The Animal Alliance Office...

Our New Website

2016-05-12T15:56:00.000-04:00

We've launched our new website and new blog!

Please visit us at https://www.animalalliance.ca/blog/

If you have any questions or concerns or some feedback, we'd love to hear from you!

Thank you and enjoy.

For the animals,
The AAC crew

Translocation: a good first step away from deer-killing

2016-03-11T16:06:00.002-05:00

by Barry Kent MacKay, Director

Late in February Liz White and I travelled to Kimberley, British Columbia, population 7600 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley,_British_Columbia). Liz and I were there to monitor a mule deer relocation project, thanks to support from Born Free USA, Zoocheck and Animal Alliance of Canada. Animal Alliance had contributed $10,000 to a project that involved moving mule deer out of town to carefully chosen distant habitats. Those locations were chosen to maximize the chances the deer would have to survive. The money Animal Alliance donated to the project bought collars equipped with radio-telemetry devices that report the location of the deer via a transmission to a satellite every 13 hours. They are designed to eventually fall off but would provide enough information to allow the scientists to determine how successful the process was in terms of survival of the deer.

Lest you think it odd that animal protection organizations such as ours would have even minimal involvement in such a thing let me assure you it was to provide part of an alternative to the current deer culling where deer are captured in “clover traps” and killed by a bolt gun. Earlier this year someone captured this process during a secretly conducted cull in the nearby town of Cranbrook. The BC Deer Protection society, (http://www.bcdeer.org/), of which both Liz and I are directors, posted the footage online.

Mule deer inhabit various towns and small cities that are built in close proximity to vast forests and the animals make use of both urban and wilderness habitats. So they are more likely to come into direct contact with residents and given that mule deer are not as inclined to flee humans as are many other larger wildlife species, conflicts arise. Often these conflicts involve dogs, many of whom are off-leash. In the spring does will defend their fawns, occasionally escalating the conflict. Other complaints include impacts on flower gardens, deer feces on the ground and the threat of deer being hit by cars or other vehicles.

A handsome animal, yes, but one that “does not belong” in town, as we have so often heard.

We heard that town life for deer is fraught with difficulty. They have to navigate fences and traffic and avoid people who don’t like them. Of course those who advocate this point of view fail to acknowledge, or understate that, in the wild deer are hunted in the fall. They have to avoid predators. They are in constant search for food, particularly through difficult winters and droughts. But we also heard such people, apparently unaware of their own contradictions, that the in-town deer were fat and healthy and bore more young than their wilderness counterparts. All the deer that we saw in Kimberley certainly looked healthy, fat and sleek and since they are nowhere far from wooded forests they obviously chose to be there.

In fact, residents who closely observed them assured us that the deer move freely from what we’d think of as classic deer habitat, the mountain forests and fields that border and penetrate the town borders, and the residential areas. Furthermore many folks love to have them around. Certainly the tourists enjoy seeing such magnificent wildlife up close.

And so a team was assembled and with consummate skill managed to catch some twenty deer in Kimberley and nearby Marysville, mostly at the edge of residential areas, with a shooter firing darts into them, and then following the animal until, minutes later, they became drowsy, and then fell into a deep sleep. Once unconscious the deer were examined for health, ticks, age, and sex (does were preferentially selected, and if they were with last year’s young an effort was made to get both, although the odd buck without antlers was also captured) and placed in a trailer, awakened with an antidote and given a calming tranquilizer. Eventually the deer were driven to a carefully chosen release site far away from town sites. Only one out of this original twenty died during this process, probably asphyxiating from recently ingested food. The risk of that happening is why doctors, and veterinarians, order fasting for patients planning to have a general anaesthetic. At least she was unconscious when she died and did not suffer. If it had been the usual lethal cull all 20 animals would have died a brutally applied death.

After we left the team moved north to another town, and as I write this, another deer was found killed by a cougar. Remember, though, that most animals were not radio-collared so results are very preliminary.

But we saw what we were hoping to achieve, at least for now. Both lethal culling and translocation (and I’d add fertility control) are unlikely to do much, if anything, to ultimately resolve concerns of people not wanting the deer in town, but they serve a political function by showing complainers (the only ones politicians heed) that “something is being done”. When the relocation project for Kimberley was completed, Liz and I, later joined by a local friend who knew the area well, drove to the various sites where deer had been taken and there seemed to be as many as always. More deer move in to take the places of those removed. Reduced competition for resources means enhanced survivability and fecundity for those who remain, in town and in adjoining woodlands, something called the “rebound effect” or “compensatory mortality”.

But it is a step taken away from simply killing the animals.

The issue is complex. Kimberley is showing an extremely progressive attitude by implementing the kinds of actions that reduce the attractiveness of the town to deer. These include volunteers picking up apples fallen from trees; leash laws enforced for dogs in conjunction with public education; no edible garbage made available overnight; encouraging deer fencing and planting of flowers, trees and shrubs less or not attractive to deer as food and a stop to feeding deer. The decidedly lower number of deer in town is a testimony to the effectiveness of these methods, although detractors claim it was a major cull of about 100 deer some years ago that did the trick. I beg to differ simply because other communities that implemented lethal culls but did not take the steps Kimberley has taken to keep deer numbers down actually saw more, not fewer, deer after the killing.

And we were pleased to encounter many local people who assured us that whatever their views on deer in town, they were happier that they were not being killed. One of the biggest downsides to the lethal culling, in my opinion, was how divisive it is within the community. Kimberley’s city council is, to its credit, open and transparent (in contrast to neighboring Cranbrook) and is actively seeking an intelligent and compassionate solution to human/deer interactions.

The case of the Chatham-Kent Dogfighting Survivor Dogs

2016-02-19T17:10:00.000-05:00

Dogs forced to fight - against their will.

Now we must fight to save them.

By Vicki Van Linden, Director

Twenty-one Pit bull dogs, victims of the brutal crime of dog-fighting, are in grave danger of being destroyed very soon.

The Ontario SPCA has given up on them and say that they cannot be saved. It is reported that on March 10^th, 2016, they will seek the court’s permission to destroy the remaining dogs.

But, we know that there are organizations in the US that have successfully rehabilitated such dogs. Have those organizations been approached to provide their expertise? Has every effort been made to transfer these dogs outside of Ontario, placing them in the hands of those trained to work with survivor-dogs?
As dogs abused in fight rings they deserve specialized assessment from those with particular expertise. We need to be sure that every effort has been made to explore all such organizations to obtain help for these dogs. We want to know that no stone has been left unturned.

Most of us have read about the survivor dogs of the Michael Vick dogfighting ring, known as the Vicktory Dogs. Heather Gutshall adopted one of those survivors, a dog named Handsome Dan. Heather not only lives with this survivor in her home, she has evaluated and rehabilitated many other survivors. She is experienced at evaluating such dogs and is a Certified Professional Dog Trainer and Behavior Consultant, holding credentials; CPDT-KA (Certified Professional Dog Trainer - Knowledge Assessed) and ACDBS (Associate Certified Dog Behavior Consultant.)

Ms. Gutshall, who lives in Rhode Island, has offered to travel to Ontario to evaluate the Chatham-Kent dogs, free of charge.

If there are viable offers of assistance available, why is the OSPCA seemingly determined to go it alone, even if this results in all of the dogs being killed?

Many people are concerned about the dogs and deserve to know that these poor animals have been given every consideration.

Having them assessed by those who have had success rehabilitating dogfighting survivors would meet that criteria.

Why do these dogs matter? Because they were victims of extreme cruelty. They should have the very best chance at recovery.

Why does this case matter? Because we know that groups in the United States have rehabilitated former fighting dogs. These dogs deserve the same opportunity.

If we cannot find the compassion to better protect these most abused and suffering of dogs, this will surely be a testament to the inadequate state of animal protection in our province.

Ontario could embrace these dogs as inspiration for a new beginning for improved animal welfare in Ontario. A more forward-thinking approach could set our province on a new path.

The lives of the Chatham-Kent fight survivor-dogs matter.

And the future of animal protection in Ontario matters too.

For anyone in Ontario who wants our provincial leaders to dig deep and do better, now is the time to let them know.

Emails can be sent to:

The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Minister Yasir Naqvi
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org

OSPCA:
Anne Buonaiuto, Executive Assistant:
abuonaiuto@ospca.on.ca
and
Brad Dewar, Inspector:
bdewar@ospca.on.ca

Join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter: #SaveDogfightingSurvivors

You can read more about Heather Gutshall’s rescue group called Handsome Dan’s Rescue and learn more about two special dogfighting survivors, Handsome Dan and Tillie at: http://www.handsomedansrescue.org/

Read about a rescue group called Bad Rap, who rehabilitated some of the Vick dogs and were instrumental in giving them their chance at life.
http://www.badrap.org/vick-dogs

Read about Best Friends Sanctuary, where some of the Vick dogs received their first experiences in rehabilitation.
http://bestfriends.org/sanctuary/explore-sanctuary/dogtown/vicktory-dogs

Undercover footage shows the cruelty of Cranbrook's secret deer cull

2016-01-12T09:58:00.000-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BRITISH COLUMBIA, January 12, 2016: In mid-December 2015, Cranbrook began to cull deer without notification to area residents. The only public notification came from the BC Deer Protection Society and Animal Alliance of Canada in an ad that ran in the Cranbrook Townsman prior to the start of the cull.

On Friday, January 8, 2016, the BC Deer Protection Society lodged a formal complaint to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations about incidents involving fawns in Clover traps. The incidents which show the cruelty of the cull, were captured through photographs and video footage.

Two incidents in particular reveal violations of the terms of the cull permit issued by the Minister.

Footage for one incident shows a fawn captured in a trap (unedited video documents the fawn pacing for over two hours). The cull contactors arrive, collapsing the trap on the animal and applying the bolt gun. The cull contractors stand and the fawn moves. They apply the bolt gun a second time. The fawn moves again as the contractors try to erect the trap. They drop it and observe the fawn. One contractor starts to reach for the bolt gun but stops. They proceed again to erect the trap and drag the fawn away by the hind leg. In both cases the fawn is seen moving. The cull contractor returns immediately leaving the fawn still alive and unattended. A total of six minutes passed between the arrival of the contractors and the removal of the deer. (bcdeer.org)

Photographs from a second incident show two fawns entangled in a trap that has collapsed on them. They remain entangled and compressed for at least two hours prior to the arrival of the cull contractors. It is not known at this time whether the fawns’ struggle was so violent as to dislodge the mechanism holding the trap upright or whether the mechanism was faulty. Regardless, no-one checked the trap during that two hour period to end the suffering of these two animals. (bcdeer.org)

In the letter to the Minister, we urge him in the strongest possible terms to end the cull, conduct a full investigation of the violations of the permit and lay charges where appropriate. In addition, we ask that the permit for the current contractor be revoked until the investigation is complete.

- 30 -

Contact: Devin Kazakoff: devin.kazakoff@gmail.com

Liz White: 1-416-462-9541 (23), 416-809-4371 (cell) or liz@animalalliance.ca

Barry MacKay, 1-905-472-9731 or mimus@sympatico.ca

Sherry Adams, 250-432-5238 (cell) or shezza_ca@yahoo.com

Home for the Holidays?

2015-12-18T13:12:00.001-05:00

Project Jessie needs YOUR help!

Every creature taken in by Project Jessie is cared for in a foster home. This lets us get to know them as individuals - what they need, what their personality is like, what they prefer.

We love them and care for them - for a short while or for a longer while - but eventually, each of them need and deserve a permanent home.

These particular Project Jessie friends have been in care - but we would really love to have them in homes before the holidays.

Please help us by considering adoption, or spreading their info to friends and family who are thinking of adding a new companion to their family.

Anyone interested, can email shelly@projectjessie.ca or call 519-940-4712

Thank you! And have a wonderful holiday!

Shelly

ProjectJessie.ca

AnimalAlliance.ca

Willow

This gentle soul is Willow - young, friendly and fabulous with everyone she has met. She is quiet and unassuming, very people oriented and a joy to be around.

Izzy

Five years ago, Izzy and her kittens were adopted to a family. This fall, they all came back to us because the family was having some troubles. Poor Izzy! Her kittens were adopted together by a new family, but she is still waiting for a second chance. She is 6 years young, good with other animals and loves to cuddle.

Cooper

This handsome fellow would love to have an active family to love. Perhaps with some kids to play and romp with? Cooper is a young handsome boy with lots to offer. Great with other dogs, he would love to have a canine friend as well.

