begun and directed from within India, by Indians, have been much more successful.

The Compassionate Crusaders Trust, of Calcutta, for instance, had barely formed when WSPA first promised to build a bear sanctuary in India. The Compassionate Crusaders now have two sanctuaries up and running, described by ANIMAL PEOPLE in January/February 2001, and also manage a variety of other animal welfare projects.

“WSPA needs to be asked what they have spent on the bear campaigns in travel, staff hired, and advertising,” Mrs. Gandhi opined, “as well as asking about the number of shelters built, the number of bears rescued, and where they are.” ANIMAL PEOPLE detailed Mrs. Gandhi’s allegations to WSPA president Andrew Dickson on March 5, asking by e-mail, “Can you furnish a financial accounting for the WSPA ‘Libearty’ campaign, detailing expenditures and receipts, so as to document that the funds raised in the name of various projects are in fact being spent to advance those projects?”

Responded Dickson, “Any responsible person in animal welfare knows these allegations are complete rubbish and can easily be proved to be rubbish.” But he provided no data. ANIMAL PEOPLE asked Dickson two more times for the “Libearty” cumulative balance sheet. None was ever forthcoming. However, WSPA operations director Trevor Wheeler responded for Dickson on March 12. “Mrs. Gandhi made the same allegations to the Charity Commission here in London,” Wheeler confirmed, “and as a result, WSPA had a formal visit from the Charities Commission. WSPA was
completely exonerated. The construction of the sanctuary and first year running costs will amount to approximately $120,000. In addition to this, we have costs associated with WSPA personnel travelling to the sanctuary, bear confiscation costs, transportation of the bears within India, and veterinary costs. The statement that these costs only amount to 1.5% of funds raised by WSPA on this issue,” as Mrs. Gandhi’s math suggested, “would indicate that WSPA would have raised over $10 million” for bear projects, “which is quite ridiculous,” Wheeler asserted, “given
that our total income from all sources last year was $12 million.” “If you should wish to see our audited accounts,” Wheeler concluded, “you can apply for a copy to our office in Boston.”

In fact, ANIMAL PEOPLE already had copies of the most recent WSPA accountability documents filed with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the British Charities Commission. They actually show combined U.S. and British income of $15.7 million, with about two-thirds coming from the U.S. The U.S. filings do not show any separate accounting for the bear projects. The British documents show the availability in 1997 and 1998 of about $283,000 in restricted funds raised for the bear projects. Bear projects spending by the British branch in 1997 totalled $286,400, falling to $174,400 in 1998.

The numbers do not distinguish between “project support and directly attributable fundraising costs,” says a footnote. Neither is there any indication of the volume of non-dedicated funds received in response to bear-oriented appeals.
Said Mrs. Gandhi of Wheeler’s reply, “This is rubbish. For instance, the money spent on the bears is only $24,000. But they have claimed that they have paid for the first year’s running costs as well. The money from WSPA is not enough to even cover the building of the moat, much less the running costs when the whole sanctuary is built.”

Further, Mrs. Gandhi said, “Not one rupee has been spent on confiscating, transporting, and veterinary costs–because in six years not a single animal has been confiscated, transported, or medically treated. “If you look at each country’s achievement,” Mrs. Gandhi reiterated, “you will see what they have done–absolutely nothing, and it is always the country’s fault. You will get the same report from animal groups in Pakistan, Ecuador, Thailand, and Turkey,” Mrs. Gandhi said.

Pakistan intrigue

ANIMAL PEOPLE had already asked WSPA about the bear projects it claims to be sponsoring in other nations. “The sanctuary in Pakistan has been ready for months to receive bears,” Wheeler said. “Due to a lack of co-operation from
local government offices within Pakistan, the [planned] confiscations were unable to go ahead.” However, Wheeler added, “We are confident that the completed sanctuary will soon be home to a number of confiscated bears who have been used in bear-baiting. On March 8,” Wheeler went on, “a WSPA team was dispatched to liase with the government of Pakistan to commence the confiscation program.”

