Cat-sized and hornless, this newly discovered deer genus roamed the Dakotas 32 million years ago

James Powel

USA TODAY

0:00

1:14

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.640.0_en.html#goog_1052425074

Researchers have found a new genus of deer in fossils found at Badlands National Park in South Dakota, the National Park Service announced Thursday.

The deer presented by the researchers is markedly different from the animal most know today, as reconstructions suggest that it would have been about the size of a house cat.

The Park Service said in a press release that the tiny, hornless deer lived in South Dakota about 32 million years ago, during the Oligocene Epoch. It belongs to an extinct family of deer that are considered relatives to the modern-day chevrotains, or mouse deer, typically found in the tropical forests of central and western Africa and southeast Asia.

Scientists from the park, the American Museum of Natural History and California State Polytechnic University published their findings in the Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science.

US airman Roger Fortson killed by deputies who may have hit wrong home, Ben Crump saysTrump trial replay: Stormy Daniels finishes combative cross-examination in hush money case‘Shine brighter, love harder’: Tributes pour in for the slain surfers killed in MexicoSevere weather hits Southeast with heavy rain, strong winds; tornado reported in GeorgiaMiss Teen USA UmaSofia Srivastava resigns days after Miss USA Noelia Voigt steps down

New deer found by park visitor, brings career full circle

A handout photo of an artistic representation of what Santuccimeryx might have looked like by Benji Paysnoe with a skull fossil in front of it. Researchers discovered the deer genus in Badlands National Park, according to the National Park Service.

Research into the deer was prompted by the discovery of a nearly in-tact skull by a visitor and reached the scientists through a report filed by Geoscientists-in-the-Parks intern Tiffany Leone in 2016.  

“It’s a really neat example with this paper to be able to highlight citizen science, because this is the only skull of this animal ever found,” Mattison Shreero, co-lead researcher from the National Park Service said in the press release. “And if somebody had walked away with it, or if they just hadn’t reported it and it had eroded away, we would have never known about it.” 

The deer genus, Santuccimeryx, was named to honor the work of Vincent L. Santucci, the Senior Paleontologist and Paleontology Program Coordinator in the Geologic Resources Division of the National Park Service.

“I am both personally and professionally grateful to be associated with this important new fossil discovery from Badlands National Park, where I began my career as a paleontologist,” Santucci said in the press release.

Kristi Noem’s disturbing failure of compassion — and of leadership

BY KITTY BLOCK & SARA AMUNDSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS – 05/09/24 4:00 PM ET

SHAREPOST https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4654227-kristi-noems-disturbing-failure-of-compassion-and-of-leadership/

Unmute

Loaded: 19.95%CaptionsFullscreenSharePause

https://instaread.co/player?article=kristi-noems-disturbing-failure-of-compassion-and-of-leadership&publication=thehill&article_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fopinion%2Fcampaign%2F4654227-kristi-noems-disturbing-failure-of-compassion-and-of-leadership&version=1715385600000

https://54b97a1a2e512f9451a84310e6b3fccb.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

In her book “No Going Back,” Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) discloses a shocking incident from two decades ago, when she killed her family’s 14-month-old puppy with a shotgun after the dog exhibited normal but rambunctious behavior on a hunting trip. This troubling revelation is more than just a personal moral failing on Noem’s part. Her decision to recount this story with pride represents a profound abdication of her responsibilities as a leader and elected official.

The public backlash to this troubling revelation has been encouraging. People across the political spectrum have expressed their horror and condemnation of Noem’s actions, underscoring a fundamental truth: Compassion for animals is not a partisan issue, but a core human value that unites us all.

But while it’s heartening to see such widespread empathy for a puppy, we must also recognize that our circle of compassion is often too narrow. Dogs, cats and a select few other species are frequently granted a level of moral consideration that we fail to extend to countless other sentient creatures. Pigs, cows, chickens and fish, for example, are routinely subjected to immense cruelty and suffering in our factory farming system, yet their plight rarely elicits the same public outcry.

If we are to truly live up to our values of compassion and respect for life, we must expand our sphere of concern to encompass all creatures capable of suffering. The fact that an animal is not cute, cuddly or familiar to us does not make its pain any less real or its life any less valuable.

Noem’s pride in her cruel actions towards her puppy is particularly offensive given the multitude of humane options available to her at the time. Professional training, behavior modification and responsible rehoming were all viable alternatives that any conscientious caretaker would have pursued. Her choice to resort to lethal violence instead was a disturbing reflection of a mindset that views animals as disposable and unworthy of moral consideration.

Tragically, this mindset is not limited to Noem. It is pervasive in our society, and it enables the systematic mistreatment of billions of animals each year. When leaders like Noem normalize and even boast about such cruelty, they contribute to a culture that devalues animal life and undermines our collective humanity.

