Published date: Sunday, February 4th 2024 – 6:57 pm Modified date: Sunday, February 4th 2024 – 7:32 pm
Martin MacMahon
A quiet plan to trap and study coyotes in Stanley Park and Pacific Spirit Park has a wildlife protection charity calling for a rethink.
The research led by the University of British Columbia comes after dozens of attacks by coyotes in recent years – and involves trapping and studying the animals.
However, a wildlife protection charity questions the approach.
“Even if these traps don’t injure the animal, it’s the behaviour of the animal once trapped that can cause the most horrific injuries,” said Lesley Fox, the executive director of the Fur-Bearers. “That includes broken teeth, bones, lacerations.”
The research is set to be carried out over 31 locations, and trapping will take place while the park is closed either late at night or early in the morning.
But Fox worries dogs and wild animals could be put at risk.
“There’s non-invasive techniques such as camera traps, the use of (Artificial Intelligence), scat analysis,” Fox suggested by way of alternative approaches.
But the study’s principal investigator, UBC ecologist Sarah Benson-Amram, detailed in a statement:
“This research will gather data that will inform future management strategies to support coexistence with urban wildlife both locally and in other municipalities across Canada.
“I want to reassure those who may be concerned, the risk to people, pets and coyotes in the park is extremely low. Trapping has not yet begun. When it does, the work will take place in remote areas, when the park is closed to the public, using the safest and most humane methods available. Signs will be posted indicating research areas and my team will be able to respond to triggered traps within minutes. Dogs must be on leash in Stanley Park except in designated areas where traps will not be placed.
“I also want to assure that all required permits are in place. Following extensive vetting and review, the project was conditionally approved by the UBC Animal Care Committee pending receipt of all necessary licenses and permits. A provincial permit has been issued for the project and the Park Board has approved it to take place within Stanley Park. All required licenses and permits have been provided.
“Human ethics approval is only required when a project involves human participants. All levels of project approval take the welfare of all humans and animals potentially impacted very seriously. The project is designed to safeguard the well-being of coyotes and park users.
“All due diligence has been conducted in the planning of this project. The project utilizes non-invasive observational methods whenever possible. The research team has worked with both UBC and provincial wildlife veterinarians to ensure that we are using the safest and most humane methods available. We are also working closely with professional trappers to ensure that trap placements and protocols are as effective and safe as possible.”
But none of that is comfort to Fox and her organization.
“We still have a long way to go, and using leg hold traps, using collaring, again these methods are extremely dated,” Fox said. “There are replacements for these types of devices, and as a university, UBC needs to be championing modern, non-invasive ways of studying wildlife.”
The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship told CTV News minister Nathan Cullen was unavailable for an interview Sunday – and that it was unable to provide a statement.
A coyote walks across fresh snow in Boulder, Colorado. Some hunting clubs sponsor contests, often targeted at coyotes, with prizes awarded to hunters who bring in the biggest carcasses. In some states, wildlife officials and lawmakers are working to ban or restrict such events, saying they give hunting a bad name. (Brennan Linsley/The Associated Press)
Last month, 50 hunters gathered in New York’s Mohawk Valley to take aim at the local coyotes. A hunting club offered prizes for the largest male and female carcasses, paying out $400 to the winning contestants.
The event was among the last sanctioned animal hunting contests in the state, following lawmakers’ passage of a ban on such events that will take effect later this year.
“There’s growing awareness of these contests and the damage they’re causing ecologically,” said Renee Seacor, carnivore conservation director with Project Coyote, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting carnivore species. “Public attitudes on wildlife management are shifting.”
New York became the 10th state to ban or limit wildlife hunting contests with the December enactment of the new law. Oregon’s wildlife agency also imposed a ban last year on such events on state lands. So far, the bans have largely been passed in Democratic-led states. In some states, including Nevada, wildlife commissions — which are often stacked with hunting proponents — have rejected petitions to ban the practice.
So far this year, Illinois and New Jersey are following New York’s lead by seeking to ban contests through legislation rather than state agency rules. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that such contests kill more than 60,000 animals every year.
In addition to coyotes, hunting contests have targeted bobcats, foxes, crows, squirrels and many other animals that lack the strict regulations applied to traditional game animals such as deer and elk.