More about that surfaced in the March 26 edition of the London Independent. Wrote news correspondent Meriel Beattie, from Kund, Pakistan, “WSPA fieldworkers said a team of journalists from the [London] Daily Mail arrived in Pakistan two weeks ago, to follow WSPA’s ongoing campaign to save fighting bears [baited by dogs in public spectacles] and suitable cubs, and transfer them to the WSPA sanctuary. However, when it seemed as if no official rescue would take place before their deadline, the Mail journalists inquired about buying a bear from gypsies near Islamabad.

Said John Joseph, WSPA regional manager for Asia, “If people just come into the country and start brandishing a checkbook and buying animals illegally and then try to pass them to us, and we accept those animals, it will blow any credibility we have with the Pakistani authorities. We’ve always been against any sort of purchasing. It sets a precedent that animals have a value. All it will do is increase the amount of illegal trade in these animals in
the long run.”

Added Beattie, “The bear the Mail chose to ‘rescue’ was a dancing bear, which did not fit the charity’s criteria,” for the
sanctuary of only accepting baited bears–although dancing bears are the focus of the WSPA bear campaign elsewhere. When WSPA fieldworkers refused to cooperate,” Beattie charged, “the charity was warned by its head office that the Mail would criticize it in print for refusing to cooperate in a rescue.” Beattie said the Mail, the arch-rival of The Independent, did not return her calls. The alleged bear purchase apparently did not take place–but Pakistani forest officials finally brought WSPA their first bear, a two-year-old reportedly confiscated in Kashmir. She was not a
fighting bear either, Beattie said.

Turkey, Ecuador

Of the WSPA bear project in Turkey, Wheeler explained, “Following a meeting with the Director General from the Ministry of Forestry in Ankara, it was agreed that the Turkish government would adopt full financial and management responsibility of the sanctuary from January 1, 2001. So it would be true to say that since that date, the major support for that project comes from the Turkish government. Previously, the majority of funding was provided by WSPA. In 1993 WSPA funded the construction of a veterinary rescue center for Turkish bears,” Wheeler said. “WSPA then funded construction of the bear sanctuary, opened in 1995. Since 1995,” Wheeler claimed, “WSPA has funded veterinary costs, feeding costs, staff salaries, development and improvement costs, and further construction.

“As with all of the WSPA-supported bear sanctuaries,” Wheeler continued, WSPA agreed to cover the construction of the sanctuary and first-year running costs, after which “the government would accept the ongoing financial and managerial responsibilities. In the case of Turkey, due to budgetary constraints of the government, WSPA financed the sanctuary for a further five years.

“The project in Ecuador commenced in 1994,” Wheeling explained further. “WSPA funded the confiscation of a number of illegally owned spectacled bear cubs and their veterinary treatment. Four years ago, WSPA funded the transfer of three bears into a reserve in Ecuador and last year a further three bears were taken to another reserve in the country. We had intended to build a full-scale sanctuary in Ecuador some years ago, and received a donation from The Body Shop in New Zealand of around $50,000 for this purpose,” Wheeler said. “After months of negotiation, the Ecuadoran government failed to provide a suitable site. With the full endorsement of The Body Shop, this money was used to construct a sanctuary in Hungary to re-home abused ex circus, zoo, and film bears,” opened in 1998.

Southeast Asia

At Banglamung, Thailand, Wheeler said, “WSPA funded the first bear sanctuary in the nation, to house 40-plus confiscated Asiatic black bears, which were held in very poor condition in a government compound. During 1999, WSPA funded the construction of two further sanctuaries,” one at Banlamung, which “is now home to a number of sun bears,” and the other, “for a small number of Asiatic black bears, at a separate location in northern Thailand called Salween.”