As a society, we must do better. We must recognize that compassion is not a finite resource to be hoarded and selectively applied, but a boundless wellspring that grows the more we exercise it. By extending our empathy to all sentient beings, we not only alleviate an immense amount of suffering, but we also cultivate the best in ourselves.

Noem would do well to take note of the raft of worthy animal protection bills in Congress supported by a bipartisan majorities. Animal welfare is at the very heart of congressional debate over the Farm Bill. There are two measures concerning companion animals, animals in puppy mills and other animals in need, and they deserve to be included in the Farm Bill and passed into law.

The Better Collaboration, Accountability and Regulatory Enforcement (CARE) for Animals Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Penn.), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), would give the Department of Justice more tools to strengthen enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and provide meaningful deterrents to acts of cruelty.

The Puppy Protection Act — sponsored by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), Rep. Reschenthaler, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Cali.) — would address serious gaps in welfare standards for tens of thousands of dogs and puppies at large-scale breeding operations licensed by the USDA. 

More urgently, a few House Agriculture Committee Republicans are attempting to gut states’ rights and animal welfare by including language to invalidate more than a dozen state laws addressing intensive confinement cruelty to animals raised for food, along with hundreds of laws relating to states’ rights to protect puppies and regulate products within their borders. That’s wrong, not least because nearly 80 percent of American voters, including nearly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, support enactment of laws designed to protect farm animals.

It would be a shame if House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.) and his colleagues missed the moral opportunity revealed by Noem’s terrible misjudgment. Americans want their elected representatives to do right by animals and take action to spare them from callous and unnecessary cruelty. They’re making their preferences for humane treatment clear in the marketplace and in the court of public opinion — and Congress should follow their lead.

The public condemnation of Noem’s actions is a heartening sign that our society’s moral compass is pointing in the right direction. But we must not stop at dogs and cats. Expanding our circle of compassion to include all creatures capable of suffering will lead towards a more just and humane world.

The link between animal cruelty and human violence only underscores the urgency of this imperative. By fostering a culture of respect for all life, we not only improve the lives of animals, but we create a society that is safer and more peaceful for humans as well.

Gov. Noem had an opportunity to demonstrate empathy, responsibility and kindness in the face of difficult challenges. By instead boasting about callous violence, she betrayed the public trust and the principles of decency that bind us together. Let us learn from this shameful episode and recommit ourselves to building a better world — for the sake of animals and humans alike.

Kitty Block is the president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. Sara Amundson serves as the president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

Japan to start hunting fin whales after five years of commercial whaling

By Reuters

May 9, 20241:40 AM PDTUpdated 2 days ago

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-start-hunting-fin-whales-after-five-years-commercial-whaling-2024-05-09/

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi on Thursday said the species would be added to its commercial whaling list after the country’s Fisheries Agency this week sought public comment on a draft revision of its policies.

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.640.0_en.html#goog_118944554

0 seconds of 15 secondsVolume 0%

Japan to start hunting fin whales

TOKYO, May 9 (Reuters) – Japan will add large fin whales to its list of commercial whaling species, government spokesperson Yoshimasa Hayashi said on Thursday, five years after leaving an international body that regulates the commercial hunt of the marine mammals.

Japan resumed commercial whaling in its territorial waters and exclusive economic zones in 2019, on withdrawing from the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

This week, its Fisheries Agency sought public comment on a draft revision of its aquatic resource control policies that would allow commercial catching of fin whales.

Advertisement · Scroll to continueReport this ad

The Japanese government will continue to promote whaling and take the necessary diplomatic steps, Hayashi told a regular press conference.

“Whales are important food resources and should be sustainably utilised, based on scientific evidence,” said Hayashi, the chief cabinet secretary, referring to widening the allowable catch to include fin whales.

Press conference following Japan and the Gulf Cooperation Council Foreign Ministers' meeting in Riyadh

Item 1 of 2 Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi attends a press conference following Japan and the Gulf Cooperation Council Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, September 7, 2023. REUTERS/Ahmed Yosri/File Photo

[1/2]Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi attends a press conference following Japan and the Gulf Cooperation Council Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, September 7, 2023. REUTERS/Ahmed Yosri/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

“It’s also important to inherit traditional food cultures in Japan.

Advertisement · Scroll to continueReport this ad

Japan caught a total of 294 minke whales, Bryde’s whales and sei whales last year, said the Fisheries Agency, which currently limits commercial whaling to the three relatively minor species.

Whale consumption in Japan peaked in the early 1960s but did not become widespread as other meat became more easily available.

Japan drew criticism from environmental groups for launching what it called scientific research whaling in 1987, following an IWC regulation that banned commercial whale hunts.

Advertisement · Scroll to continueReport this ad

Australia and New Zealand were among the nations that expressed disappointment when Japan declared it was withdrawing from the IWC in 2018.