Advocates of the bans say the contests are pointless killing sprees fueled by bloodlust and cash, based on outdated perceptions that some species — primarily coyotes — are “nuisance” animals.
But some hunters fear the bans are part of a broader effort to crack down on hunting opportunities. Steven Rinella, a hunting advocate renowned for his “MeatEater” TV show and podcast, noted that contests must fall within existing rules set by wildlife managers.
“Any of the individuals who are participating in these contests could at any time be out doing the exact same practice,” he said in an interview. “To target the competitive derby component in this is basically just saying, ‘I disapprove of hunting, and this is a thing I can go after and win.’”
Brian Gray, president of the Mohawk Valley Coon and Cat Club, said contests such as the one his hunting club held last weekend help sustain the organization’s membership.
He intends to continue holding contests once the ban takes effect, organizing by word of mouth to avoid state enforcement “unless someone tattles.” If challenged, Gray said, he intends to relabel the event a “photography contest,” with prizes for the best photos of dead coyotes instead of for the carcasses themselves.
“Some of our guys have $6,000 scopes on their rifles, and they’re never going to get to use them for anything else,” he said. “This club has been in my family since the ’40s, and I don’t want to lose it.”
Coyotes under fire
For much of America’s history, predator animals such as coyotes and wolves were viewed as troublesome varmints and subjected to state-sponsored extermination campaigns. While this practice cleared vast landscapes of wolves, grizzly bears and other animals, coyotes only became more abundant.
Coyotes respond to hunting pressure by dispersing and birthing larger litters, as author and historian Dan Flores describes in his book “Coyote America.” While coyotes once lived only in the arid West, the efforts to eradicate them have driven them to every corner of the North American continent. They’ve filled the ecological niches left vacant in places where wolves and cougars were killed off, and they’ve learned how to thrive in cities, with abundant prey of rats and mice.
“The American public has long regarded this animal as something like a cockroach with fur,” Flores said in an interview. “But our attempts to wipe them out triggered an evolutionary response from them to scatter and spread.”
Wildlife experts say efforts to protect livestock and pets by shooting coyotes only causes more breeding from surviving animals — which results in coyotes that are less schooled about avoiding conflict with humans.
“There’s the suggestion that these animals are really bad for us, but you can’t shoot your way out of that,” said Barbara Baker, chair of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, which outlawed hunting contests in 2020.
Hunting advocates counter that the species’ resilience proves coyotes can be hunted sustainably.
Gray, president of the hunting club in New York, blamed coyotes for killing livestock and pets in Mohawk Valley, but said there has been no decline in those attacks following hunting contests that killed scores of coyotes. He asserted residents should be allowed to fight back.
In many states, even those that have banned contests, hunters can shoot as many coyotes as they please with few restrictions on seasons or weaponry.
A growing movement
California became the first state to ban hunting contests in 2014, following a vote from state regulators.
“Most ethical hunters object to these contests,” said Mike Sutton, who was serving as president of the California Fish and Game Commission at the time. “They’re inconsistent with our current understanding of predator ecology, and they give hunters a bad name.”
Tony Wasley serves as president of the Wildlife Management Institute, a conservation group with roots in the hunting community, and holds leadership roles in several hunting-related organizations. He supported an effort to ban hunting contests when he served as director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife in 2021.
In testimony before the Nevada Wildlife Commission, he noted that the agency’s role is to recruit more hunters, who supply much of the agency’s budget through license fees. That task, he said, is made difficult when images of mass slaughter circulated on social media tarnish their public image.
“I fear what indiscriminate killing says about hunters or the ethics of hunting more broadly,” he said in an interview. “To verminize every coyote and say that [killing it] is some benefit to another species would be difficult to substantiate.”
Despite Wasley’s support, the proposal to ban hunting contests was rejected by the agency’s commission, which by law is made up predominantly of hunters and anglers.
I fear what indiscriminate killing says about hunters or the ethics of hunting more broadly.
– Tony Wasley, Wildlife Management Institute
Tommy Caviglia, who was the commission’s vice chair at the time, argued that few members of the public are even aware of the contests, the Nevada Current reported, saying the proposal was driven by the “anti-hunting side of the world.”
