Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

Category Archives: Bears

Why Hunting of Yellowstone Grizzly Bears Could Resume

Posted on by
9

 

The successful recovery of the grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park under the Endangered Species Act has caused some grizzly advocates[???] to call for delisting the species, and to allow hunting to resume.

Grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park area saw unprecedented growth this year after being granted protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1975, causing many hunting enthusiasts to call for the population’s delisting.

A study published in the journal Molecular Ecology last week found “independent demographic evidence for Yellowstone grizzly bear population growth since the 1980s.” The scientists studied 729 bears and found that genetic diversity in the population was stable and the effective population, also known as “the number of bears passing genes to the next generation,” had quadrupled.

Some say the grizzly population has grown too much, reaching the resource capacity for the Yellowstone National Park area in Wyoming and Montana.

(900 Reviews)

The Discovery Channel is now on the Windows Store! Watch thousands of clips…

Get the app

“Grizzly bears are moving into areas outside the recovery zone,” Frank von Manen, a wildlife biologist and leader of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, told The Associated Press. “They are getting into more and more of those areas where the potential for conflicts are greater.”

Wildlife managers in the Yellowstone region have euthanized 24 grizzlies so far this year. Low availability of natural food sources, such as whitebark pine cone production, has caused Yellowstone grizzlies to hunt local livestock and other human food sources.

“They’re bumping up against the social human tolerance of where they can be,” Kerry Gunther, Yellowstone National Park’s bear management program leader, told The Associated Press.

In light of the corresponding population and euthanasia increases, the Obama administration is expected to announce its support for Yellowstone grizzlies’ removal from the ESA, after the Yellowstone Ecosystem and Interagency Grizzly Bear Study team first recommended species removal in 2013.

But Harmony Kristin Szarek, a graduate student at Ohio State University, interviewed a majority of prominent grizzly bear scientists and found that 60 percent of experts “believe delisting would be an incorrect decision, or at the very least a violation of the precautionary principle.”

Some delisting advocates, such as Daniel Thompson, a large carnivore specialist for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, says grizzly bear delisting does not have to be an open endorsement for unregulated hunting.

“The discussion has switched more to hunting in the future and that clouds the issue of the notable recovery of an animal,” Thompson told The Missoulian. “That was the goal of (the ESA). This should be a very positive story, but there’s a lot of arguing in the background. And it ignores the sacrifices of the people on the ground who live in grizzly bear country.”

Some environmental protection organizations agree with Thompson. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) says species are intended to recover under the ESA, “so long as adequate plans exist to assure recovery continues.” The NWF suggests a comprehensive conservation package for the Yellowstone grizzlies, including a six million acre Primary Conservation Area where the needs of grizzlies come first and extensive monitoring, which could give the species improved protection and free up funding and resources for other endangered animals.

But opponents of grizzly hunting say there is no reason to rush delisting, because local bears are worth more to the state alive than dead. In the 20 million acres of the greater Yellowstone area, nature-related tourism is a $1 billion industry. And without the potential of seeing a roadside bear, a 2014 study reported that Yellowstone National Park would lose about $10 million annually.

This article was written by Story Hinckley Staff from Christian Science Monitor and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-hunting-of-yellowstone-grizzly-bears-could-resume/ar-BBmKuYT?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=mailsignout

Florida plans second bear hunt

Posted on by
9
[WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT] Hunter kills bear caught on video

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-bear-hunt-folo-20151026-story.html

[WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT] Hunter kills bear caught on video

David Fleshler Reporter Sun Sentinel

The most controversial hunt in Florida in a generation ended Sunday, but the disputes over the state’s decision to reopen bear hunting are far from over.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission says it plans to repeat the hunt next year, a plan certain to spark intense debate.

The commission is pursuing criminal cases against several hunters suspected of baiting, which involves setting out food to attract the bears, as well as two cases of bears killed under the 100-pound minimum. Hunters are discussing lawsuits against hunt opponents who threatened and harassed them over the Internet. A planned rescue of orphaned cubs has been called off.