Thumbelina

This petite lady has a sad tale to tell. Abandonned outside, she had several litters of kittens behind a strip plaza, where the people helped by rehoming some of her kids - but no one helped her. Now she is in from the cold, and loving it! But she is still looking for a permanent place to call home.

Unfortunately, she has tested positive for FIV. What does this mean? It means that now that she is spayed, with good food and a low stress environment, she will probably have a long and healthy life. She is a very sweet little lady. Would you like to be her new friend?

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s new report levels stinging criticism of the spring bear hunt pilot

2015-11-03T14:37:00.002-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TORONTO, November 3, 2015: Animal Alliance of Canada and Zoocheck Canada praise the Environmental Commissioner for her criticism of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry’s decision to re-introduce the spring bear hunt.

In her 2014/2015 Annual Report, Small things Matter (http://eco.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2014_2015-AR.pdf) Ellen Schwartzel, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario states “In implementing the pilot project, the MNRF: made a bear management decision with incomplete information on the annual harvest; ignored ministry research that calls into question the utility of the pilot project; and disregarded the advice of the committee the ministry struck to review the nuisance bear issues.”

“The Commissioner also points out that the Ministry cut back on its Bear Wise programme” said Barry MacKay, Director, Zoocheck Canada. “In fact, the Bear Wise programme has largely disappeared in reality and the Wynne government has downloaded responsibility for human bear interactions on local communities.”

“We feel vindicated by the comments of the Environmental Commissioner about the Ministry’s pilot hunt. These are exactly the issues we raised in our court case and in our EBR submission to the Minister in response to the announced pilot in 2014”, said Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance.

“You have to ask – why would the Premier and Minister disregard their own scientists and advisors and make a decision to expand the hunt so substantially?” White asks.

Despite the ECO’s concerns, Minister Bill Mauro intends to expand the spring hunt to Americans and other non-residents in all applicable wildlife management units. The decision is posted on the Environmental Registry for comment until the end of November.

- 30 -

Liz White: 416-462-9541 ex: 23 / liz@animalalliance.ca

Barry MacKay: 905-472-9731 / mimus@sympatico.ca

Helping Outdoor Dogs. Getting Them Off the Chain!

2015-10-09T17:17:00.000-04:00

by Vicki Van Linden
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada

They are lonely dogs.

They bark and cry in distress.

Their boredom and misery remain a constant.

Many live their entire lives chained or penned in kennels as a regular way of life. They suffer social isolation, lack of exercise and extreme loneliness. It is a miserable existence that no social animal should be forced to endure.

Neighbours are disturbed by the barking and suffering, and their own feeling of helplessness.

Such animal-keeping practices allow intolerable suffering, divides communities, and places enormous stress on animal service agencies and humane societies. Yet many municipalities have very few tools to assist residents who witness the suffering, and to provide their own staff with the necessary tools to intervene.

Chaining is the worst of the practices inflicted on outdoor dogs. Dogs have even died from strangulation when they attempted to jump over a fence while chained at the neck. Penning or kennelling is less harmful than being chained but is equally cruel because of the lack of exercise, attention, and companionship.

Animal cruelty laws are usually not detailed enough to assist these dogs. A Humane Officer might recognize that a dog is suffering emotionally and in distress, but if the animal is in an acceptable physical condition anti-cruelty laws may not give the officer enough tools to help the dog.

The good news is that there are specific municipal laws that regulate how outdoor dogs must be kept and provide an effective way to assist these suffering dogs and the neighbours who have been made to live near them.

In jurisdictions across North American communities have passed laws that mandate how long a dog can be made to live outside during a 24 hour period.

Windsor, Mississauga and several communities in British Columbia have already passed bylaws. More than one hundred communities in the U.S have also passed such laws.

The province of Nova Scotia passed a province-wide law that regulates tethering/chaining in 2014.

The province of New Brunswick also passed a law that states: “Dog tethering is not permitted for more than 30 minutes between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am unless the owner or person responsible is outside and within 25 metres of the dog.”

The City of Windsor, Ontario does not allow a dog to be chained or tethered for longer than 4 hours in a 24 hour period. Mississauga has a similar regulation making 4 hours the maximum time that a dog can be chained.

Some communities have also passed regulations that can be used to assist penned dogs.

In Markham, Ontario their bylaw states: “Animals in Markham must be provided with a clean, sanitary environment and adequate care that meets the physical and behavioural needs of the animal, such as food, water, shelter, warmth, physical exercise, attention and veterinary care.”

The goal of such bylaws is to ensure that no dogs are made to live entire lives as backyard dogs, but must be brought inside the home each and every day, as well as during extremes of weather - hot or cold.

Enough communities have passed such laws that there are now several examples for other communities to refer to.

We can end this practice if we have sufficient political will.

Lost Pets Used in Research

2015-08-25T15:14:00.001-04:00

POUND SEIZURE

by Vicki Van Linden
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada

What if your dog or cat became lost?

What if you could not locate your animal family member, in spite of your best efforts?

What would your hopes be for your lost animal friend?

You would likely hope that a kind person would keep your friend until he or she was returned to you.

If fate is not so kind and your friend is never returned to you, you likely hope that your beloved companion would find another loving home. And, when companion animals like dogs and cats are lucky, that was what happens.

Not all dogs and cats are so lucky.

For some lost, stray or abandoned dogs and cats, a fate that violates all of our protective values is in store for them. Some of them will be purchased by research laboratories where they will be subjected to experimentation in ways that will cause them pain, fear and distress. This actually takes place all across Canada. It is referred to as pound seizure or pound release, the practice of taking lost, homeless and abandoned dogs and cats from animal control facilities or pounds for use in experimentation (research, teaching and testing).

Every province allows dogs and cats from municipally-funded or contracted animal pounds/shelters to be turned over to research facilities. Ontario is sadly unique in that the practice is actually mandated under the ‘Animals for Research Act.’ This means that if a research facility choses to do so, they could actually demand that animals from a municipally-funded animal shelter/pound be turned over for their use, even if the shelter workers do not wish to comply.

The story of a dog named Royal, and the family who loved him, is a stark illustration of the horror of Pound Seizure.

Royal was a 13-year-old Golden Retriever who was much loved, and had lived with his guardian since he was a pup. One day Royal wandered away from his property. But Royal was found by people who wanted to help him so they brought him to the Arteeka Canine Control facility, the animal control pound/shelter contracted for that area. They liked Royal so much that they stated they would like to adopt him if his family did not claim him.

Royal was tattooed and wore a collar with his name embroidered on it, and his dog tags were attached.

In spite of all of this evidence that Royal was a loved family pet, and in spite of there being a ready adoptive home for him, Royal was quickly sold to the University of Guelph for use in research. The Arteeka Canine Control facility actually violated the Act by turning Royal over before the full 4 day holding period required by law had expired.

Royal was quickly deemed to be unsuitable for research, likely due to his age, and was killed at the University of Guelph.

Then, as a further indignity, the Ministry responsible for the University had to be forced to confirm to Royal’s loving guardian, Laurie Bishop, that the dog she had loved since he was a pup had been killed at their facility.

Royal died alone. The pound keeper did not look out for Royal. Nor did the University of Guelph. Royal was nothing more than a potential test subject. And, Royal could be your dog.

There is good news from this sad story. Today the vast majority of shelters in Ontario have stood against this practice so animals are not going to research from those facilities. Still, there are pounds, especially in smaller communities, that still hand over animals for research. The dogs and cats that are desirable to researchers are those who are docile, in other words, are adoptable as pets. All lost, stray or abandoned pets deserve to have every effort made to find them a loving adoptive home – not sent to a life of suffering, fear and death in a laboratory. We believe that no lost dog or cat should ever be used as research subjects. This is the ultimate betrayal of a lost friend.

For these reasons, we ask all Ontarians to help us bring an end to POUND SEIZURE in Ontario – the ultimate betrayal of a lost dog or cat - by banning the use of lost pets in research.

We urge Ontario citizens to download and mail a sign-on letter addressed to Premier Kathleen Wynne by clicking here. Or better yet, write a letter in your own words.

Ask the Premier of Ontario to amend the Animals for Research Act to:
1) ban the release of lost, stray or abandoned dogs and cats from Ontario pounds for animal experimentation; and
2) to ban the import of lost, stay or abandoned pets for experimentation from other provinces in Canada.

Canadian citizens in other provinces can also protect companion animals by contacting their own Premiers to ask that the surrender of lost, stray or abandoned dogs and cats from pounds and shelters be banned.

Research facilities in all provinces should also ban the importation of former pets from other jurisdictions.

Click here to learn the entire story of Royal

Cecil and the Killer

2015-07-30T13:37:00.000-04:00

by Barry Kent MacKay,
Senior Program Associate, Born Free USA's Canadian Representative
Animal Alliance of Canada, Director

Published 07/29/15

Unless you've been sequestered on the back side of the moon, you probably know by now that, in early July, Walter Palmer, a 55-year-old dentist from Minnesota, illegally killed Cecil, a lion who had lived in Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park. Cecil, age 13, wore a radio collar installed by researchers from Oxford University. He neither feared nor threatened human visitors to the park, including numerous tourists who photographed him, often as he strolled down park roads or rested in the middle of the road, truly looking like a king. With his distinctive black mane, he was surely among the most charismatic of the rapidly vanishing charismatic megafauna of Africa—a handsome cat, indeed.

Palmer allegedly paid more than $50,000 to Bushman Safari, whose owner, Theo Bronkhorst (reportedly "a professional hunter" and member of the Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association [ZPHGA]), is now "suspended indefinitely" from ZPHGA, pending investigation of the hunt that took Cecil's life. Bronkhorst and the owner of the farm where Palmer shot Cecil have been charged with poaching offenses. Cecil had been lured from the relative safety of the park by tying a dead animal to a vehicle, and reportedly using a "spotlight" to illuminate the lion.

It has been further reported that Palmer's arrow only wounded Cecil, who was then tracked for 40 hours before being found, shot with a rifle, skinned, and decapitated... the headless body left behind.

The poachers then tried to destroy the radio collar, presumably realizing it could provide evidence of their perfidy. But, they bungled that, too, and Cecil's remains were found, and charges were laid (although not against Parker, who, as of the time I am writing, is in hiding, his dental office closed).

In a press release, Palmer claimed innocence: "I had no idea that the lion I took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of a study until the end of the hunt. I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt. I have not been contacted by authorities in Zimbabwe or in the U.S. about this situation, but will assist them in any inquiries they may have. Again, I deeply regret that my pursuit of an activity I love and practice responsibly and legally resulted in the taking of this lion."

In 2008, he pleaded guilty in a federal court to misleading a federal agent investigating the killing of a black bear in Wisconsin, 40 miles outside of where his permit would have allowed the legal killing of the animal. He got one year's probation and a fine of nearly $3,000, according to the Star Tribune. He has also paid a fine for fishing without a license: a misdemeanor that, like the rest of his unfortunate history, would remain unknown to most people, but for Cecil's radio collar.

Palmer has numerous photos of himself posing with hunted animals: an elk, a mule deer, a cape buffalo, a rhino, and a warthog, among others.

A warthog? Well, the animal had big tusks—which are, I guess, to guys fixated on large horns, antlers, or thick and beautiful manes (as Cecil had), important additions to the trophy room. Big tusks are, too. (No surprise; he has shot an elephant.)

Palmer has been credited with 43 kills, including moose, mountain lion, and polar bear, by Safari Club International (SCI), which boasts 55,000 members worldwide. SCI loves to keep lists of measurements of their members' various victims. Palmer's "kills" are all with bow and arrow, and we'll never know how many "kills" were as cruelly bungled as Cecil's death. Palmer bragged that he could put an arrow through a playing card 100 yards away.

SCI appeals to the rich and uncompassionate. Society would generally frown upon SCI's love of killing beautiful animals ("love" being Palmer's word)—and so the group claims to be conservationist, thus serving a cause more noble than mere bloodlust. The large amounts of money these people are willing to spend for the ‘privilege' of ending the lives of the most magnificent of animals is, they claim, used to conserve animals... as if that justifies the killing.

Cecil's death belies all that. Lions are in decline in Africa, and by removing a viable male, the likelihood is that Cecil's cubs will be killed by the next lion in the community's pecking order—thus reducing still further the number of individuals and genetic variation of a species in freefall decline. Furthermore, whatever—if any—of Palmer's money may fund conservation, Cecil was far more valuable alive, drawing tourists to Hwange National Park from around the world.

Precisely because trophy hunting is inherently unethical to so many people, and tends to focus on removing the healthiest individuals, it has to be constrained. The favored way of doing so is by charging high license fees. This seems to make it all the more attractive to military leaders, executives, and highly paid professionals, who seem to delight in wealth-fueled power over others. They are the "might makes right" crowd who is used to getting its own way.