Wheeler’s account of the work in Thailand paralleled a description of Free the Bears Fund work in Cambodia that ANIMAL PEOPLE had just received from Free the Bears representative Karon Church. “Despite the fact that keeping or poaching bears is illegal in Cambodia,” Church wrote, “Free the Bears Fund was quick to realize that national wildlife legislation could not be enforced if no facility to house confiscated bears exists.”

Therefore, working with the Cambodian Wildlife Protection Office, Free the Bears Fund overseas project direct David Ware in 1997 built the first of three bear enclosures at the Phnom Tamao Zoological Gardens and Wildlife Rescue Center. “The following year saw the construction of a sun bear nursery to house cubs who had either been orphaned or were abandoned by their mothers,” Church wrote.

“Until 2000,” Church continued, “confiscated Asiatic black bears were housed with the sun bears. However, their growing numbers and tendency to strip the vegetation necessitated building their own enclosure. Designed by Fund volunteer Matt Jeffrey, this enclosure adjoins and is interconnected to the other pair of sun bear enclosures. Like the others, it is equipped with native vegetation, pools, night dens, and play equipment to provide much needed mental stimulation.”

ANIMAL PEOPLE wondered whether there was any relationship between the WSPA project in Thailand and the Free the Bears Fund work in Cambodia. Responded Free the Bears Fund founder Mary Hutton, “We have also established a sanctuary for bears within the grounds of the Lopburi Zoo in Thailand. This sanctuary was designed, built, and
financed entirely with Free the Bears Fund money. It was built during 1997 and opened in 1998. WSPA had absolutely no involvement with this project.”

But David Ware of Free the Bears Fund affirmed that WSPA had funded a “large Asiatic bear enclosure at Banlamung” and a sanctuary “in the north” known to him as Om Goi, “through a local nonprofit organization called the Thai Society for the Conservation of Wild Animals.”

Cows and character

“It is interesting,” fumed WSPA president Andrew Dickson, while refusing to provide the cumulative balance sheet on the bear projects which ANIMAL PEOPLE three times requested, “that Mrs. Gandhi has made no comment about the fact that WSPA has had a team of three staff in the earthquake zone in India for the last four weeks, bringing food and medicines to nearly 20,000 cattle in affected farming communities. Without our help these animals would have starved to death, with disastrous effect on these poor people.”

An internal “Summary of Green Fodder Distribution” shared by Wheeler indicated that WSPA from February 10 through March 18 actually fed 5,935 cattle at eight gaushalas. The 167 truckloads of fodder supplied, the WSPA internal document stated, were enough “to feed approximately 2,250 animals on a daily basis.”Thus WSPA provided just under half of the animals’ recommended diet, at cost of about $36,740 total.

That was considerable–but at least five India-based animal protection organizations known to ANIMAL PEOPLE reportedly sent more, including Mrs. Gandhi’s own organization, People For Animals. Meanwhile, Mrs. Gandhi faxed to ANIMAL PEOPLE a copy of a February 8 letter from Andrew Dickson to Kartick Sayanarayan and Geeta Sheshamani of Wildlife S.O.S.–“the very organisation,” acknowledged Wheeler, “that is managing the WSPA-funded construction
of the bear sanctuary in India.”

Wrote Dickson, “I am appalled by what appears to be an attempt by you to collect money from both the Brooke Animal Hospital and WSPA for the same activities. These are: 1) Your initial trip to the disaster area at a cost of nearly $5,000. You attempted to get this money paid by WSPA despite the fact that Brooke had already agreed to fund you for this to the sum of $5,000. 2) Your proposal for a second visit, including the expenses of two veterinarians and animal food at a total of nearly $10,000. WSPA agreed to pay this without knowing that Brooke had also agreed to fund a similar project plus your air travel and expenses during the same period. It was only due to a telephone conversation among Rick Butson of Brooke, Trevor Wheeler, and myself, that we realized you had approached both societies for basically the same activities.