The wildlife commission ended the hunt after only two days, as the tally of dead bears hit 298, near the statewide quota of 320. In the eastern Panhandle, hunters killed 112 bears, nearly triple the quota of 40.

“That is a disaster by anyone’s count,” said Frank Jackalone, senior organizing manager for the Sierra Club of Florida. “We don’t know how many more bears were wounded and are dying in the forest, how many undersized bears were killed and just left there. We don’t know how many bear cubs were made orphans as a result of this hunt. We think that the FWC rolled the dice. The hunters found them and killed them very quickly, and the FWC was caught with their pants down. They were surprised.”

But officials with the wildlife service say the high kill count in the Panhandle and the commission’s swift action to end the hunt showed that the region has a abundant bear population and that the hunt was well controlled.

“That’s one of the large, growing bear populations,” said Thomas Eason, director of the agency’s Habitat and Species Conservation Division at a news conference Monday in Tallahassee. “We had a limited, conservative approach … We definitely were surprised by the amount of harvest on the first day.”

In South Florida, where the hunt took place primarily in Hendry and Collier counties, hunters killed 22 bears, far short of the area’s quota of 80. Eason said this may have been because the amount of public land open to hunting was much smaller in South Florida, where much of the bear population lives on federal land that’s closed to hunting, such as Big Cypress National Preserve and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge.

Diane Eggeman, director of Hunting and Game Management Division, said the commission expected to authorize another bear hunt.

“It’s our intent to have a hunt annually,” she said. “Everything is on the table at this point. We’re going to assess how the hunt went.”

Her initial assessment: “We got a good start on advancing our objective of stabilizing the large, healthy and growing bear population.”

The bear population has been estimated at more than 3,000 by the wildlife service, although the first population assessment in 13 years has only been partially completed.

She said investigators were pursuing “several” baiting cases, “a couple” of cases involving underweight bears and cases of hunters shooting bears outside the legal dates of the hunt. These violations would be second-degree misdemeanors, carrying up to $500 in fines and up to 60 days in jail.

Newton Cook, executive director of the duck hunting group United Waterfowlers of Florida, hunted bears without luck in the Ocala National Forest. But he called the hunt statewide a success, a well-run enterprise that helped control the bear population.

“As far as the hunters were concerned, it was a tremendous success and they were glad for the opportunity,” he said. “This has proven there are plenty of bears and the FWC has the resources to control the hunt. The FWC had a plan and a program that worked, and when the number they set as a target was about to be reached, they shut it down.”

For hunters, the worst thing wasn’t a failure to find a bear, it was the harassment from opponents. Under Florida’s open record law, the wildlife commission released the names and email addresses of the more than 3,000 bear permit holders (with some names withheld under exceptions to the law).

“I got emails saying ‘You killer,’ and ‘I hope you die’ and ‘murderer,'” Cook said.

One list of permit holders posted on the web called the hunters “3,000 serial killers.”

On Facebook, hunters have been collecting the worst comments and most serious threats. They are discussing whether to file suit against the people sending them out or organizing the email campaign.

Some hunt opponents had planned to head into the woods to rescue cubs orphaned by the hunt. But late Monday afternoon, they called it off.

“It is with a heavy heart that we write these next few words,” wrote Chuck O’Neal, a Seminole County environmentalist who was one of the organizers of the campaign against the hunt, in a message to other activists. “After consultation with the only private black bear cub rehabilitation facility in Florida, and weighing all the possible outcomes, we are calling off our search for orphan cubs.”

He said they called it off because the cubs were likely old enough to survive on their own, because they didn’t want the cubs to lose their fear of people and to avoid putting any would-be rescuers in danger.

He said they were better off putting their energy into pressing communities to require bear-proof garbage cans and fighting a return of the hunt next year.

“We can learn to co-exist with the bears,” he wrote. “We can end this cruel and unscientific hunt if we have leaders in place that make decisions based on science and not political expediency.”