There is no aspect of the trophy hunt that can be accomplished without slaughtering magnificent and often rare animals (or "taking," to use their word for it).

The killing aspect is important to trophy hunters. Consider, for example, the game farms of Texas and elsewhere. Hunters go into huge, fenced compounds and shoot a "trophy" of a species that is native to Africa or Asia, without the cost of going to Africa or Asia, or the inconvenience of hunting for an animal who can get away. It's as "sporting" as killing a lion who's unafraid of people and dazzled by a spotlight—easier, in fact, because the fence is always there—and they don't have to spend 40 hours searching for the wounded, as Palmer did with Cecil.

By all accounts to date, the extent of Palmer's "remorse" is not that he shot a lion—but that he shot that particular lion, and got found out. Killing does not seem to bother him at all. On the contrary, he is shown all over the internet, grinning over the bodies of his victims. He is actually proud, it seems, of what he does.

I believe that these trophy hunters are the rewarded, the privileged, the elite: secure in a relatively rarified air of insulation from what is felt by the majority of people, whose ethical compass they will never understand. They are the entitled, given power by money or position. Usually, they remain well hidden within our midst. Yes, Palmer got caught. But, he's one of many: at least 55,000, I'd estimate. And, there are still more who yearn to join their ranks and kill innocent, beautiful, valuable creatures.

Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Barry

A Hero who chose compassion over killing now needs heroes to save his job

2015-07-14T11:17:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TORONTO, July 14, 2015: When two orphaned bear cubs needed a hero to save their lives, British Columbia conservation officer Bryce Casavant acted, even though his superiors had ordered him to kill the young bears.

For disobeying the order to kill, Officer Casavant is being punished by being suspended from his job. It is not clear if Officer Casavant will be reinstated after the matter is fully investigated.

We think this is wrong.

Liz White, Director of Animal Alliance of Canada, says: “We need to encourage conservation officers, like Officer Casavant, not punish them. Officer Casavant values the lives of these cubs, an admirable quality in a conservation officer.”

Officer Casavant did not act recklessly when he refused to kill the bear cubs after their mother was killed for breaking into a freezer where food was stored. The Officer had the two cubs assessed by a veterinarian and then transferred them to the North Island Wildlife Recovery Association. This rehabilitation centre is experienced with the rehabilitation and release of bears into the wild, and they have stated they believe the cubs are good candidates for release next year.

Whether these two cubs will get that chance, and whether Officer Casavant will keep his job, still has to be decided. It is critical that B.C. government authorities make the right choices.

That is why we are asking Canadians to contact B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak, and B.C. Premier Christy Clark, to let them know that the two cubs, named Jordan and Athena, deserve their chance at a natural life and should not be killed.

The government should also provide the North Island Wildlife Recovery Association assistance to care for Jordan and Athena for the next 18 months until they can be released back into the wild. Too often donor-funded groups do the work that government agencies should do.

And, Officer Casavant must be reinstated without censure.

Animal Alliance of Canada hopes that this incident can mobilize public opinion and increase the political pressure on the B.C. government to enact policies that encourage responsible wildlife rehabilitation so that B.C. conservation officers are not in constant fear of losing their livelihoods when they do the right thing and help animals.

- 30 -

Liz White, Director
416-462-9541 ext: 23 / liz@animalalliance.ca

Animal Alliance of Canada is committed to animal protection through politics, advocacy and education. Since 1990, Animal Alliance of Canada has been bringing together dedicated professionals with proven records in animal and environmental protection, together we work on local, national, and international educational and legislative advocacy initiatives to protect animals and our environment. Online at animalalliance.ca

Open Letter to Premier Notley

2015-07-10T16:26:00.000-04:00

July 10, 2015

The Honourable Rachel Notley, M.L.A., Premier of the Province of Alberta
Office of the Premier
Room 307
Legislature Building 10800-97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6

Phone: (780) 427-2251
Fax: (780) 427-1349

Dear Premier:

RE: Animal cruelty at the Calgary Stampede

We, the Directors of Animal Alliance of Canada, strongly and urgently request that the Chuckwagon Race events taking place at the Calgary Stampede cease immediately.

We further request that Chuckwagon Races and all other events that negatively impact the animals be permanently removed from all future Calgary Stampede schedules.

Two horses have already been injured, resulting in their being destroyed.

These deaths have occurred after the Calgary Stampede Directors have made adjustments to how the races are conducted in an attempt to make them safer for both human and animal participants. Clearly, those changes have not made this event safer nor is it really possible to do so given the nature of the event itself. Year after year we hear expressions of regret from Stampede organizers as horses suffer and die in the name of entertainment.

We believe that horse injury and death cannot simply be attributed to human error. Humans do make errors, especially during an event such as this. The event is of itself unacceptably dangerous and distressing for the horses made to participate.

More than 50 horses have died as a result of being forced to participate in the Chuckwagon races at the Calgary Stampede since 1986, according to reports. These recent deaths clearly demonstrate that this event is inhumane and unacceptably dangerous to animals in its essential design. Chuckwagon racing causes distress and injury to animals and so must be stopped immediately and not reinstated.

It is our position and belief that under the statutes of the Alberta Animal Protection Act that there are legislative grounds for deeming this event to cause and permit undue distress to animals.

We note that the industries and uses that are exempt from this statute, such as animal care, management, husbandry, hunting, fishing, trapping, pest control or slaughter, do not include entertainment.

Chuckwagon racing cannot be considered to be an extension of agricultural use and should not be exempt on those grounds. Chuckwagon racing is clearly designed for the sole purpose of providing entertainment and as such is not an exempt activity or use.

Further, our position and belief is that under the Alberta Animal Protection Act that Peace Officers working with the Calgary Humane Society and the Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have both the power and the duty to act in this matter.

We call on all parties that have influence, including:
all Directors of the Calgary Stampede,
the Calgary Humane Society
The Alberta SPCA
The Mayor and Council of Calgary
The Premier of Alberta
and all Canadian citizens to act as soon as possible to end this event immediately to prevent further injury, distress and death to animals.

We kindly request a response.

Respectfully,
The Directors of Animal Alliance of Canada

cc: Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta

Why are Canadian animal protection laws still so weak?

2015-07-09T14:52:00.002-04:00

What are our next steps?

by Vicki Van Linden, Director

In February of 2015, a woman was accused of hoarding 201 dogs on an Alberta property. Some dogs had broken bones and parasite infested wounds. Many were emaciated and in a state of severe malnutrition. Five dogs were discovered already deceased, believed to have died of starvation. This person already had a previous conviction for animal neglect issued in another province. Yet, she was able to acquire more than 200 dogs and keep them in her possession – even after being investigated again on concerns about dogs while living in another community.

In June of 2014, undercover video taken by an advocacy group, Mercy for Animals, revealed extreme acts of cruelty against cows on a British Columbia dairy farm. The video showed cows being punched, kicked and beaten with chains, tools, feet and fists. Some of these beatings were inflicted on downed or trapped cows who had no means of escape. An officer with the BC SPCA was reported saying that the video evidence indicated an urgent need for better standards to protect farm animals.

In July of 2015, a senior was taken into police custody in Calgary for allegedly killing three cats. When officers entered his yard, 15 rabbits were found to be living in distressing conditions. The man was keeping the rabbits to be used as food.

Why do otherwise progressive people accept and even support industries that hurt and kill animals?

Why are Canadian laws that protect animals still so weak?

The concept of ‘Speciesism’ might help to explain. ‘Speciesism’ is a prejudice that devalues non-human animals, in the same way that Racism and Sexism devalue differing groups of humans.

Simply put, the assumption of all prejudice is:

‘Because you are different from me, you are less than me,’ and:
‘Because you are less than me, your suffering matters less than mine,’ therefore:
‘Because your suffering matters less than mine, I am free to use you as I please.’

When it comes to animals ‘using them as we please’ is the norm for legally protected industries like farming, research, hunting and entertainment.

We know from history that once a group is devalued then abuses of the devalued group are easily justified. We offer protection only to those that we value.

Since the exploitation and use of animals can be very profitable, there is great opposition to raising the status of animals in even modern societies like ours.

People are often distressed that the horrors of puppy mills continue. How can something that is so obviously wrong be so difficult to stop? Why won’t governments just pass the laws needed to end the abuse of dogs, the most widely loved species of animals? Could it be that animal-using industries and their political supporters understand that there is not much difference between the suffering of a pig in a gestation crate and that of a dog in a puppy mill cage? Is that why puppy mill breeding dogs continue to be poorly protected, just as pigs, cows and chickens are poorly protected?

Animals as Property:

Author and Lawyer, Lesli Bisgould, writes about the legal protections that we give to animals in her book: ‘Animals and the Law’ (published by Irwin Law inc. 2011.)

Bisgould writes: “…people do not treat animals badly because animals are property, animals are property so that people can treat them badly.”

How do we gain protections for animals as more than just someone’s property?

What are the next steps we need to work through to get better animal protection laws passed by our governments?

How do we help as many animals as we can, as quickly as we can?

Animals are suffering terribly right now, and cannot wait for a global awakening on the rights of non-human animals. If we keep in mind that the rights of women are still not enshrined in every nation on earth, how long will it be before animals of all species are no longer regarded as property to be exploited? Animals need help now.

Sentient beings:

New Zealand has passed legislation that grants the status of ‘sentient beings’ to animals. This designation recognizes that animals are more than mere objects but are living beings that experience both positive and negative emotions like pain, fear, and distress as well as joy and even love. Will such a change in legal status result in animals finally being given legal protection as more than just property?

Uncharted territory:

Nowhere on earth can we look to a nation that has already truly protected animals from exploitation and abuse. But we can see nations that are farther ahead than Canada is on this journey.

Still, there is no proven template to adopt, no sure road-map to follow.

We still have more questions than answers.

So, let’s keep talking. Let’s keep working. And, let’s not give up.

The spring bear hunt should die - not more bears

2015-06-03T16:12:00.000-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - June 3, 2015

Public outrage over the death of the young bear in Newmarket, shot by police in full public view! The bear did not need to die.

Similar public outrage would be directed to the Minister of Natural Resources if there was similar public exposure during the spring bear hunt. If the public witnessed bears shot by hunters from tree stands while feeding on garbage bait piles, they would be incensed. If they saw female bears killed and cubs orphaned and left to die of starvation or predation, they would be outraged.

Hunters call this sport. We call it cruel. And it should end. The fight to stop another sad and preventable death like the Newmarket bear should be extended to all bears killed in the spring. The spring bear hunt should die this June – not more bears.

Please help us end the spring bear hunt. Call or e-mail the Minister’s office and register your opposition. Contact the Honourable Bill Mauro, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry at 416-341-2301 or e-mail at bmauro.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org.

For further information call Liz White, Animal Alliance of Canada,

416-462-9541 ext: 23

Oak Bay Deer Cull: First Impressions

2015-02-26T10:04:00.001-05:00

Born Free USA Canadian Projects

24 February 2015

Barry Kent MacKay, Senior Program Associate for Born Free USA, is writing a special blog series about deer culling. Below is the first installment.

Born Free USA / Barry MacKay

Killing is how we solve problems, I thought, as I listened to the news in my hotel room in Victoria on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. U.S. president Obama had requested authorization for use of military force against terrorists in the Middle East. In my country, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was beating the war drums, his promise that Canadian troops would act only as advisors and not come under fire in Iraq, shattered.

That was big stuff involving war leaders and world events, and seemed very distant from the determinedly civil environs of Oak Bay: a municipality of the Capital Regional District, collectively called Victoria, B.C. It was a residential jurisdiction filled with lush gardens, quaint pubs and tea shops, golf courses and schools, a marina, and an appealing mixture of ivied mansions and more modest but attractive residences. And yet, the night before, I had attended a meeting of Oak Bay council, where the issue was killing—not people, but deer.

As happens across the continent, municipal politicians had received complaints that there were "too many" deer. So, as is typical of our species, the response was essentially, "Well, let's kill some of them." Killing has universal appeal as a problem-solver. Here, the two main issues seem to be that the deer were eating garden plants, and that they posed a risk to drivers, children, and the elderly.

Not even excepting the American southeast, I don't think I have seen gardens more lush than in Victoria—and it was February! Back home, there were no flowers; just snow. More to the point, in exploring the streets, parks, golf courses, and school grounds of Oak Bay, I saw virtually no signs of the heavy browse lines or denuded foliage one finds when deer populations are high.