While some individual hunters have spoken in favor of the contest bans, organized sporting groups have largely remained silent or opposed them as a “slippery slope” to further hunting limitations.
“Hunting is already highly regulated, and people don’t understand the amount of nuance that there is,” said Torin Miller, senior director of policy with the National Deer Association, a nonprofit that advocates for wildlife habitat and hunting. “All of these contests have to occur within the bounds of seasons and bag limits that agencies have put in place.”
Miller said that contest bans should be decided by wildlife agencies, not legislators.
State bans
In December, New York became the fourth state to enact a ban through legislation, following Maryland, New Mexico and Vermont. The bill passed 88-53 in the New York Assembly, and 46-15 in the Senate.
“This does not serve a wildlife management purpose,” said Assemblymember Deborah Glick, the Democrat who sponsored the bill. “There were hunters who felt it gave them a black mark and distorted what people thought of hunters.”
Some lawmakers who opposed the bill said the ban illustrates a growing urban vs. rural divide.
“It fails to understand and simply ignores the impact on the heritage and traditions of many rural upstate communities, farmers, and local environments and economies,” said Republican state Sen. Tom O’Mara, according to The Press & Sun-Bulletin.
The New York bill followed an agency decision in Oregon to ban contests on state lands.
Under Oregon law, wildlife managers’ authority in the state does not extend to “predatory animals” on private lands, said Michelle Dennehy, communications coordinator with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, but the agency responded to public concern about the contests on public lands.
While many of the bans enacted so far have been issued by state wildlife agencies, advocates are increasingly turning to lawmakers to act — especially in states where wildlife commissions are dominated by hunters.
“We have an outdated state agency that’s comprised only of hunters, so we have to go the legislative route,” said Brian Hackett, director of government and community relations at the Associated Humane Societies in New Jersey, a nonprofit that rescues wild and domestic animals.
New Jersey lawmakers advanced a contest ban measure through a Senate committee last year, but the session ended before it could progress further. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a similar measure earlier this month.
In Illinois, lawmakers also are considering a bill to ban hunting contests. Democratic state Rep. Anna Moeller, the bill’s sponsor, said that wildlife officials deferred the matter to the General Assembly in response to pressure from some hunting groups. While the bill has yet to see any movement, Moeller said backers are working to educate lawmakers who are still unaware that such contests even exist.
“We support hunting that’s done in a sustainable and responsible way,” Moeller said. “When you’re wiping out large numbers of animals at a time, you’re creating an imbalance, and oftentimes we find there’s harmful consequences from being so reckless.”
After receiving multiple complaints from constituents, New York City Council Member Bob Holden visited live animal markets in Queens and Brooklyn. In these storefront slaughterhouses, also called viveros, customers select the animals who they want to eat, and workers kill them on premises. Among the approximately 12 species sold in NYC’s 70 live markets are chickens, ducks, guinea fowl, turkeys, quails, rabbits, goats, sheep and cows. The large mammals are held in pens, and the rabbits and birds are stored in cages.
After touring the markets in Queens and Brooklyn, Council Member Holden, said he was “appalled” by what he found inside: “The conditions are horrendous and barbaric. The animals are packed in. We saw birds with open sores, and we saw sick and dead birds in the cages. I don’t know how anyone can buy these birds. We’re going to do some investigation to find out how this is allowed, and we’re going to try to put a stop to it. It’s unconscionable.”
During an unannounced visit to a live animal market in Brooklyn, NYC Council Member Bob Holden encounters chickens with wounds and dead chickens mixed in with the living.
The city’s live animal markets were thrust into the national spotlight in early 2020 when the media reported that COVID was likely transmitted from animals to humans in a similar market in Wuhan, China. Despite this revelation, then Governor Andrew Cuomo deemed the state’s live markets “essential businesses.” Astonished by this designation, public health and animal welfare advocates staged protests in front of several of NYC’s markets to raise awareness of the public health risks.
During the first few months of the pandemic, media outlets reported on the ongoing efforts of advocacy groups to shut down the City’s 70 live animal markets
At the start of the pandemic lockdown, Dr. James Desmond, a veterinarian and infectious disease researcher based in Liberia, told TheirTurn, “Wet markets that sell live animals house different species in close proximity to each other and to humans. If different strains of influenza in any of these species combine to create a new flu strain, then a more lethal outbreak could occur, similar to the H2N2 pandemic of 1957.”