Florida Black Bear Hunt Represents Failure of Wildlife Management

Posted on by
5
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2015/10/26/florida-black-bear-hunt-represents-failure-of-wildlife-management/
By On October 26, 2015 · 43 Comments · In Wildlife News

Florida just held its first bear hunt in several decades, targeting 300 of the bruins for death. Just three years ago, the black bear was listed as threatened, and the state’s bears had not been hunted since 1994.

The proximate reason for the hunt is that bears, according to representatives of the Florida Wildlife Commission, is that a growing bear population is contributing to greater conflicts between humans and bears. Hunters and the Wildlife Commission like to portray the issue as “problem bears”, but the reality is that there are no problem bears, only problem humans.

Most of these conflicts are due to human negligence. People leaving food attractants like unsecured garbage cans which train bears to forage near humans.

Ironically, indiscriminate hunting is not likely to reduce conflicts. For one thing, most hunters do not hunt immediately next to subdivisions where most conflicts are occurring. Rather they are most likely to the larger parcels of public or private lands. So the animals that hunters are killing, are not likely to be the ones that are wandering the edges of communities.

The second problem with indiscriminate hunting is that it’s difficult for a hunter to determine the sex of a bear. Many females with cubs are killed, leaving the young bears orphaned. Orphaned bears are inexperienced at foraging and desperate to eat, are more likely to be attracted to human foods.

So in effect, hunting only exacerbates the problem that the Florida Wildlife Commission seeks to solve.

The worse part of the hunt is that it ignores the social ecology of predators. Fish and Game agency always talk about maintaining populations. The problem with this kind of management is that it ignores the demographics of wildlife. Hunting tends to skew populations towards younger animals. So even if you maintain the same “population” if the population consists of many young inexperienced animals, you automatically create conflicts. Young animals are less likely to know the location of natural food resources, and are less successful as hunters. As a consequence, they are the very animals most likely to seek out garbage, livestock, and other human food resources.

Whether it is hunting of black bears in Florida, or the recent announcement by Oregon’s Fish and Wildlife to increase cougar hunting, wildlife agencies across the country tend to ignore predator social ecology. In effect, by having indiscriminate hunting and trapping of predators, these state wildlife agencies create a self-reinforcing loop. Predators are killed, resulting in a younger population, which in turn is more likely to create human conflicts, that are then used as an additional justification for more killing.

I see no evidence anywhere that state wildlife agencies are using the latest ecological science in their attitude and management of predators. It suggests that wildlife agencies cannot be trusted to manage predators. Keep in mind, that predators numbers will not grow indefinitely. They are self-managing, primarily by the availability of prey and food, as well as social interaction. Except perhaps for very specific surgical removal of individual animals, there is no good justification for killing predators. Even the argument that “I’m feeding my family” used by some hunters seldom applies to most predators which are not usually consumed.

Predators serve an important ecological function. Bears, for instance, move seeds of some plants around—think of the huckleberry that may be deposited in their droppings. Cougar can thin elk and deer herds to reduce their herbivory on favor plants like aspen and willow. Wolves can remove the injured and sick from a population.

Hunting of predators makes no sense in today’s world.

DSC_0104

Florida’s Upcoming Bear Hunt: A Tragic Failure to Apply Solid Science, Public Opinion, and Compassionate Conservation

Posted on by
3

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-bekoff/floridas-upcoming-bear-hu_b_8300882.html

by ,

As evidence mounts around the globe that the emerging principles of compassionate conservation can succeed in resolving conflicts between human and nonhuman animals (animals) while respecting the needs of all stakeholders (see, for example, here and here), painful examples remain of cases in which human management of shared habitats completely fails to heed the lesson that killing is neither effective nor acceptable. In Canada’s western provinces, a ruthless war is being fought against wild canids, devaluing individual lives and disrupting families and social groups. In Florida, on October 24th, a similar war is about to commence, although its hapless victim, the Florida black bear, has never killed a human, is not accused (unlike wolves) of harming other wild animals or livestock, and is a vital umbrella species of great ecological concern.