"What's a browse line?," I was asked by locals. It is the line that appears at the highest point deer can reach when consuming vegetation. If the vegetation is denuded below that line, it means food for deer is getting scarce. Even when there is a distinct browse line, the deer are often healthy. In Oak Bay, in spite of driving and walking through the community, I saw one deer, and she appeared to be in splendid health. These deer are not over-populated by any definition. They are part of the environment, and it is an environment that, like every other, changes through time and puts limits on what can be grown. I can grow a fraction of the variety of plant species that gardeners enjoy in Victoria.

The other problem I most often heard was that there were collisions between deer and cars. We have a demonstrably successful program in Ottawa, Ontario called "Speeding Costs You Deerly" that works well, yet I encountered no indication that the District would even consider such non-lethal options.

But, the real irony is that the cull will not work—and residents will likely never know—because the council has decided to spend taxpayers' money killing deer with virtually no consultation or accountability. We don't even know, as of this writing, if the cull has started. When asked directly at the council meeting, the mayor said he would not tell residents when the cull began.

Deer culls typically result in what is called "rebound effect" or "compensatory mortality," which means that, when a population is decreased, females become more fertile, natural mortality and competition for resources are reduced, fawn survival is enhanced, and, in consequence, numbers increase above what they were originally.

But, when we analyze the data, we find that the number of collisions are low and that most occur on three particular roads (where there need to be lower speed limits that are properly enforced, as well as better signage, which would go a long way to reducing collisions and the number of cars damaged and the number of deer hurt or killed).

The deer involved are of the "black-tailed" race of the mule deer. They are native to Vancouver Island, where they are in severe decline in their traditional forest habitat. But, their numbers are "exploding," according to Oak Bay mayor Nils Jensen. Whenever any wildlife species increases, we are told that its population is "exploding." No one knows how many deer are in Oak Bay, and after searching it from top to bottom for a week (and seeing only one) and having done wildlife surveys, I would think that anything approaching an accurate count would not be possible. No matter; no effort has been taken to determine what number would be "satisfactory." (Zero?) And, at any rate, the council has decided that it can afford to kill up to 25 deer without bothering to consider if that is enough, if it is too many, or if it will have any effect on population size at all.

Those will not necessarily be the ones munching the tulips or being hit by cars—but those unlucky enough to enter Clover traps. These are cage-like frameworks covered in mesh and baited with food. The animal enters the trap, trips the trigger that closes the door, and, trapped, waits until people arrive to jump on the trap, collapsing it onto the deer. One holds a "captive bolt" gun to the deer's head and fires it, sending a stout piece of iron into the animal's brain. Once the animal is dead (or, preferably, unconscious with the heart beating), it must be "bled out" quickly (if, as the law demands, the meat is to be saved). That part is uncertain, because Mayor Jensen believes in levels of secrecy more often associated with military planning. Did he or did he not get an exemption from what the law requires?

In future blogs, I will more carefully explain why this cull is both cruel and ineffective, look at alternative actions, and explore the thinking—so commonplace—that leads us to so quickly choose killing as the solution to our problems.

Farmageddon: New Book on Factory Farming

2014-08-29T16:25:00.001-04:00

The True Cost of Cheap Meat

By Barry Kent MacKay
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada
Senior Program Associate, Born Free USA's Canadian Representative

Because it was a friend who asked me to review this book, written by Philip Lymbery, “with Isabel Oakeshott” and published this year by Bloomsbury, I agreed. Philip Lymbery is the CEO of Compassion for World Farming, which funded the enormous effort that went into this book, and a companion film. He is also a fellow birder, and I love the little avifaunal asides to his descriptions of his travels.

My concern was that I’d be enduring yet another polemic filled with ghastly descriptions of abused factory farm animals along with self-righteous indignation against the 99 plus percent of the population who are not vegan. Although I happen to be vegan, I quite understand that campaigns to stop meat and dairy consumption is a lengthy battle for the hearts and minds of often good and decent people who do not yet understand the negative impacts on health, the environment and on the animals, themselves, that derives from meat and dairy consumption. And no matter how compelling the arguments or how much it may in some ultimate way be in their immediate or long-term self-interest not everyone has access to viable alternatives. I, too, was once a meat and dairy consuming omnivore, and that is what we all evolved to be over millions of years of natural selection.

Lymbery does not challenge moderate meat and dairy eating of products from animals free-ranged on smaller family, organic and mixed-products farms, but takes on factory farming with its overdependence on chemicals and antibiotics, its horrid treatment of animals, its gross inefficiencies in turning plant nutriment into meat and dairy products, its production of vast amounts of effluent and subsequent negative effects on the environment and wildlife, its destruction of employment opportunities and family farming, its degradation of food quality, its potential to spread disease among consumers and wildlife, its destruction of natural living resources in order to fuel its own needs and the misrepresentation it promotes in order to convince “traditional” producers to invest in it, too often to their a ruination that ends in poverty and suicides.

Factory farming is an ugly business that is here documented by a series of “case histories” as Limbery takes us with him on visits to a wide range of places around the globe. He looks at a variety of issues beyond which even most dedicated animal protection activists are likely to consider. I found his description of a Peruvian fishery that draws a huge biomass from the sea to be shipped to distant fish-farms riveting and educational, fascinating, and totally the practice described destructively shameful.

Factory farming is a heavy topic softened in this large volume by Limbery’s anecdotal writing-style. He likes people, and he is mostly focused at the production part of the world’s factory farming industry, understanding that many have no choice. He is non-judgemental, preferring to allow both facts and his observations to speak for themselves. These features combine to make compelling what would otherwise be the depressingly heavy reading I feared I would be enduring when I received my review copy. His non-judgemental style will help readers who consume meat, or produce it, to learn about the powerfully negative aspects of factory farming without feeling persecuted. Many will, I am sure, thereby allow themselves to consider more rational, logical choices in their own self-interests, and in the interest of the planet’s ability to sustain our species.

Additional to farming practice reforms and better distribution leading to less waste, the author advocates simply eating less meat. I know, of course, that whatever reception it receives among the general public and influential people who are its most intended readership, within the animal protection movement this book is likely to receive criticism for not taking the obvious next step and promoting at least vegetarian, if not outright vegan, consumption, where possible. There is a nod toward cultured meat, a product devoid of any animal suffering. But that is effectively still in the future and likely to of limited supply for a long time to come. I don’t think the words “vegan” or “vegetarian” or their derivatives are mentioned anywhere, nor are they in the index. And so from the perspective of those of us who are vegan it seems he wants to make things somewhat better as opposed to quite a lot better, giving up without a struggle to the statistical enormity of the challenge.

I am not sure that all Lymbery’s proposed solutions, including his heavy emphasis on eliminating appalling food wastage, are any more realistic than a world that is mostly vegan, although some are, and he is rightly proud of playing a lead role in getting at least in some jurisdictions to eliminate some of the most egregious abuses of farmed animals, such as veal crates and pig gestation stalls.

But even if we could feed twice the number of people on the planet by implementing all Lymberly’s plans, the number of humans will still grow. So long as it does grow we face the dilemma inherent to the physical reality that a finite amount of required resource cannot forever supply an infinitely growing demand. At some point there will be a reckoning and even the best of effort can only delay that day.

All that said, this is still a book to be highly recommended, and in fact, the most dedicated vegan activist will find within its pages a great deal of hard information and facts and examples of great value in any campaign to protect meat and dairy-producing animals, whether via reform or abolition. It is also a book to be read by that vast majority who cannot conceive of forgoing their cooked carrion, and by the media, politicians and other influential individuals who are now asleep on the Titanic as the iceberg comes ever closer.

They Want to Kill Bears Because They Just Don't Understand

2014-07-29T11:05:00.000-04:00

What Can You Do?

By Barry Kent MacKay

(The following is modified from an original blog post by Born Free USA published 07/22/14)

Just when we thought they have ended, we received yet another e-mail from a detractor critical of our failed efforts last spring to prevent an ill-conceived partial re-opening of the spring bear hunt. It read: "fyi- even though this is in the yukon this is what happens... i wish you would really open you [sic] eyes and understand what happens outside of the GTA..." Attached to it was this URL, which tells of an effort to move a "nuisance" mother black bear and her two cubs in the Yukon that failed when the bears returned and the mother was killed, leaving the cubs orphaned.

But, what is so sad is that this is just one of numerous e-mails and phone calls we received in response to opposing the spring bear hunt, all with a similar theme. The criticism involves the Greater Toronto Area: Canada's most urbanized area, where many of us live, but where bears are rare or absent. The assumption is that we are all a bunch of overly-compassionate urbanites who don't experience nature in the raw, and who don't feel the need to protect ourselves, and who know nothing about animals.

It means that they're unable or unwilling to comprehend what we're really saying. The irony is that the article to which this e-mailer points to actually makes our point. By "our," I refer to an assortment of people with diverse addresses (including central and northern Ontario) and experiences with bears. As professional advocates on behalf of animals, we first look at what the experts say. That includes the scientists employed by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, who have long researched the "nuisance bear" issue-not by sitting in city apartments, but by employing various technologies to study bears in the field. It's not that we would uncritically agree with them; but, in the case of the then-Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, their findings-that the spring bear hunt made no measurable difference in the number of incidents involving "nuisance" bears-were not even considered. He knew that people like our critics hadn't read them either. that they simply feared bears, and could easily be duped into thinking he and his government, facing an election, had their better interest in mind by bringing back the spring bear hunt in several jurisdictions to "test" the results.

Contrary to our critic's belief that we are a bunch of urbanites, our numbers do include northerners. Mike McIntosh runs Bear With Us and lives in the presence of wild and tame bears that he sees and interacts with each day of the spring, summer, and fall. He, like the scientists whose work we cite, is likely far more involved with bears than our critics or politicians. For instance, Jim Johnston not only lives in the north, but took it upon himself to take a course in understanding bears, and then applied that knowledge to a program then funded by the Ministry of Natural Resources-thus significantly reducing the number of "nuisance bear" incidents for Elliot Lake. Even those of us whose primary residence is outside bear habitat have our share of bear experience. For example, I've seen all eight of the world's bears, and am a member of the International Association for Bear Research and Management. This does not make me an expert, but it puts me in touch with those who are, and with their work.

The irony: there has long been a spring hunt in the Yukon, which did not prevent "nuisance" behaviour - exactly as we've been saying. The last Canadian killed by a bear died in the wilderness in Alberta two months ago, where, yep. they have a spring bear hunt. Predatory bears kill away from urban areas, and, as we've been saying, do so with extreme rarity. (Lightning is many times more likely to kill you in the woods.) And, this isn't prevented by spring bear hunts.

But, what is really telling about the Yukon story is that it verifies two of our most valid concerns. First, we are arguing that the problem is attractants, including garbage dumps not secured by adequate fencing-exactly as described in the Yukon story. Second, the people who shot the female didn't realize that she had cubs (again, as we have been saying). It may be illegal to shoot a female with cubs under the newly instated "test" spring bear hunt in Ontario, but hard facts gleaned by our own government show that nursing females do get shot by hunters who don't realize they are killing lactating females, leaving orphaned cubs to die.

There are a lot of people (like the guy who sent us the link to the Yukon article) who think emotively, not analytically-and, to them, facts don't matter.

Ontario's newly appointed Minister of Natural Resources, Bill Mauro, says that he has yet to receive and review information from this year's hunt. Does it matter? Do facts matter? We hope so. By all accounts, Mr. Mauro is a smart guy. We hope, like David Ramsey, Mike Gravelle and Donna Cansfield before him, he will examine the evidence and change his mind about the spring bear hunt. Human safety is an important matter that must be dealt with effectively. Bear wise, not bear hunting will, provide communities with the tools to reduce human/bear conflicts keeping both people and bears safe.

World Trade Organization Again Rules Against Commercial Seal Hunt

2014-05-30T10:39:00.000-04:00

by Barry Kent MacKay,
Senior Program Associate
Born Free USA's Canadian Representative

Barry is an artist, both with words and with paint. He has been associated with our organization for nearly three decades and is our go-to guy for any wildlife question. He knows his animals — especially birds — and the issues that affect them. His blogs will give you just the tip of his wildlife-knowledge iceberg, so be sure to stay and delve deeper into his Canadian Project articles. If you like wildlife and reading, Barry's your man. (And we're happy to have him as part of our team, too!)