In response to constituent complaints, NYC Council Member Bob Holden visits a live animal market in his Queens district.
In 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was serving as the Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called for the closure of live animal markets in Asia, perhaps unaware of their presence in the United States. “I think they should shut down those things right away. It boggles my mind how, when we have so many diseases that emanate out of that unusual human/animal interface, that we don’t just shut it down.”
In 2022 and 2023, avian flu was detected in several live animal markets in New York City. Hundreds of birds were culled in an effort to contain the spread.
News coverage of avian flu outbreaks in live animal markets in NYC in 2022 and 2023
New York City’s live animal markets are regulated by the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets. Based on the findings in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the agency rarely cites the markets for violations of the city and state’s health and sanitation codes. It also rarely shuts down or suspends operations of the markets do have violations. Neighbors say that the lack of enforcement enables the owners to keep animals in squalid conditions and leave feces, urine and blood on the public sidewalks in front of the stores.
Two advocacy groups in NYC, Slaughter Free NYC and NYCLASS, have been campaigning to shut down the city’s live animal markets for several years. The Executive Director of NYCLASS, Edita Birnkrant, points to several reasons why they don’t belong. “In addition to violating health, sanitation and cruelty codes, many of the markets are likely violating zoning laws. Research conducted by The NYC Bar Association Animal Law Committee concluded that ‘many of the live animal markets are operating either without a certificate of occupancy or in potential violation of the uses permitted in the subject zoning district.’”
Map of live animal markets, or storefront slaughterhouses, in NYC created by the advocacy group Slaughter Free NYC
In recent years, several cows have escaped live animal markets and fled through congested city streets. In two cases, New Jersey-based Skylands Animal Sanctuary rescued the cows and gave them a forever home.
New York Times coverage of Freddie’s escape from a New York City storefront slaughterhouse
In posts on social media, many people credited their switch to a plant-based diet on the mainstream media coverage of the dramatic escapes and rescues. “I didn’t want to know about cows [being slaughtered] because I was addicted to cow ice cream,” said New York City resident Martha Mooney Waltien.” Then one day, Freddie ran from the slaughterhouse, and I saw his face. He was so scared, and he wanted to live. And I thought, ‘No more cheeseburgers.’”
NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–NotCo, the leading food-tech company that leverages AI to create plant based food, is setting out to revolutionize the way consumers perceive the food industry with its groundbreaking campaign, “Not So Happy Animals.” The initiative aims to debunk the idyllic portrayal of happy animals in the logos of food products by shedding light on the stark contrast between these visuals and the actual conditions faced by animals in the food supply chain.
NotCo is challenging the conventional narrative by advocating for a shift towards plant-based alternatives that are not only delicious but also ethically and sustainably produced. The campaign encourages consumers to consider plant-based foods as a viable and compassionate alternative to traditional animal-based products.
Starting today, anyone in the US can go to nothappy.com and scan animal logos commonly found in public spaces. When they scan the website, the logo will be brought to life using AR and reveal a message about the animal in the form of a song. People will also be directed to discover and purchase one of the NotCo plant based products created by chefs with the help of proprietary AI.
Matias Muchnick, CEO and Co-founder of NotCo, expressed his enthusiasm for the campaign, stating, “If we really want to change the conversation, we need to be bold. We are using this simple yet powerful insight: ‘why do logos of happy animals actually sell dead animals?’ and start a proactive dialogue around the source of our food. The ‘Not So Happy Animals’ campaign goes beneath the surface to reveal, in an ironic way, the behind-the-scenes reality of the food supply chain, urging consumers to make informed choices that align with their values.”
As part of the “Not So Happy Animals” campaign, NotCo invites consumers to explore the range of plant-based products made that replicate the taste and texture of traditional animal-based foods. By making the switch to plant-based alternatives, consumers can contribute to a healthier planet while enjoying culinary experiences that are equally satisfying.
Join NotCo in transforming the narrative of the food industry. Follow @Notcous on social media and take a part in the conversation.
Exposing the Big Game 