2015-10-14-1444856710-5781873-images.jpeg

Florida’s decision to reinstate bear hunting after a 21-year hiatus ignores well-established science on human-bear conflicts and constitutes an appalling magnification of the ethical defects afflicting the killing of grizzly mother Blaze by officials at Yellowstone National Park and, more recently, the killing of Boulder Bear 317 by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 320 black bears – 10% of the estimated statewide population – have been targeted by Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for killing by recreational hunters (you can see the hunt plan here), a lethal response that is massively disproportionate to the concerns that have been articulated by human stakeholders about property damage and a handful of relatively minor attacks on humans. The hunt’s quota is in addition to the increasingly routine practice of killing bears who have been deemed a nuisance and to high road kill rates (282 in 2012 alone). A combined mortality rate of 20% of the entire bear population has become Florida’s ghastly new definition of sustainability, while the human population of the state increases by more than the entire bear population every single week, a fact that human policy-makers regard as a source of pride, not a cause for grave concern.

Just as there was no science to support the assertion by National Park Service staff that a grizzly bear who killed, or was suspected of killing, a human, is more likely to kill another human, there is no science to support the proposition that a large-scale slaughter of black bears will have any effect on the occurrence of human-bear conflicts. On the contrary, the available science clearly demonstrates that the only dependable way to reduce human-bear conflicts is intelligent trash management and related behavioral changes by humans. Aware of its plan’s unscientific foundation, the FWC admits that the hunt is not expected to reduce human-bear conflicts. Instead, it asserts a need to “manage” or “stabilize” the black bear population. Yet when pressed in a recent court hearing (you can see the video here) to explain why, exactly, the bear population needs to be “managed,” Dr. Thomas Eason, Director of the FWC’s Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, ultimately returned to nuisance calls, property damage, and a few cases of minor injuries to humans as problems that would be mitigated if bear population pressures were reduced. Available scientific data do not support this claim.

It’s also important to note a majority of Florida’s human citizens appear ready to embrace the concept of compassionate conservation and let the bears be. About 75% of 40,000 public comments received by the FWC opposed the bear hunt. Were we to regard societies of nonhumans as Nations, we would be forced to characterize the State’s disposition as regrettably genocidal. As recently as three years ago, the black bear was still listed as threatened. In 2012, the FWC adopted new criteria for determining threatened status, delisting 15 other species along with the black bear (which is a genetically unique subspecies). And now, before a statewide bear-population survey has even been completed, the State’s human power structure is refusing, in the most lethal possible way, to accept responsibility for the undeniable impact of relentless human encroachment into the habitats of nonhumans. The third-most populous state in the country, its metropolitan areas dominating the list of the nation’s fastest-growing areas, Florida provides a tragic case of unrepentant, deadly anthropocentrism, literally bulldozing over the right of nonhumans to exist in an environment that allows them to be who they really are.

While the killing of Florida’s black bears will be carried out by recreational hunters, the State’s policy provides ample opportunities for FWC employees to emulate the noble example set by Bryce Casavant, a Canadian conservation officer who was suspended after refusing to kill two bear cubs. Florida’s bear hunting policy, although initiated by political appointees on the Commission, was drafted by FWC staff, defended by them in court hearings, and requires their participation (in the administration of permits, at check stations, in field enforcement efforts, during data monitoring, etc.) for its implementation. Staff at any point in this chain could, individually or collectively, refuse to facilitate a wholly unwarranted and grossly unethical and bloody killing spree. Especially for the bear biologists who spent five years developing the Florida Black Bear Management Plan released at the time of delisting, a plan that explicitly eschewed hunting and called for the enhancement of bear habitats, the decision to sit back and passively witness the slaughter of this magnificent animal ought to weigh heavily on their consciences for the rest of their lives. This is a great opportunity for these scientists simply to ask people not to hunt the bears.