Kristi Noem’s animal cruelty is hurting the GOP financially

With Noem posing a threat to all walks of animal life, fundraising is taking a hit

By NANDIKA CHATTERJEE

PUBLISHED MAY 5, 2024 1:32PM (EDT)

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem speaks at the Calvin Coolidge Foundation conference at the Library of Congress on February 17, 2023 in Washington, DC.  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem speaks at the Calvin Coolidge Foundation conference at the Library of Congress on February 17, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Facebook

221TwitterReddit13KEmail

https://www.salon.com/2024/05/05/kristi-noems-animal-cruelty-is-hurting-the-financially/

save

AMay 4th Colorado GOP fundraiser, where Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., was supposed to speak, was canceled due to threats sparked by her admission of killing her 14-month-old dog, Cricket.

Nancy Pallozzi, Jefferson County Republican Party Chair, said in a statement posted on social media that the group had initially thought the timing for the fundraiser was “perfect,” since the South Dakota governor’s book, “No Going Back,” comes out soon. But attitudes have changed towards Noem, as examples of her cruelty towards animals continue to make headlines. 

“Numerous threats and/or death threats” have been made to the county organization, the Denver West Marriott where the fundraiser was being hosted, and to Noem herself, according to Pallozzi. 

“After a conversation with the Governor’s office late Wednesday, we mutually decided that safety was the most important concern for everyone involved,” Pallozzi wrote. 

Despite the threats to the Marriott, which received “alarming comments” worth “deep concern over the safety and security for those attending our event, other guests, and their staff,” Pallozi confirmed that the local GOP is “not taking a position on the public outcry on the governor’s book.”

Advertisement:

However, she did add that the fundraiser had an adverse effect. “We lost money in this,” Pallozzi told NBC News. “This was meant to be a fundraiser, but now we’ve lost thousands of dollars.”

Related

Kristi Noem doubled down on dog-killing to win over MAGA — now her story is backfiring in her face

The consequences of what Noem describes in her book — which also details her murdering a “mean” and “smelly” goat — have impacted her political aspirations, no doubt.

After reports of her shooting her wirehaired pointer, whom she “hated” because the puppy didn’t take to her initial hunting training, the anecdote seems to have severely hurt her chances of being Trump’s running mate, as even he is giving her stink-eye over it. 

Advertisement:

When Noem spoke at a Trump donor retreat at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday, she seemed less than apologetic about her actions, and far more concerned with how it would be yet another exercise to show her political contemporaries that she has what it takes to make it.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


“They’re just attacking me like crazy right now,” she said. “But listen, that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing because it makes you stronger, and it teaches you, really, what you’re up against. And it makes you recognize how much they lie. How much they will twist. How much they will manipulate. And you just have to be strong and be happy warriors.”

It seems as though Noem has even doubled down on her animal killing spree, and hints in her book that she’ll kill Biden’s dog, if an opportunity presents itself wherein she feels such an action would be necessary. 

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=Salon&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1787132559601574384&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2024%2F05%2F05%2Fkristi-noems-animal-cruelty-is-hurting-the-financially%2F&sessionId=1c62c5a3e8ea293cca7411c4638f05cf3352ff19&siteScreenName=Salon&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px

In an interview with CBS, the interviewer confirms this: “At the end of the book, you say the very first thing you would do if you got to the White House, that was different from Biden, is you would make sure Biden’s dog was nowhere on the grounds. ‘Commander say hello to Cricket.’ Are you trying to look tough?”

Advertisement:

https://339bfa47a2c139c147ecd68e59223497.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

When asked if she still thinks she has a shot at being vice president, Noem, who has suddenly decided she is the equivalent to animal control, said, “Well, number one, Joe Biden’s dog has attacked 24 Secret Service people.” Staying on-brand, she ended with compliments to herself and her state of South Dakota being “happy and doing well.”

Read more

about this topic

Coyote trapping, snaring enters grizzly management debate

Montana Stockgrowers Association seeks to intervene in lawsuit to keep coyote trapping and snaring legal.

by Amanda Eggert05.08.2024

A grizzly bear at Yellowstone National Park. Credit: National Park Service/flickr

The Montana Stockgrowers Association wants to intervene in a lawsuit that aims to reduce the unintentional trapping and snaring of federally protected grizzly bears. 

The Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians sued the state of Montana and the chair of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission in federal court last year to limit trapping and snaring of grizzlies during the months grizzlies are likely to be out of their dens. They argued that traps and snares set for animals have injured, and even killed, grizzly bears on more than 20 occasions since 1988. Grizzly bears are currently protected under the Endangered Species Act, though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency is weighing a petition to delist Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and Yellowstone grizzlies.