World Trade Organization Again Rules Against Commercial Seal Hunt

Canadian ignorance fuels Canadian ignorance

Published 05/28/14

In late May, it was announced that the World Trade Organization (WTO) had ruled in favour of the European Union’s ban on products derived from Canada’s northwest Atlantic commercial hunt of harp seals. Canada and Norway had appealed the ban. Just before the decision was made public, an organization called the “Trade Fairness Coalition” released a poll that suggested a majority of Europeans are opposed to the ban on seal products based on “public morality,” unless there is clear scientific evidence to support the ban.

This is where it gets, well, tacky, if not outright pathetic… a case of people willfully fooling themselves and being annoyed that others don’t go along with the nonsense. The grandly named “Trade Fairness Coalition” is an invention of such organizations as the Fur Council of Canada, the Fur Institute of Canada, Canada Mink Breeders, Canada Safari Club International Foundation, and various other organizations that don’t want “public morality” to influence policy. The “poll” was conducted by “Valued Opinions” which “surveys” people by invitation only, paying them for their opinions. That’s not exactly in keeping with the best traditions of randomly sampling carefully designated demographics selected to create models from which extrapolations can be made that will represent the population’s overall views with an identifiable degree of certainty.

But hey, if you want to fool yourself, choosing who you ask is the way to go. It’s just that European politicians, or the rest of us, are not obliged to go along with the myths.

Part of the myth Canada works so hard to create is that the “traditional” seal hunt for “sustenance,” conducted by the Inuit in the far north, is indivisible from and part of the large-scale commercial hunt that occurs early each spring in the Northwest Atlantic (Newfoundland and Labrador – “the front”) and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence: two places harp (and hooded) seals congregate to give birth on floating sea ice each year. Thus, the ban is somehow against products from both hunts, although it is not—and never has been—about the “sustenance” hunt.

The “sustenance” hunt involves a relatively small number of mostly ringed seals: a very different species from the harp. Ringed seals are the smallest seal species, and they are dependent on sea ice for their survival. But, they are also thought to be critical to the survival of another ice-dependent species: the polar bear. The northern “sustenance” hunt can also opportunistically include harp, bearded, and hooded seals.

The arctic-based Nunatsiaq News, published in Iqaluit, Nunavut, pointed out that, according to another survey, 57 percent of Europeans believe that the WTO decision could have a negative impact on trade of other animal or natural products. They seem to assume that means support for the east coast commercial seal hunt. And yet, I would agree with that opinion, and I oppose the commercial east coast hunt. I think morality is important, and if it leads to limiting trade of animal products derived from any other cruel practices, I see that as a positive development. I think most Europeans would, as well.

The Telegram, published in St. John’s, Newfoundland, quoted the National Post’s John Ivison as ironically saying that facts don’t matter to those of us opposed to the east coast commercial hunt. “They have been replaced by popular delusion and the madness of crowds.”
I’m the last one to suggest that any trade policy will either satisfy all parties or display a consistency of intent, and it was pointed out in the WTO’s decision that the EU erred by allowing trade from the Inuit hunt in Greenland even though it is as “commercial” as the east coast one. The whole idea of exempting “native,” “aboriginal,” or “first nations” from restrictions that apply to “hunting” by folks of a paler hue of skin, or whose ancestors arrived on the scene a shorter time ago (say hundreds, as opposed to thousands, of years), seems inherently biased to me—like caring if someone’s ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, or by way of Ellis Island in the 1940s.

But, while the decision by the EU (supported by the WTO) is called “hypocritical” by commercial seal hunt apologists because there are not similar bans against animal products or practices that also involve cruelty to animals, it can also be seen for what it really is: a more progressive and aggressive approach to animal welfare than is to be found in Canada. While it may be comforting to pro-sealing factions to think that animal abuse in agriculture and the subsequent production of vast amounts of meat, leather, and dairy products are ignored by the humane movement, in fact, those abuses are being aggressively challenged worldwide, to varying degrees, and intently in western Europe (compared to Canada). Canadians may not be aware of it, but the Europeans are making significant strides in outlawing the cruelest animal agriculture and other practices. There are similar and profound challenges to animal abuses sanctioned by “tradition,” such as the production of foie gras, fox hunting, hare hunting, bullfighting, cosmetic and product testing research, trapping, and use of bird lime.

I understand that what The Telegram called “some nonsense about protecting ‘public morals’” is not as important to whomever wrote that as it is to others, but in this case, the “others” happen to be members of the EU: a collective unit representing millions of voters. They are ahead of Canada on humanitarian issues, just as they are on the issue of global climate change—something that is a far greater threat to the Canadian Inuit “sustenance” seal hunt than the WTO’s decision could ever be. The ringed seal, most commonly killed by Inuit for food, pelts, and other products, is already a threatened species. And, just as Canada does not want to demonstrate anything remotely like leadership on anything to do with the humane treatment of animals, it is even more regressive with regard to environmental issues generally, and global climate change in particular. A year and a half ago, Canada was ranked 58th out of 61 countries in terms of its policies and action on climate change.

If you can really look at the commercial seal hunt and find it an acceptable way to treat animals, fine; but most of us simply can’t do that.

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/weblog_canada.php?p=4278&more=1

Book Review: The Double-Crested Cormorant

2014-04-11T15:20:00.002-04:00

By Steve Donoghue

The Double-Crested Cormorant: Plight of a Feathered Pariah
By Linda R. Wires
Illustrated by Barry Kent Mackay
Yale University Press, 2014

Conservation biologist Linda Wires, in an utterly remarkable new volume from Yale University Press, takes up the cause of the persecuted Phalacrocorax auritus, the double-crested cormorant, a sleek, black-plumed aquatic bird from a family thirty-five or forty species found on every continent on Earth (although the double-crested is found only in North America). “More than just an account of a maligned and persecuted animal,” Wires writes, “the cormorant’s story reflects a culture still deeply prejudiced against creatures that exist outside the boundaries of human understanding and acceptance.”

The persecution she’s alluding is a deeply-ingrained cultural thing that’s almost certainly rooted in simple commerce: for almost as long as humanity has cast its nets into bays, harbors, inlets, estuaries, rivers, wetlands, and even ponds, humanity has also labored under the conviction that it has a cutthroat competitor in the double-crested cormorant. As a result, even though cormorants in ancient China and Japan were for centuries domesticated into allies by fishermen themselves, they’ve been extensively persecuted virtually everywhere else. Wires stresses throughout her book (which is an absorbing combination natural history monograph and passionate manifesto) that this persecution continues today, and she’s very insightful on the cultural roots of it all:

When observed in its conspicuous spread-winged pose, common to several cormorant species, the cormorant acquires another potent aspect. In this notably bat- or vulture-like posture, the cormorant stands still and upright with both wings held out wide from the sides of its body. In this stance, frequently taken up after fishing, birds typically orient themselves toward the sun or the wind, presumably to dry their feathers or regulate heat loss and gain; some researchers have suggested that wing spreading occurs to heat up the bird’s food and facilitate digestion. Whatever the exact reason, the mysterious stance has an eerie, evocative quality, conjuring up images of crucifixion and vampires, and has fueled impressions about the bird’s dark nature.

“At the heart of the cormorant’s story,” she elaborates, “is the extent to which its current treatment is (or is not) based on sound science, especially relative to its management for fisheries.” No study past or present has ever demonstrated that double-crested cormorants are true rivals to any kind of commercial fishing, and yet, largely as a result of blind prejudicial momentum, near-extinction policies persist even into the 21^st century. Wires lays out in detail the wrong-headed U.S. federal policies – several of which are up for renewal in June of this year – that allow for the wholesale slaughters of cormorant populations under the guise of “culling.”

The calamity of this kind of policy is leant all the more weight The Double-Crested Cormorant by Wires’s skill at describing the natural history of these birds, which are awkward on land (Wires notes their particularly their ungainly habit of hooking their beaks onto rocks and branches in order to pull themselves lurchingly forward, a sight I’ve seen and laughed at myself) but beautifully graceful in their natural underwater environment. They hunt by sight (they have flat corneas, which help in achieving a condition unknown to life-long book-readers: emmetropia, perfect vision) except when the water is too dark or turbulent, in which case they hunt by means as yet unknown. They nest in all manner of locations, and they’re doting parents. They’re deep divers, and although they’ll eat virtually any kind of fish they can catch (including some only a little smaller than themselves), they seem to prefer just the kind of smaller ‘junk’ species that are of no interest to commercial fisherman in any case.

It’s a quietly stunning double performance: Wires is equally proficient as both the Roger Tory Peterson of the double-crested cormorant and its Rachel Carson. Her preservationist advocacy is unflinching, and her nature-writing is eloquent – and the whole book is enlivened by gorgeous illustrations by Barry Kent Mackay, who not only captures the cormorant in all its moods and actions but also offers accompanying pictures of many of the cormorant’s fellow estuarine birds, including an especially ominous drawing of a bald eagle, and a haunting illustration of a great heron.

The result of all this is an important work, a benchmark popular study of a bird species that needs enlightened help in order to survive. The Double-Crested Cormorant: Plight of a Feathered Pariah ought to be for sale in the gift shops of every national park in the United States at the very least – and from the sound of Wires’s conclusions, several copies sent to Congress might help too.

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Challenged by Animal Alliance of Canada

2014-03-10T13:25:00.002-04:00

We will post what you say; will you post our comments?

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) has taken offense to a Born Free blog written by me that we posted on January 21^st and edited by the Peaceful Parks Coalition to be published in northern Ontario (see http://www.chroniclejournal.com/content/news/local/2014/02/22/bear-facts-what%E2%80%99s-bunch-starving-cubs-when-there-are-votes-be-had).   The subject was the provincial government’s plans to hold a “test” two year spring bear hunt. The edited version was published by the Chronicle Journal, in northwestern Ontario, where most support for the spring bear hunt exists.

We challenge OFAH to do what we are doing. We will post their entire letter, with my responses, below, and we challenge OFAH to do the same…post their own statement and my responses just as we have, to better inform readers on all side of the argument. Below, the OFAH document will be in quotations, my responses will be in color.

“OFAH Response to Misleading Statements Made by Barry Kent MacKay (correct spelling)”

“OFAH FILE: 405/828
“February 28, 2014
“To: Letter to the Editor
“Subject: Response to commentary by Barry McKay, February 22, 2014

“I would like to take this opportunity to refute some of the extremely misleading statements made by Barry Kent McKay about the spring bear hunt in Ontario. McKay claims that there is a lack of "transparency and citizen democracy," even though the proposal is currently posted on the Environmental Registry for a 30-day public comment period.”

It is interesting that OFAH referenced the EBR as a place that fosters transparency and citizen democracy. Although the Ministry has numerous documents about black bears the only information posted was a brief summary of the issue, a partisan press release, a map of the areas where the spring hunt will occur and the two regulations that require change. It could hardly be argued that the Minister provided an open and honest discussion about the proposed hunt, ignoring the findings of his own Ministry staff in two separate studies which showed that the spring bear hunt will not reduce human/bear conflicts. As we all know, once a Ministry item is placed on the EBR for comment, the decision has already been made – hardly transparent and democratic. As Gord Miller pointed out in Losing Touch, Part 1, “In recent years, the ministry has increasingly evaded its obligations under the EBR, depriving the public of its established rights...”

“The most disturbing aspect of McKay's letter is the misrepresentation of government data. When McKay claims that MNR estimated that 270 cubs were orphaned each spring, he shows a blatant disregard for the relevant information accompanying that estimate. The estimate of 274 orphaned cubs is actually the maximum number of cubs that could have been if no legislation existed to protect female bears (which it does) and that nursing females are as vulnerable to the hunt as other females (which they are not).”

I have to interrupt mid-paragraph. I don’t count bears killed by hunters; the MNR does. The figure 274 orphaned cubs came from Ken P. Morrison, then a Wildlife Specialist with the MNR, and was referencing the 1982 to 1994 hunting season in three Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) situated near Sudbury and North Bay, in a document written for the MNR in October, 1996, and copied to OFAH.   In the abstract it says 34.8 percent of the 4,131 adult bears “harvested” in just those 3 WMUs were females. Morrison was clear that the figures were based on actual kills with the regulations in place. He assumed that “additive cub mortality” represented a worst case scenario by assuming that five years of age was young for a sow to have cubs. Since fecundity is driven by food availability, the ability of five year old bears to reproduce would vary from season to season.

One of the reasons for the Morrison study was to determine whether orphaning would negatively impact the bear population. He concluded that it did not. However, he did not address the ethical concerns raised by animal protection organizations about the fate of bear cubs orphaned in the spring through the spring bear hunt.