Instead, Dr. Eason, for one, seems to be perfectly comfortable with Floridians repeating their familiar role as super-predators, killing adult bears in their prime reproductive years, imposing far-reaching collateral damage on family units and the bear population as a whole. Although Florida’s bear hunt forbids the “harvesting” — read, killing — of mother bears with cubs, this will inevitably happen, since mothers commonly “tree” their cubs up to 200 yards away, out of sight from hunters. Black bear cubs stay with their mother for up to two years, learning essential survival skills and enjoying her protection from male bears and other animals who may harm them. As orphans, their prospects for survival are grim. And, since we know that animals experience a wide range of emotions, including joy, love, empathy, and grief, it is beyond dispute that these cubs will suffer immense emotional, as well as physical, distress. Equally repugnant is the fact that the FWC knows that some female bears will be pregnant at this time of year (just prior to denning), and there is no way for hunters to discern the gender of their target until they’re killed. Far from apologizing for these horrific effects, Dr. Eason has matter-of-factly stated that this is all part of the plan.

Compassionate conservation asks us to do no harm to individual animals, their family units, and their social groups. It expects us to finally acknowledge the extent to which we have deprived nonhumans of their right to live free from human dominance or interference, and to accept these magnificent and fascinating beings as a wondrous part of the planet we all call home. For many humans, the gateway to compassionate conservation is the recognition, amply documented by the latest science, that animals are sentient beings with rich emotional lives, aware of themselves, their surroundings, and one another. Compassionate conservation does not elevate animals to a position of primacy over humans. Rather, it seeks to level the playing field, granting animals stakeholder status equal to that of humans who have controlled — dominated — their very lives for far too long.

Florida’s mass slaughter of its black bears violates every dimension of the compassionate conservation paradigm and ignores solid science and public opinion. It’s yet another example of wildlife managers claiming they use the latest science and public opinion and then ignore what is known. For future generations of conservationists and other people who choose to live in Florida because of its fascinating and magnificent animals, Florida’s ill-planned bear hunt will serve as an exemplary case study of why it should not have been done in the first place.

This essay was written with Adam Sugalski and Richard Foster.

Deal approved to protect grizzly bear habitat in Montana

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/10/us-usa-grizzlies-montana-idUSKCN0S403E20151010

U.S. judge on Friday approved a deal between conservationists and Montana officials to restrict road-building and logging in roughly 22,000 acres (8,900 hectares) of state forest lands that make up core habitat for federally protected grizzlies.

The agreement resolves a lawsuit brought by conservationists after the state had sought to open 37,000 acres (14,974 hectares), mostly in the Stillwater State Forest, to timber harvesting despite what environmentalists said would be the destruction of prime grizzly bear territory.

The deal restricting road-building and logging in the Stillwater and Coal Creek state forests west of Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana is designed to benefit the so-called Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem population of grizzlies, which is one of just five groups of grizzlies in the lower 48 states.

Montana will ban motorized access during certain times outside of winter when grizzlies are using that landscape, prohibit permanent road construction, reclaim any temporary roads and shorten the duration of logging projects, according to court documents.

U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy in a decision last year found the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by issuing a permit to Montana for the project opening up the expanse to the timber industry.

Montana appealed the judge’s ruling and conservation groups later appealed separate parts of the decision, leading to a stalemate that set the stage for both sides to hammer out a settlement.

Molloy approved the agreement on Friday, said attorney Tim Preso of the firm Earthjustice, which represented the conservation groups.

Grizzly bears were classified in 1975 as threatened in the Lower 48 states after they neared extinction from hunting, trapping and poisoning.

Federal protections make it broadly illegally to injure or kill the large, hump-shouldered bruins or destroy their designated habitat without a special permit.

The settlement comes after a federal-state panel managing grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park, mostly in Wyoming, said a separate population of about 700 bears has recovered and recommended they be stripped of federal protections.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to make a decision on delisting soon.

Preso said the deal struck between conservationists and Montana will protect lands for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem population of grizzlies even if U.S. wildlife managers remove that population from the endangered species list.

Montana officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman in Salmon, Idaho, Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis, Victoria Cavaliere)

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Is the Mexican grizzly bear extinct?

Posted on by
1

by Karen Kirkpatrick

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Many people may think grizzly bears are vicious, but they’ve gotten a bad rap.

The answer to this question depends on a definition that has changed over time. At one time, scientists thought that brown bears and grizzly bears were separate species, but today, they are considered the same species, Ursus arctos. There isn’t a consensus on how best to classify them or how many subspecies there are, however. An estimated 200,000 brown bears live primarily in North America and Russia

. The Mexican grizzly is a subspecies of brown bear, so cursory research would seem to indicate that the Mexican grizzly is not extinct.