“Since neither society was told from the outset of the involvement of the other,” Dickson said, “I can only assume that
the additional $15,000 you would have received would not have been utilized for the intended purpose of helping stricken animals in the wake of this national tragedy. “We expect you to honor agreements to complete the bear
sanctuary,” Dickson finished, “but in light of this saga, any future collaboration between us is highly unlikely.”

Despite that letter, WSPA press officer Jonathan Owen just one day later announced to ANIMAL PEOPLE by e-mail that, “WSPA has established a mobile wildlife rescue unit to deal with injured or trapped animals. The mobile unit is run by Wildlife S.O.S.,” whose application for WSPA funding had actually just been denied. Away working in the earthquake zone, Sayanarayan and Sheshamani did not learn that Dickson had axed their funding until February 26.

“We have now worked with WSPA on various projects for five or six years, and WSPA has never found reason to accuse us of dishonesty or a lack of commitment and integrity,” Sayanarayan responded. “For relief work in Gujarat, Trevor Wheeler had already informed us that WSPA would be working through the Animal Help Foundation in Ahmedabad,” as was done; however, Sayanarayan continued, it was unclear whether WSPA might also fund work by
Wildlife S.O.S.

In any event, Sayanarayan explained, “From the very start, Rick Butson of the Brooke Hospital was aware that we would be requesting WSPA to help in the earthquake relief work, and he was happy to coordinate with WSPA. For the record, at the time of our requesting funding from you, neither organization had actually funded us. We had indeed borrowed the money,” in order to get started, in hopes that both the Brooke and WSPA might contribute something.

“In view of the distrust between our organizations and in view of the fact that the supervision and construction of the bear rescue facility, including the liaison work to obtain permits and a site were all done by us on our own time without seeking a consultancy fee from WSPA,” Satyanarayan concluded, “the belated recognition from WSPA of my hard work in the form of a consultancy fee of $2,000 sent to my account” at some recent date “is neither acceptable nor necessary. I shall be donating this amount into the bear facility fund of Wildlife S.O.S., and the contract with WSPA
stands null and void. However, we will complete the construction of the bear rescue facility as per our agreement. Contrary to your strong and malicious accusation of greed, we are dedicated to doing something about the Indian sloth bear problems. We can and will achieve what we have set out to do, with or without WSPA.”

[Wildlife S.O.S. is located at D-210, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024, India; telephone 91-11-462-1939; fax 91-11-464-4231; <wsos@del3.vsnl.net.in>.] More about Free the Bears Fund

It was with great interest that I read the article “Tapping the wells of kindness in China and southern Asia” in the January/ February 2001 edition of Animal People. It is encouraging to note that cultural beliefs ingrained over many generations are slowly bending to the concept that animals are no longer simply a food source devoid of feelings, but are sentient creatures worthy of respect.

To this end I wish to share the success of the Western Australian-based charity Free the Bears Fund, founded by Mary Hutton in 1995. We have campaigned extensively for the protection of bears worldwide, but our success within Cambodia is especially noteworthy. Cambodia has endured enormous political strife over the years and yet, despite extreme poverty, has from the beginning been enthusiastic and cooperative toward us.

Both bears native to Cambodia, the sun bear and the Asiatic black bear, are endangered, as victims of habitat destruction, poaching, and illegal trade. They have been the focus of widespread attention since Free the Bears Fund alerted the world to their plight in the restaurants and markets of Phnom Penh.

We have placed many bears in the rescue facilities we have created within the Phnom Tamao Zoological Gardens, and we have relocated six Cambodian sun bears, confiscated from restaurants, to Australian zoos. But we acknowledge that these habitats are only an intermediate solution to the problem of illegal wildlife trade. Native habitat must also be secured.