If the hunt proceeds, the legislation which prohibits the killing of mother bears with cubs in the spring is a good thing. However, there is an assumption by those who argue for the spring hunt that if the law says you can’t kill mother bears with cubs, mother bears with cubs will not be killed. Let us examine the efficacy of such a statement. Over 30% of the bears killed are female. Of those, 38% are five years and older and therefore of reproductive age (which can be younger). Regardless of the numbers, the point of Ken Morrison’s paper is the bear cubs are orphaned in the spring. And whether hunting organizations want to acknowledge it or not cubs will starve to death, die of hypothermia or of predation.

In addition, if a hunter does shoot a mother bear, the onus is on the hunter to report the violation and accept whatever penalty may be handed out. So the accuracy of reporting is certainly called in question. At this time, even though reporting is mandatory, at least 30% of the hunters fail to do so and the Ministry does not take any legal action against them.
“Statements such as this by McKay totally ignore the sophisticated and tightly regulated black bear management regime that exists in Ontario, and even prompted an MNR biologist to clarify that "the actual number of orphaned cubs was at least an order of magnitude less than the 274 figure," and that "the best information MNR staff had was that orphaning was an extremely rare event." According to the same MNR biologist, approximately 25,000 cubs are born every year in Ontario, of which 10,000 will die for reasons that have nothing to do with hunting (the most frequent causes of cub death include starvation).”

First, no citation is given. According to Ken Morrison, a 20% loss of cubs is normal. So if the OFAH number of 25,000 cubs born is accurate, 5,000, not 10,000 will die regardless of hunting.

A paper authored by Tom Beck, Colorado Division of Wildlife et al, titled Sociological and Ethical Considerations of Black Bear Hunting makes the following statement about orphaning:

“The biggest issue is the killing of nursing female black bears. There is no way to prevent this from happening the spring bear season, either through hunter education or timing of season. Nursing females often forage at great distances from their cubs...There remains great contention between hunters and bear biologists/managers as to the ability of hunters to accurately assess nursing status of bears. The conclusion of most biologists is that it is quite difficult to accurately determine nursing status on free-ranging bears, even when a bear is in a tree or at a bait.”

Beck et al continues, “Proponents of spring hunting usually point out that most states protect females with cubs by regulation. The regulation looks good on paper but is difficult to implement in the field because of bear behaviour.”

As David Ramsay, MPP for Timiskaming-Cochrane, former Minister of Natural Resources and a hunter, has said, “It’s just absolutely unpalatable for the majority of people to condone a hunt for mammals with their babies in the spring. It just comes down to that.” I agree.

“With respect to the use of bait, McKay claims that the "availability of human food conditions bears to search for such foods," citing absolutely no evidence to support his claims. At worst, he ignores the conclusions from researchers in central Ontario, Maine, and the Riding Mountain area of Manitoba that found no evidence to suggest that baiting for the purposes of hunting exacerbates conflicts between bears and people.”

One does not normally use citations in op-ed pieces, or blogs (although I do tend to use them in the latter) but I actually think, subject to research, that there is validity to the concept of “diversionary feeding”, although it is normally frowned upon by bear conservationists who employ the slogan “a fed bear is a dead bear”, meaning that when humans feed bears the bears become habituated to being around people, people complain and the bear is subsequently shot. In the case of the spring bear hunt, if the food is placed far enough away from human habitation, as is normal, I agree that there is likely little or no likelihood of that same bear wandering into town. But such bears are not the bears that concern people; it’s the bears that come into contact with communities, that wonder into town, that trigger the concerns whether there is a hunt or not. In other words, putting bait out in the woods does not resolve the concern; shooting those bears that are frightening people is already legal. And what I said was that availability of human food conditions bears to search for such foods, obviously not a concern in the woods, but a very real concern if the shooting is close enough to town to have a chance of removing the “problem” bear.

“He also claims that bears are "easy targets" at spring bait sites, a ridiculous statement that proves he has never hunted bears in this (or any other) fashion.”

Quite right. But I have fired plenty of guns rifles and shotguns and in my youth I collected zoological specimens, but simply didn’t like killing animals and quit. But I love informal target shooting (what we called “plinking”) and while I’ll admit that as targets tin cans and bottle caps can present a challenge, bears are bigger than any such targets. I am right that bears are easy targets. Mark is right because it is not always easy to get a clean kill. We examined MNR bear hunting data from 1994, a few years prior to the end of the spring hunt. A total of 828 bears were wounded that year. It is unclear from the stats whether those wounded were recovered. What it shows is that even though 95.4% of the hunters hunted over bait, 13% of the total bears “harvested” were wounded. These figures support the assertion that bears are easy target but not necessarily an easy kill.

“It is true that use of bait increases hunter success, but not nearly as much as one might think.”

This statement again is not correct. According to the Ministry, Backgrounder on Black Bears in Ontario, Non-resident success rate is generally higher at 57% as opposed to that of resident hunters at 17% (2007 figures). The reason for the difference is that 93% of the non-resident hunters hunt over bait.

“Bears are wary by nature, and their keen senses can easily detect a hunter.”

If detection of humans scares off bears, obviously they are not a threat to humans, and “safety” is the reason the Minister is giving for instating a limited spring hunt. You can’t have it both ways, and in fact, in my experience human odor is neither a deterrent nor an attractant.

“Baits also gives the hunter an added opportunity to identify a bear's sex. The spring bear hunt is, in practice, dominated by the harvest of male bears.”

If this statement were true, MNR stats would show that the proportion between males and females would be different where a spring hunt occurred. However, bear hunting stats show that the proportion of males to females is the same prior to the ending of the spring hunt and after the hunt was ended. These data are supported by Tom Beck’s finding that most bears are killed in the latter part of the spring season when both males and females are active.

“Unfortunately, the cancellation of the spring bear hunt reduced the harvest of male bears. These bears are responsible not only for a significant proportion of human-bear conflicts, but also for acts of cannibalism on other bears. This is supported by unpublished MNR data that demonstrates that cannibalism rates can be 2-3 times greater in unhunted areas than hunted areas.”

In fact, if one examines the bear summary harvest statistics, the percentage of male to female bear killed pre and post the cancellation of the spring bear hunt remain essentially the same. So while the number of male bears killed declined for a number of years, so did the killing of female bears which would have compensated for any additional deaths. More importantly, Ministry studies show that bear hunting (spring and fall) has no effect on the human-bear conflicts. Killing whatever sex of bear in the spring does not reduce the conflicts. Two Ministry studies have confirmed this.

With regard to cannibalism, there are at least competing thoughts on why this might occur. The conclusion of the study titled, BEARS-THEIR BIOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT states,

"Adult male black bears do not help feed or defend their young (Jonkel and Cowan 1971). They may, however, indirectly protect their offspring by reducing immigration of new males into an area. Rogers (1977), in his kinship theory, hypothesized that resident males would normally not kill cubs because they typically use the same area year after year and share these areas with their offspring. Therefore, the chances are high that if a resident male killed a cub he would be killing his own offspring. Immigrating males, however, would not run such a risk. For them, killing cubs would eliminate a competing male's young and increase their own chances for mating by causing a female to become receptive for breeding. Thus, as the number of resident males are reduced, the killing of young by immigrating males may increase."

This study suggests that male bears killing cubs is exacerbated by the removal of resident males through hunting. Of course male bears can eat cubs, which is why females don’t bring them into proximity of an easy food source, such as bait – there may be a male nearby. But this is nature being natural and it is not a commonplace. Studies show incidences vary from year to year and place to place – the highest incidence I’ve seen being in Arizona, and in no way justifies making other cubs die of starvation. But since we are citing unpublished writing let me do the same, only I will name the author and quote the text. The author Dr. Lynn Rogers, a well known American bear biologist, referencing the unpublished work of Dr. George Kolenosky, a retired MNR biologist:

"All cubs orphaned in the spring die. When a mother is killed in the spring, her cubs begin a slow death. At first the cubs wait quietly for her in the safety of a tree. As the pain of hunger grows in their bellies, they begin to squall for her. Eventually, they are killed by a predator or die slowly of starvation. Cubs’ mouths are still adapted mainly for sucking in April and early May, and their teeth are not yet developed enough to chew vegetation. In late May and June they begin eating solid food but they still need their mother’s rich milk to survive and grow. Dr. George Kolenosky, an Ontario MNR biologist, studied seven cubs that were orphaned between May 24 and June 4 and died of starvation 11 to 30 days later. In the 10 hours preceding their deaths, they lay on the ground unable to get up when a person approached. As cubs weaken with starvation, they become increasingly vulnerable to predation, so not all cubs get to the final stage of weakness witnessed in this study."

Arguably, it might cause less suffering if, in fact, the male bears do find and kill the cubs orphaned by hunters accidentally or unintentionally killing female bears, which, as I say, examination of hunter kills shows does happen in the spring bear hunt.

“The great irony is that, by successfully lobbying for the cancellation of the spring bear hunt, animal rights activists were successful in dooming hundreds more cubs to death at the claws and teeth of aggressive and cannibalistic male bears.”

In order to remove enough male bears to remove this “threat” you would not have a sustainable hunt. The MNR regulates all hunting under its regulatory control with the goal of sustainability. Thus there are still plenty of male bears, not all of whom are “aggressive and cannibalistic”. Indeed, while we need a lot more research on primal, non-hunted populations in order to establish rigorous baseline data, I can find no indication that cannibalism is commonplace among Ontario black bears, or that there would be a net increase in the incidence of cannibalism by male bears in the absence of a spring hunt, nor does OFAH offer any evidence.

What is so interesting about this statement is that the number of hunters hunting black bears prior to the end of the spring hunt is essentially the same in the years post spring hunt. Pre-hunt, the average number of bear hunters was 19,892. Post-hunt the average number was 19,704. The proportion of male bears to female bears is essentially the same as well. How is it that such dramatic changes to bear behaviour occurred due to the spring hunt cancellation? The answer is that there are no dramatic changes and no evidence of such.

“This is the price we all pay when wildlife management is dictated by misinformation rather than scientific data.”

It is the Minister and the OFAH who are ignoring the science. As we have pointed out earlier, Ministry staff have produced two papers which clearly demonstrate that killing bears in the spring will not reduce human/bear conflicts which is the Minister’s stated objective. This may not be the objective of the OFAH.

Unfortunately the Minister did not consult scientific data, even from the experts in his own Ministry. He has offered no scientific rationale for his decision at all (and yes, I have asked, both him and his staff).

“For more factual information about bear hunting, please visit www.ofah.org/hunting/bears.

“Yours in Conservation,

“Mark Ryckman, M.Sc.
“Senior Wildlife Biologist
“Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters”

No thanks. I’ll stick to what the science shows and compassion dictates. Now…will you post this on the OFAH list and let your members see our side of things, or no…we have let everyone see YOUR position.

Barry Kent MacKay

WWF does, or I should say doesn’t, do it again

2014-02-19T15:39:00.000-05:00

By Barry Kent MacKay
Director

Well darn. My friends all laughed (they can be mean) when I expressed optimism. David Miller, former mayor of Toronto, had been appointed head of World Wildlife Fund Canada. “That could be good,” I argued. “They might change!” My friends kept giggling.

You see, among world conservationists Canada is, well, subject to derision, a country where the federal government actively opposes environmentalism and environmentalists. And among conservation organizations the biggest, the World Wildlife Fund, is, well, let us say seen as a small “c” hyper-conservative, don’t rock the boat kind of organization, good when it comes to having big bucks to spend on research and studies, but terrified of being associated with anything that might hurt the status quo. There are exceptions: WWF (aka World Wide Fund for Nature) certainly was on the side of most of us on the blue-fin tuna issue, advocating for a ban on commercial trade (it didn’t happen). But as a broad generality they try so hard not to offend the powers-that-be. What they don’t want to do, it seems, is hurt potential future partners, government or industry. Government and industry thus loves them and their panda logo. The panda, meanwhile, continues its slow march to extinction.

Consider Coca Cola. WWF and Coca Cola had a great thing going, Coke using the literally iconic polar bear, or a digitalized facsimile thereof, in their ads, promising to give money to WWF to protect the species.

And what is being done? Well, we have a “national polar bear day” on February 27. Oh good. AND…recognizing that climate change is what most threatens the polar bear, WWF is attacking its root cause.

As WWF-Canada proudly states: “We’ve identified a resilient stretch of ice that is projected to remain when all other large areas of summer sea ice are gone. We’re calling it the Last Ice Area, and it’s part of our solution for conserving life in the Arctic. This is a place where we have the chance to get it right by planning for a healthy Arctic future. It’s an opportunity to make sure that Arctic ecosystems are valued by communities and businesses in the North and around the world, that this resilient region will support people and wildlife for generations to come. With your support, we are making sure this opportunity isn’t lost.”