However, if you do a little more digging, you’ll find that the International Union for Conservation of Nature produced a book in 1982 stating that Mexican grizzlies were extinct. The IUCN is the organization that tracks the conservation status of plants and animals and ranks animals as threatened, endangered or apparently safe. The group also classifies Mexican grizzlies as a subspecies of brown bear.

The story goes like this: Once upon a time, in the not-so-distant past, a subspecies of brown bears called Mexican grizzly bears lived in the southwestern United States and parts of Mexico. By all accounts, they were smaller than their counterparts in Canada and the northern United States. In the early 1960s, a Mexican rancher began a campaign to eradicate the bears because he blamed them for slaughtering his cattle (in reality, the bears eat mainly plants and insects and rarely go after small mammals). Due to the cattleman’s efforts, the Mexican grizzly was probably extinct by 1964.

So is the Mexican grizzly really extinct? It is presumed to be so, although the brown bear species continues to thrive in parts of North America, Europe and Asia. Ecologists consider the Mexican grizzly extirpated, which means it is locally extinct.

More: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/extinct-animals/is-mexican-grizzly-bear-extinct.htm

Bear-hunting foes take case to appeals court

Posted on by
2

http://www.news4jax.com/news/bearhunting-foes-take-case-to-appeals-court/35745794

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. –

After a circuit judge last week refused to block Florida’s upcoming bear-hunting season, a Seminole County group has taken the case to a state appeals court, according to online dockets.

The group Speak Up Wekiva filed a notice of appeal Thursday at the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee.

The move came a week after Leon County Circuit Judge George Reynolds denied a request for a temporary injunction to block the bear hunt, which is scheduled to start Oct. 24.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission this summer approved the state’s first bear-hunting season in more than two decades, angering animal-rights groups.

With a goal of reducing the bear population by 320, the hunt will last two to seven days in four regions of the state.

Speak Up Wekiva has argued, at least in part, that the bear hunt is not based on sound science and that the approval goes against the constitutional duties of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

Lions, Tigers and Bears Attract State Scrutiny

Posted on by
1

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/09/25/lions-tigers-and-bears-attract-state-scrutiny?utm_campaign=2015-09-25%20Stateline%20Daily%20%20&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Snake© The Associated Press

Mack Ralbovsky, left, of the Rainforest Reptile Shows, gets assistance from state game wardens Timothy Carey, center, and Wesley Butler as they remove a python from a Vermont home. Many states ban the private ownership of exotic animals or require that owners get licenses or permits.

This summer, Milwaukee residents were captivated by reports of what appeared to be a lion-like creature roaming city neighborhoods. Authorities set up a dragnet and traps, but the big cat was never located.

Wisconsin state Sen. Van Wanggaard, a Republican, wasn’t surprised to hear of a wandering wild feline. He already was so concerned about the threat posed by dangerous exotic pets that he’d been crafting a bill to limit private ownership of them.

Wanggaard wants his state to join dozens of others that have passed laws banning or regulating big cats, bears, apes and other exotic pets, which animal welfare advocates say can threaten public safety when they escape and are at risk of being poorly cared for by private owners.

Although it’s difficult to determine exactly how many exotic creatures are privately owned, the Humane Society of the United States says they are part of a multibillion-dollar industry. Born Free USA, a wildlife conservation and animal welfare group opposed to private ownership, estimates that between 10,000 and 20,000 big cats alone are in private hands in the U.S. And because the federal government largely leaves it to the states to regulate exotic animals, legislatures have been grappling with the issue.

Since 2013, legislation that deals with exotic pet ownership has been proposed in more than a dozen states, including Wisconsin, according to Born Free. Of the 22 measures filed, 18 have failed and two have passed, including one that created an exemption allowing the owner of a Louisiana truck stop to keep his tiger, Tony, as a roadside attraction. Two remaining measures are pending, including Wanggaard’s in Wisconsin and another in Pennsylvania.