Free the Bears Fund aims to assist indigenous communities to seek alternative, sustainable relationships with bears, and puts emphasis on improving human as well as animal welfare. We are aware that the people of Cambodia need financially sustainable alternatives to poaching, and that unless this is provided, poaching will not decrease.
Emulating projects already undertaken throughout the game parks of southern and eastern Africa, Thailand and Russia, Free the Bears Fund hopes to develop a Protected Areas Ranger program in Cambodia. We aim to integrate daily initiatives such as anti-poaching patrols, medium-term objectives including education and financial sustainability for indigenous communities, and our long term goal of preserving bio-diversity and facilitating the repopulation of endangered species.
We shall be happy to provide further particulars to ANIMAL PEOPLE readers.

–Karon Church
Free the Bears Fund
5 Laga Court
Stirling, W.A. 6021
Australia
<info@freethebears.org.au>

Watson in Galapagos

From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  April 2001:

GALAPAGOS ISLANDS,  Ecuador– “After assisting at the clean-up of a January oil spill,  on March 7 the Sea Shepherd International patrol boat Sirenian,”  under captain Paul Watson, “became the first foreign-flagged vessel to be allowed to patrol in the Galapagos Marine Reserve,” Sea Shepherd marine liaison officer Sean O’Hearn announced on March 18.

“In five days,”  O’Hearn continued,  “working with the Galapagos National Park Service,  the Sirenian apprehended three commercial fishing vessels inside the Marine Reserve,  and a fourth was seized by a Park Service patrol vessel.”

Boarding one of the fishing boats,  the Dilsum,  O’Hearn said the Sea Shepherds “found 300 sharks who had just been caught inside the 40-mile protected area.  While the inspection was taking place, a second boat,  the Gaviota,  was spotted trying to flee.  Only after the Sirenian fired a warning shot and rammed into the Gaviota did it surrender.”

A Galapagos National Park Service patrol vessel meanwhile caught the San Antonia–whose crew included one Sergeant Calderon, of the Ecuadoran Navy.

“Elements of the Ecuadoran military immediately ordered two of the ships released without investigation,  fine,  or forfeiture,” O’Hearn said.

“It certainly looks to us as if the Ecuadoran Navy is bought by the fishing industry,”  added Watson.

The Sea Shepherds were more optimistic of winning a prosecution against the captain and owners of the Costa Rican longliner Puntarenas,  reportedly nabbed on March 22 while in possession of at least 40 illegally caught sharks and a large quantity of shark fins.

 

Wolves, seals, whales, and when will the winter end?

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2001:

OSTERDALEN, Norway–Twenty-three hunters sent by the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management to kill nearly half the wolves in Norway were expected to seek a court order, as ANIMAL PEOPLE went to press on February 21, 2001, to close the Osterdalen Valley to all people not associated with the killing.

Read more

Editorial: Bringing Zimbabwean wildlife policies to the U.S.A.

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2001.

On February 2, Groundhog Day, groundhogs across North America declared–by remaining fast asleep in hibernation–that winter would continue. In a much hotter climate, Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe forced Zimbabwean Supreme Court chief judge Anthony Gubbay to resign, warning Gubbay that his personal safety could no longer be guaranteed.

Gubbay and the other Zimbabwean Supreme Court judges outraged Mugabe by finding in December 2000 that his manipulations of election results were unconstitutional. Also illegal, the court found, are expropriations of habitat from private owners to redistribute among so-called “war veterans”–many of them not nearly old enough to have helped in overthrowing the apartheid regime of the former Rhodesia. This followed a November ruling that the ongoing occupations of private wildlife reserves by the “war veterans” are illegal, and an October ruling that Mugabe lacked the authority to pardon the “war veterans” for crimes linked to the occupations.

Read more

B.C. halts grizzly hunts

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2001:

VICTORIA, B.C.–British Columbia premier Ujjal Dosanjh on February 8 announced a three-year moratorium on hunting grizzly bears within the province, as sought by Environmental Investigation Agency campaigner Martin Powell in an open letter published in the January/February 2001 edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE. In the interim, Dosanjh asked scientists to resolve conflicting estimates which put the B.C. grizzly population at anywhere from 4,000 to 13,000.

Read more

1 74 75 76 77 78 173