Does that make sense to you? Me either. It’s not that they aren’t fighting climate change at all: we did have national sweater day, that was February 6 (I’m not making this up), when we all were urged to wear a sweater, and turn down the heat in our homes. I guess we’re the guilty ones, eh? Yes sir; I’ve done my conservation duty and gee, that hardly hurt at all.

Anyway, a while ago I was asked by a concerned citizen if Canada would consider doing an ivory crush. We know that any “legal” elephant ivory present fueled the illegal poaching of elephants, with massive declines in elephant populations. As a result countries in Africa, starting with Kenya in 1989, have destroyed stockpiles of ivory, instead of selling them for funds they could assuredly use. The U.S. recently did the same, except instead of burning, which would contribute to air pollution, they literally crushed it to worthless powder….and that included confiscated art objects and souvenirs, buttons and piano keys plus whole tusks.

I laughed (but quietly, kindly) and said I didn’t think Canada would join the effort to conserve elephants, but my correspondent persevered, and quite understandably wrote to WWF-Canada, asking the organization to sign on to the idea.

David Miller wrote back: “Thank you so much for your support and active interest in stopping the illegal trade in ivory.

“We are proud of the role WWF and Traffic have played in this effort over many years, including in Canada, and we work very closely with Canadian enforcement authorities and routinely consult with them, including providing expert advice and support.

“I am advised that the Canadian ivory stockpile is very low and secure against becoming part of the illegal trade. While we appreciate the possible symbolic value of such a gesture, we will be unable to sign the letter as our efforts are focused on the illegal trade itself rather than legal ivory.”

However he added that WWF gave “expert advice” on a recent persecution of narwhal tusk smuggling (hey…it’s made of ivory) and at the bottom we are reminded that Loblaws Company Limited presented National Sweater Day, when we “Turn down the heat and put on a cozy sweater to show your support for action on climate change and energy conservation.”

Take THAT, Stephen Harper, and shove it up your pipelines.

Miller’s response is surprising, given that Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF in the U.S., said, “By crushing this ivory stockpile, the U.S. government is sending a signal. If we’re going to solve this crisis we have to crush the demand, driven by organized crime syndicates who are robbing the world of elephants and stealing the natural heritage of African Nations.” See the difference? Roberts continued, “It’s a global phenomenon. So we hope this encourages other governments to take bold, decisive steps to curb the demand for illegal elephant products.”

Even Prince William…what a radical guy…has proposed the destruction of all ivory held in the royal collection, some 1,200 items, including an ivory-decorated throne form India.

Come, David, get with it. Take the same radical route as various governments, Carter Roberts and Prince William and advocate on behalf of destroying Canada’s ivory. Then go home, turn down the temperature, put in a cozy sweater and save the planet your way, having briefly succumbed to radical discontent in the interest of just maybe saving the world’s largest living land animal – isn’t that what WWF is supposed to be doing?

Saving the Deer of Invermere

2013-11-14T16:14:00.000-05:00

By Barry Kent MacKay
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada
Canadian Representative, Born Free USA

Part 1: There's No Paradise on Earth, but...

Published 11/13/13

When I drove into Invermere, population near 4,000, in the Columbia River Valley of the interior of British Columbia, I was both enchanted and worried. Animals totally fascinate me (and that includes human animals, as I’ll discuss in a future blog) and I greatly enjoy seeing them, drawing and painting them (I am a wildlife artist, too), photographing them, interacting with them, and being in their presence. It’s just the way I am; not everyone is like that. We’re all different. Diversity itself is as natural as a beaver’s dam, a robin’s song, or the wide-eyed, innocent expression of a baby screech-owl.

But, of course, the beaver’s dam may flood a roadway; the robin’s song may awaken an exhausted shift-worker; and there could be a trace of blood and fur or feathers on the beak of the baby owl. I get that.

Still, what I saw in Invermere was a community that I could envy, where a dusky grouse strode boldly up to us, where a pileated woodpecker met us near the door of a home we visited, and where mule deer wandered on lawns, in parks, and on sidewalks, even crossing roads.

We tend to think that wild animals “should” be afraid of us—should flee—and deer usually do, unless left alone. These deer were different (although not unlike mule deer I’ve seen in California). Indeed, I met my first mule deer when I was six years of age. She walked up to me at Mount Wilson Observatory near Los Angeles, reached down, and chomped off the top half of the banana I was eating. Was I terrified? Nope. I ate the second half. But that’s me. I have touched a wild beluga whale, have had chickadees alight on my shoulder, and have had foxes, who have never met a human, trot up to give me a sniff. Animals fear us, but not necessarily instinctively; we give them ample reason.

I was in Invermere with my Toronto-based colleague, Liz White, to help support a “no” vote in a referendum that asked Invermere’s residents if the town’s deer should be baited to enter a large, square frame, where they would be trapped until men arrived to collapse the trap around them, holding the panicked, struggling animals down. Then, a metal bolt would be driven into their brains, sometimes after many botched tries—ultimately rendering them unconscious so that they could be bled from the back of a truck into a pail, until dead. (That’s not how the ballet was worded; it just asked if the deer should be culled.) Doing that would, citizens were told, prevent the things about deer that concerned them.

We tried to expose the truth, which is hard to do with a population that’s unaware of wildlife population dynamics, with both real and imagined concerns about the deer. With our colleagues, local citizens banded together as the Invermere Deer Protection Society (IDPS). We methodically canvased every part of town (about 1,000 houses), speaking to approximately 300 people about why culling does not work. It seemed that the majority of people supported us. But, when the vote was held on November 2, only 26% agreed with us and voted “no.”

Do we stop there? No. As I will explain in a future blog, the canvasing reinforced formal studies in why people act illogically. Based on figures from the cull in Cranbrook (see here and here), it’ll cost the good folks of Invermere more than $600 per deer removed, with, as I suspect they will discover, no significant improvement.

Luckily, the referendum is not binding. So, we have something to build on: a means to show a less costly and more effective suite of options. The night of the poll, we were already planning for the work ahead—and, by the next morning, we had already met with IDPS members to strategize.

Merlin Andrew: 1915 – 2013

2013-10-28T14:17:00.000-04:00

By: Barry Kent MacKay, Director

It was wartime, during the Blitz, and each morning the young woman would find a flower on her pillow, left there by Oscar, thereafter always referred to by her as “the love of my life”. She drove an ambulance, as did he, different shifts, both dedicated to saving others.   Oscar did not survive the Blitz and died in the streets of London. Merlin did survive the war to lead a life rich in experience.   She died October 19, 2013.

In 1945, Merlin Andrew was the first civilian liberator at Bergen-Belsen, in Germany. It had originally been built as a prisoner-of-war camp but in 1943 it became a Nazi concentration camp where some 50,000 prisoners died, mostly from typhus that ravaged the camp just before Merlin’s arrival on the heels of the British 11th Armoured Division.

Following the war Merlin headed for South Africa, where she sank everything into a new enterprise: growing oranges.   Alas, the enterprise failed and she lost everything. Always resilient, Merlin spent a very miserable year working under terrible conditions at a restaurant, earning enough of a nest egg to allow her to return to England. She spent some time in India, working with Mother Teresa. But she thought the nun put appearances ahead of efficacy by maintaining an unnecessary degree of squalor. In spite of her negative memories of South Africa, and her loyalty to Britain, she decided to immigrate yet again, this time to Canada.

An only child, Merlin was a fearless adventurer who toured all of North America, including Mexico and Alaska, on a scooter, her sole companion a cat. Merlin never again developed a relationship with men, whom, indeed, she often seemed to hold in fairly low regard.   Her intimate relationships were, thereafter, always lesbian.   Oscar had been the only man she ever loved.

She was a dedicated worker, politically on the left, mostly, but also fond of British pomp and tradition. She worked as a proof reader for The Toronto Star. She later boasted, “There were never any mistakes while I was there!” Her love of animals led her to found a grassroots group of animal protectionists, Action Volunteers for Animals, at a time when an extremely hostile strike, complete with a mysterious car-bombing, was underway at the Toronto Humane Society.   She and her band of volunteers would cross the picket line to feed and clean the animals.

At one point she owned a horse, boarded out as she was very much an urbanite.   She was often seen driving about town, as well as far from the city, on her scooter, a figure small of stature, helmet and goggles in place. She was particularly passionate about cats, rescued many stray pets, and was a regular at the Toronto Humane Society. There she was most effective as a critic, known for her booming voice, formidable vocabulary and sonorously delivered sarcasms needing no microphone to be heard from the floor at countless meetings. When, in the mid-1980s, she joined the Society’s board, she would still complain about “them”, the decision-makers, until it was explained that she was now one of “them”.

Known to everyone in the Toronto region who helped animals, the rest of Toronto got to know her a little when, a couple of years ago, CBC radio featured her talking quietly, eloquently as usual, about how the elderly were so invisible to so many, their life experiences counting for so little.   She emphasized her love of animals and her dedication to their welfare. Many listeners requested that she be made a regular feature.

Merlin lived in a small house near the Don Jail, close to the Don Valley, with various rescued cats and kittens. She remained a pillar of the city’s animal protection community until the end. Always tough, when she broke her arm a few years ago, she demanded a stiff Scotch, first, but then, at the hospital, refused morphine. Recently she suffered a broken hip and mild stroke, and again refused the morphine.   She fought against hospitalization and died after only two days in palliative care.

Many of us, even when on her side, tasted at least the odd splinter of her sarcastic scorn, but no one who had the privilege of knowing her doubted her dedication to the animals, especially the cats and kittens, she so loved.

To Kill a Dove

2013-09-16T17:27:00.004-04:00

By Barry Kent MacKay
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada
Canadian Representative, Born Free USA

This blog is not about Syria or foreign policy, but the subject I am about to discuss did arise in early September, 2013, just as world leaders debated the appropriate response to the images of citizens dying from gas attacks in or near Damascus. Luridly horrific descriptions of how sarin gas kills, filled newscasts. A “red line” had been crossed, and the Canadian government was agitating for a military response, as were
other countries, while still others demurred, out of fear of the situation and still more innocents dying in subsequent retaliatory warfare.   Some argued that anti-government rebels used the gas to discredit the government. Other wondered why this kind of death, however ghastly, was so significantly different from the previous deaths of equally innocent children, women and men by “conventional” weapons any less deserving our condemnation and intervention?

And throughout the debate I wondered, how could we, any member of my own species, do such things?

And at the same time, September 8, news surfaced of the inquest into the death, 11 years ago, of Jeffrey Baldwin, aged five. He was systematically starved and beaten, and, at the time of his death he weighed 21 pounds, one pound less than he weighed on his first birthday. His grandparents…grandparents!...were charged.

How could we, members of our species, do such things?

I have, over the last few years, read many books and scientific papers that reference scholarly efforts to determine the source, the cause, of our inhumanity, but when we see innocents abused, the reaction is emotional.    And ever since childhood, especially in childhood, I have been told (and taught) “don’t be emotional”.

But I am; we all are, although obviously different in what we are emotional about.

I know from experience that I’ll be castigated for daring to do what I am about to do, but I don’t give a damn.   What I am about to do is compare what I have written with something else that happened in early September; the federal and Ontario provincial governments – meaning Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, calmly decided to open a hunt for Mourning Doves in southwestern Ontario.

Of course there will invariably be those who snort that I’m putting animals ahead of people – an accusation animal protectionists frequently hear from the small-minded types who can’t conceive of enough compassion to go around. Look, both children and doves are innocent and harmless, and both are capable of suffering.   Doves can live at most only a couple of decades…most die much sooner, and yes, they never develop the cognitive ability that makes us humans so proud of ourselves.   No dove will ever create great art, pen profound thoughts, develop a scientific theory or contribute to a just cause. No dove will drop bombs, or sarin gas canisters, either, or trigger mass extinction or beat and starve little tots.

I get all that; honest. But why should they therefore suffer or be killed for, what, sport?   Why should their lives be ended?   Why should they suffer?

Most of us don’t really want them to.   To us they are a garden bird, a familiar visitor to bird feeders whose gentle cooing in late March or early April is a placid portent of spring. Occasionally they will nest in the yard, and often do so precariously, making a frail little platform of twigs where they lay two eggs, rarely more, and sometimes only one.   Because they nest from April to September, some will be nesting, with dependent young, while gunners legally search them out.