Opponents say many owners are ill-equipped to house and care for exotic pets, putting them in cages and enclosures that don’t meet the creatures’ basic needs.

“Wildlife belongs in the wild. It’s risky for everyone involved,” said Kate Dylewsky of Born Free. “It’s cruel to the animals to keep them in confinement, often isolated from members of their own species. And most people don’t have knowledge or the resources to care for these animals properly.”

Many exotic pet owners, breeders, private zoos and sanctuaries disagree. They say that state bans can hurt efforts to protect animals. And, some argue, the states shouldn’t meddle with an individual’s decision about what kinds of pets to keep.

Good regulations could help protect these animals, said Lynn Culver, executive director of the Feline Conservation Federation, which represents owners, breeders, private zoos and sanctuaries that keep wild cats. “But these [ban] laws are designed to stop future generations and clamp down on current populations.”

Culver said exotic animals need to be kept in captivity so they can breed. “They are the offspring of animals that were taken out of the wild. We’re morally obligated to manage them responsibly for future generations.”

States React

Federal laws restrict the sale and transportation of some exotic and wild animals, but don’t generally address private ownership. That falls to the states, which take a variety of approaches.

Some state laws specify which species are banned or regulated. The Wisconsin proposal lists several types of exotic animals that would be considered dangerous—including non-native big cats and bears, gorillas, chimpanzees, alligators and crocodiles. Others are more general, said David Favre, a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and director of the Animal Legal & Historical Center, a website devoted to animals and the law.

“It usually takes some horrible event in a state, where people say, ‘How did you let this happen?’ for the legislature to act,” Favre said.

That’s what occurred in Zanesville, Ohio, after a suicidal man released more than 50 big cats, bears, primates and wolves in 2011. Police and animal control officers tried to use tranquilizers, but couldn’t control the situation and were forced to kill most of the animals.

At the time, Ohio had no law dealing with dangerous exotic pets. After the Zanesville incident, the Legislature in 2012 banned their possession or acquisition. Those who already owned such pets were allowed to keep them, but they had to apply for permits and comply with safety and care standards.

In Connecticut, the Legislature amended its law in 2009 to ban the private ownership of some primates after an incident that year in which a woman was blinded, lost both hands and had much of her face ripped off by her friend’s 200-pound pet chimp.

Wisconsin is one of five states without a law regulating the private ownership of dangerous exotic animals, according to Born Free. Fourteen states require licenses or permits. Twelve allow ownership of some exotic animals but prohibit others. And 19 have bans on a number of species.

Last year, West Virginia, which had not had a law, passed a measure that prohibited private possession of lions, tigers, bears, elephants and most primates. Owners were grandfathered in, provided they are registered. The rules went into effect earlier this year.

“When you don’t have any checks and balances in place, it was wide open for people bringing these exotic animals into our little state,” said former Democratic Del. Randy Swartzmiller, who introduced the bill. “The majority of the Legislature saw this as a bill that was not only going to protect people but also the well-being of these animals.”

But bills restricting or regulating exotic animal ownership often die in state legislatures. This year, six measures failed—in Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wyoming—according to Born Free.

“In some of these states, it’s very hard to have a conversation about it,” said Born Free’s Dylewsky.

To pass laws, legislators and the public often must be educated about the potential threats to public safety and the animals’ well-being, said Nicole Paquette, vice president of wildlife for the Humane Society. Also, debates about which animals should be covered by new laws are usually heated.

Zuzana Kukol, co-founder of REXANO, or Responsible Exotic Animal Ownership, a nonprofit that advocates for exotic pet owners’ rights, opposes bans, saying they don’t really work. “Do bans on drugs or prostitution work? If people want it, they’re going to get it.”

Kukol, who with her fiance lives in rural Nevada and owns lions, tigers, bobcats, cougars and other exotic animals, dismisses the public safety argument. “The regular population isn’t getting killed by tigers and lions on the way to the store,” she said. “They’re much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver.”

Kukol said that many counties and cities already have regulations governing exotic animal ownership. In her area, she said, the county does an inspection every year and requires her to get an annual permit.