Mourning Doves eat weed seeds and other vegetal matter, and, in the nesting season, snails (the shells of snails provide the calcium used in forming their eggs), making them ecologically friendly friends of the gardener and the farmer, one might think.   They please us with their gentle beauty and many of us enjoy their softly modulated cooing and are delighted at the way the courting male puffs his neck out and bows in front of his lady, mating for life, which, for a dove, tends to be short, thanks to us.   So even those “masters of the universe” who think animals should only be valued to the degree they serve our needs, would, you would think, treasure these birds as the rest of us do.

Even if you think it is okay to kill them, given that they will eventually die (an odd viewpoint that I would not apply to anyone, but I’ve heard that argument made – kill it now so it won’t get a disease or be caught by a predator and suffer later) it is in the nature of dove shooting that many will be wounded.   They fly fast and shotguns fire handfuls of small, round pellets that spread out in a “pattern”, losing velocity and becoming ever more broadly spaced as they leave the gun’s barrel.   Ammunition manufacturers’ experiments show that on average, if six or more pellets hit a bird, it will likely be enough to kill or severely wound it.

Hunters prefer that the pellets are made of lead, a highly toxic substance whose weight increases the ballistic qualities of the pellets, giving them greater penetrating ability.   Now non-lead shot must be used, which, hunters claim, will increase wounding, but is not highly toxic. Even now, years after lead shot was banned for waterfowl hunting, ducks, geese and swans still die horribly from lead poisoning when they mistake the pellets for gravel, called “grit”, which they swallow to aid digestion.

But why not our alternative…the one that you, I, and the vast majority of Ontarians choose: just don’t hunt them at all?   That way we don’t have to worry about increased wounding vs the horrors of lead poisoning, and guess what?   We haven’t had a legal Mourning Dove hunt since 1955, when such a hunt was held for one year and stopped in response to public opposition.   We don’t need one now.    The amount of meat on a dove’s breast, the part that is eaten by hunters, equals about half a wiener.   It’s not worth the shot gun shells needed to kill the birds.

Yes, yes, I understand what the pro-hunt people are saying…that there are enough doves around that those kinds of people who like to kill things can do so without wiping them out. That applies to American Robins and Blue Jays, Sharp-shinned Hawks and Savannah Sparrows.   Is that the only concern?   If there is enough to kill, we should kill?   Surely we can do better.

And of course we should not forget that they said the same thing of the only other species of dove native to Ontario, at the time the most common of all our birds, the Passenger Pigeon.   Even so, they don’t make that argument any more about it, since it has been extinct for 99 years. The last one known and documented, named Martha, dies in Cincinnati Zoo in 1914.   But the Passenger Pigeon lived in a time when we didn’t know better, and when cruel practices against people and animals abounded.    Do we not progress?

We do, and that could be why the gentle doves, symbols of peace in part because they are so utterly harmless, are now killed.   Too few hunters.   In Ontario sport hunters are in decline.   As Scott Petrie, Executive Director of Long Point Waterfowl and a staunch proponent of killing doves, has been quoted as saying, it will be good for young hunters. “Because we have so many,” he said, referring to doves, “it’s a good opportunity for them to get out and shoot and practice their skills.”

And that brings me back to the reading I mentioned at the beginning…why are we cruel?   Part of it is through the mechanism of teaching.   Show me a boy who hunts and the statistical odds are that his father and grandfather hunted as well.    Hunters are dwindling…they like to kill and they want more to do so. Usually they mount some arguments to justify the killing…the species is “too common”, or it is dangerous or that there is some conservation need, or at least for food.   But no…this little creature, the Mourning Dove, is to be killed for practice…practice in killing.   Don’t these people ever read the papers?   Are we not good enough at killing?

And it is that tiny minority who feels that way who have convinced the Harper government, in charge of Mourning Doves, that we need to teach kids to kill, to be better killers.   This tiny minority hopes we don’t notice or care…and why should we in a world full of horrors…the terrible things we do to each other are so ghastly and horrific; those are what should occupy us. Ah, but stopping the dove hunt, is something we have done before. I was just a little kid at the time…now it’s my turn, and yours, to do what we can do to reverse this stupid, ugly and cruel decision.

If you agree, write to:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Phone: 1-800-62206232
TTY: 1-800-465-7735
Fax: 613 941-6900

E-Mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

And to:

Premier Kathleen Wynne
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Phone: 416 325 1941
TTY: 1-800-387-5559
Fax: 416 325 9895

E-Mail: premier@ontario.ca

Call for Canvassers for the Toronto Street Cats "Regent Park Project"

2013-03-05T10:42:00.002-05:00

Animal Alliance is part of the Toronto Feral Cat TNR Coalition, along with nine other groups, including Toronto Street Cats.

We've been working like stink over the past year to help the cats in Regent Park. We're making progress but we need some help.

Please see below, from Vanessa of Toronto Street Cats.

***

Thank you to all of you who helped out with the last Toronto Street Cats clinic - your hard work has contributed to another positive outcome.

We are preparing for the upcoming clinic on March 13th and we are seeking people to canvass in the Regent Park community. In order to increase the number of participating cats, we really need your help. This week is supposed to be milder in terms of weather so it will be a great chance to head out and talk to people.

Canvassing is done within the boundaries of the Regent Park community. Teams of two go out to assigned area residences and speak to community members about the project and guide interested caregivers through the registration process. Canvassing is typically done during the day, the week leading up to the clinic day and the times are flexible. Canvassing materials are available at the Toronto Street Cats space housed in the Toronto Humane Society where Bill will meet with you for a brief review on the process and answer any that questions you may have.

Talking to people about the project is a very rewarding experience and because the clinic services are free, people are generally very open to having a conversation. Canvassing is an essential part of the project and we would so appreciate as much help as we can get to ensure we reach our goal of helping 600 cats overall.

If you are interested in volunteering for canvassing, please email me your availability and we will be in touch shortly with more information about when and where to go. Canvassing is an vital component to the success of the clinics and any time you can dedicate to this task is deeply appreciated.

Also, please note: there will be a Toronto Street Cats volunteer orientation happening this coming Sunday, March 10 at 12pm at the Toronto Humane Society. This is a great opportunity to come together to learn more about the project, meet other volunteers and get answers to your questions. Please RSVP if you would like to attend - bring a friend, everyone is welcome.

Thank you again for your dedication and support - we couldn't do it without you.

Warmest regards,

Vanessa Rich

Please help Vernon residents secure a ban on the sale of live animals in pet stores

2013-01-24T09:50:00.001-05:00

Many dogs sold in Canadian pet stores are brought into Canada through dog brokers in the United States. Dogs bred and acquired through these brokers often suffer terrible neglect. The same conditions can be found in many Canadian puppy mills.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Three municipalities in Canada have banned, or severely restricted, the sale of puppies in pet stores: first was Richmond, BC; then Toronto (which also banned cat sales), followed by Mississauga, ON.

So the City of Vernon, BC, would be in good company should Council decide to restrict pet stores to adoptions through rescue groups and shelters.

Gina, a resident of Vernon made a presentation to Council last week, asking Council to consider a similar ban.

Vernon City Council is meeting again on January 28, 2013 to examine the impact such a decision would have on the City’s existing bylaws.

Your voice would be much appreciated. Please phone or send a polite letter or email to Council (an example is below), urging them to take this important step forward – a complete ban on the sale of all live animals. Let them know that you believe animals should be adopted only through rescue groups and shelters, not purchased in a store like a widget.

If you’d like to see Gina’s submission to Council, check out page 39 – 48 via this link: http://www.vernon.ca/images/uploads/council/agendas/packages/130114_1.pdf

Thank you for speaking out for the animals!

Lia and the AAC crew

***

Contact Info for the City of Vernon

City Hall: 8:30 am – 4:30pm, Monday to Friday
3400 30th Street
Vernon, BC
V1T 5E6

250-545-1361
Fax: 250-545-7876

Mayor Robert Sawatzky
250-550-3508
mayor@vernon.ca

Patrick Nicol:
Cell: 250-550-6823
pnicol@vernon.ca

Juliette Cunningham:
Cell: 250-309-2432
jcunningham@vernon.ca

Catherine Lord:
Cell: 250-309-1685
clord@vernon.ca

Bob Spiers :
250-549-2819
bspiers@vernon.ca

Brian Quiring:
Cell: 250-309-2861
bquiring@vernon.ca

Mary-Jo O’Keefe :
Cell: 250-540-0634
mokeefe@vernon.ca

***

Sample letter

Dear Mayor and Members of Council,

I write to express my support for the creation of a bylaw in the City of Vernon that will ban the retail sale of live animals on all commercial and public properties. I strongly urge you take steps to make this issue a priority and make this bylaw a reality.

Why?

- To remove an outlet of puppy mill (or kitten factory) sales and curb impulse pet purchases, both of which play significant roles in pet overpopulation; after all, hundreds of pets are euthanized each year in our city alone simply because they are “unwanted”.

- To combat the perception that companion animals are commodities, promoting the responsible procurement and ownership of pets.

- Vernon would not be the first: Richmond, BC’s ban took effect April 2011, and in September 2011 Toronto’s bylaw passed unanimously. In the United States, more than a dozen cities already have retail pet sale bans in place, including Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Austin, Texas. In April 2012, the city of Los Angeles passed a ban on the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits. Laguna Beach, CA followed on May 2, 2012 with a ban on the retail sale of dogs and cats.

Benefits

Retail pet sale bans have been shown to contribute to an increase in pet adoptions and a decrease in the euthanization of unwanted pets – two improvements that will directly financially benefit our city’s Animal & Bylaw Services, as well as help ease the burden of the several local rescue agencies that routinely find themselves at capacity.

Retail Pet Sales

The commercial sale of pets is not permitted by breeding organizations such as the Canadian Kennel Club, which explicitly prohibits their members from providing puppies to stores, auctions, or other retail outlets. Therefore, the question remains: if not from members of established breeding clubs, where do retail stores get their animals?

Consumers

The point of the bylaw is not to limit one’s ability to obtain a pet, nor to handicap retailers (several pet retailers have been very successful not selling pets), but rather to improve the way residents think and act with respect to pet ownership and care. Greater visibility of adoptable pets, together with education, benefits both Vernon pets and their owners. Even with a ban there will still be no shortage of available dogs and cats.

I thank you very much for your consideration of this issue and I look forward to seeing it discussed formally by City Council in the near future.

Best regards,

Name: _____________________________________

Street Address: ______________________________

The Animal Alliance Office...

Our New Website

We've launched our new website and new blog!

Translocation: a good first step away from deer-killing

The case of the Chatham-Kent Dogfighting Survivor Dogs

Undercover footage shows the cruelty of Cranbrook's secret deer cull

Home for the Holidays?

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s new report levels stinging criticism of the spring bear hunt pilot

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Helping Outdoor Dogs. Getting Them Off the Chain!

by Vicki Van LindenDirector, Animal Alliance of Canada

Lost Pets Used in Research

POUND SEIZURE

by Vicki Van LindenDirector, Animal Alliance of Canada

Cecil and the Killer

by Barry Kent MacKay,Senior Program Associate, Born Free USA's Canadian RepresentativeAnimal Alliance of Canada, Director

A Hero who chose compassion over killing now needs heroes to save his job

Open Letter to Premier Notley

Why are Canadian animal protection laws still so weak?

What are our next steps?

The spring bear hunt should die - not more bears

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - June 3, 2015

Public outrage over the death of the young bear in Newmarket, shot by police in full public view! The bear did not need to die.

Oak Bay Deer Cull: First Impressions

Farmageddon: New Book on Factory Farming

The True Cost of Cheap Meat

They Want to Kill Bears Because They Just Don't Understand

What Can You Do?

World Trade Organization Again Rules Against Commercial Seal Hunt

by Barry Kent MacKay,Senior Program AssociateBorn Free USA's Canadian Representative

World Trade Organization Again Rules Against Commercial Seal Hunt

Canadian ignorance fuels Canadian ignorance

Book Review: The Double-Crested Cormorant

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Challenged by Animal Alliance of Canada

We will post what you say; will you post our comments?

WWF does, or I should say doesn’t, do it again

Saving the Deer of Invermere

Merlin Andrew: 1915 – 2013

To Kill a Dove

Call for Canvassers for the Toronto Street Cats "Regent Park Project"

Please help Vernon residents secure a ban on the sale of live animals in pet stores

Vernon City Council is meeting again on January 28, 2013 to examine the impact such a decision would have on the City’s existing bylaws.

by Vicki Van Linden
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada

by Vicki Van Linden
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada

by Barry Kent MacKay,
Senior Program Associate, Born Free USA's Canadian Representative
Animal Alliance of Canada, Director

by Barry Kent MacKay,
Senior Program Associate
Born Free USA's Canadian Representative