“I don’t think states should micromanage,” Kukol said. “They should take care of the roads, not worry about exotics. They are not telling me how many dogs or horses I can have.”

Strain on Resources

Wanggaard, who introduced the Wisconsin measure last month, points to a case in Kenosha two years ago. Police were called to a house where they found five rattlesnakes, a crocodile, two alligators and a poisonous Gila monster, and, dead in the backyard, an alligator and a snake. While these types of incidents have cropped up over the years, Wanggaard said, the recent Milwaukee lion scare might be the impetus needed to pass legislation.

Under his proposal, private possession of many dangerous exotic animals would be prohibited. Those who already own them would be able to keep them—but not to acquire any others—if their municipality allows it and they are registered. The proposal would exempt accredited zoos, wildlife sanctuaries and circuses.

A police officer for 30 years, Wanggaard said that he recalls times when police would respond to domestic violence calls and, arriving at a home, find a bear or an 8-foot alligator. “Not only is it dangerous for the officer, but these animals often aren’t being maintained in a humane way.”

Wanggaard said that exotic pets also put a strain on emergency services, noting that in Milwaukee this summer, 30 or 40 officers were busy trying to corral the lion.

Wanggaard, who is vice chairman of the Senate majority caucus, said that if his bill becomes law, authorities will have a better handle on where exotic animals are located and whether they’re legally allowed.

“We have hours of discussion in our towns and villages about somebody raising five chickens in their backyard,” he said. “We’re regulating that, but we won’t regulate it if you have a lion or a baboon in your basement.”

Program offers bear hunt to sick kids

Posted on by
10

They’re going to die, but why not kill a bear before it’s over? A “sick” kid in more ways than one…

http://wiat.com/2015/09/17/program-offers-bear-hunt-to-sick-kids/

(WBAY) — A program in Oconto County is assisting children with life-threatening illnesses by giving them a chance to hunt bears and spend more time outdoors.

“It’s very special, they get to bond,” said Bruce Watruba, Secretary of Oconto River Kids, “most people never expect to be able to bear hunt with their child.”

Bruce “Bearman” Watruba is part of Oconto River Kids, a program that brings kids with life-threatening illnesses into the woods, and gives them a chance to bear hunt.

“Most of these kids haven’t hunted before,” said Watruba, “and when they come up hunting, when they do tip a bear over, they are so excited.”

Kids like 16-year-old Lexie Joly, who has brain cancer.

“At first it [cancer] was scary,” said Lexie, “but now I just, go through every day and I fight. I’m all good.”

While she’s never been hunting until now, she’s glad she decided to head into the blind with her mom, and a guide.

“I came here first to bait, then we can here again to practice shooting the gun I’d be using,” said Lexie. “Now I’m here again for the bear hunt.”

Oconto River Kids is run completely on donations, and the generosity of local businesses.

“We’ve got area taxidermists that help us out,” said Watruba, “they give us discounts on the mounts, and we have a pretty good reputation in the area, with all the area businesses.”

This program wouldn’t be able to keep running if it weren’t for the 80-some volunteers and all the donations. Every bear tag used by one of the kids, has been donated by a hunter.

“In Zone B, it takes 10 years to get a tag,” said Watruba, “and yet, we’ve got these people that are giving us their tags to use to hunt.”

“They’re selfless, they don’t ask for anything,” said Robyn Joly, Lexie’s mom, “they just do it because they want to, and that’s the biggest thing.”

Lexie didn’t see a bear on her first day, but hopes to get one when she heads out with a guide later this week. She says, she’s grateful for the opportunity.

“It’s really cool that people just donate the bear tag, and all this, sponsors,” said Lexie, “I really thank them for this opportunity, I’ll probably never get this again.”

If you’d like to be part of Oconto River Kids, you can request information by sending a letter to:

Oconto River Kids
P.O. Box 288
Mountain, WI 54149

You can also visit their website at www.ocontoriverkids.org

Wildlife Photography© Jim Robertson

Wildlife Photography© Jim Robertson