The groups filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to reduce the 2023-2024 wolf trapping and snaring seasons established by the governor-appointed Fish and Wildlife Commission. U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy granted the preliminary injunction in November, effectively halving the 2023-2024 wolf-trapping season in occupied grizzly habitat.

MSGA said it filed a motion to intervene this week after the plaintiffs amended their original lawsuit to include restrictions on the trapping and snaring of coyotes. 

MSGA, which coordinated its efforts with the Montana Wool Growers Association and the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, argues that restricting coyote trapping and snaring would curb ranchers’ ability to control a particularly lethal predator for cattle and sheep.

“MSGA believes this lawsuit will have implications for livestock producers in Montana and potentially states across the West where grizzly bears exist,” MSGA Executive Vice President Raylee Honeycutt said in a press release. “Coyote trapping and snaring are proven methods for controlling one of the most damaging livestock predators. MSGA believes protecting this management tool is crucial for Montana’s ranching industry to continue to protect their livestock.”

RELATED

Montana petitions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist NCDE grizzlies

Montana petitions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist NCDE grizzlies

Gov. Greg Gianforte’s office announced today that the state is petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove Endangered Species Act protections for grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, citing robust population counts and touting the state’s ability to independently manage Montana’s grizzly bears, which have been federally protected since 1975.

by Amanda Eggert12.06.2021

Feds to explore delisting of Greater Yellowstone and NCDE grizzlies

Feds to explore delisting of Greater Yellowstone and NCDE grizzlies

The agency’s announcement was welcomed by Republican officials, who’ve long sought to restore management of grizzly bears to state agencies. Environmentalists questioned whether USFWS is fulfilling the mandates of the Endangered Species Act and cast doubt on Montana’s ability to manage grizzlies sustainably.

by Amanda Eggert02.03.2023

Judge halves wolf trapping season to protect grizzlies

Judge halves wolf trapping season to protect grizzlies

In a 25-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy wrote that the Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force and WildEarth Guardians established “a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to grizzly bears should Montana’s wolf trapping and snaring seasons proceed as planned.”

by Amanda Eggert11.22.2023

In a declaration filed with the court, Honeycutt said that neck snares and foothold traps are the most prevalent tools used to limit depredation by coyotes, that snares are sized specifically to target coyotes, and that MSGA members use coyote depredation traps that are too small to catch or hold grizzly bears. Honeycutt also said that her organization has never received a report of one of its members capturing a grizzly bear in a snare set for a coyote.

In a request for summary judgment the plaintiffs filed on April 15, the conservation groups argued that traps and snares are by design “indiscriminate” in that they can kill the animals intended as well as those that are not intended. While coyote traps may be smaller, they are “often as powerful as wolf traps and can cause the same or similar injuries to grizzly bears as wolf traps,” the plaintiffs argued. The plaintiffs wrote that there have been six verified instances of grizzly bears caught in coyote traps since 2010, and such incidental captures likely result in bears losing their toes or feet.

Under current regulations, coyote trapping is allowed year-round in Montana.

Other groups that have requested, successfully, to intervene in the lawsuit include the Montana Trappers Association and the Outdoor Heritage Coalition, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) that lobbies on behalf of its members’ interests, such as protecting “consumptive use of our natural resources.”

An oral argument for the lawsuit is scheduled for June 25 in Missoula. 

Bobcats need protection, not killing for their pelts

Unlike the rest of modern wildlife management, killing bobcats is unregulated, driven not by science but by fur prices. We’re stuck in the 19th century when market hunters, for example, shot boatloads of waterfowl with 10-foot-long, 100-pound “punt guns.” 

Now, there’s a campaign in Colorado — via a November 2024 ballot initiative — to ban hunting and trapping of bobcats, Canadian lynx and mountain lions — though lynx are already listed by the state as endangered and supposedly protected.

As a lifelong hunter and angler, I’m told by a group called the Sportsmen’s Alliance that it’s my duty to defend bobcat trapping and hunting against such “antis” as those pushing the ballot initiative.  

But a true sportsmen’s alliance of ethical hunters — Teddy Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, William Hornaday, Congressman John Lacey and other Boone and Crockett Club members — got most market hunting banned in 1918. 

It persists today as commercial trapping and hunting of bobcats. Ethical hunters eat what they kill. Bobcat trappers and hunters discard the meat and sell the pelts, mostly for export to China and Russia.

Yet the Sportsmen’s Alliance warns me that, after bobcat trapping gets banned, “hunting … and even fishing are the next traditions in the antis’ crosshairs.” 

A bobcat caught in a trap is pictured. Courtesy of Animal Wellness Action

I don’t buy it. I’ve heard this mantra since the 1970s, including from my then-colleagues at the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife who, like me, were fed and clothed by fishing, trapping and hunting license dollars. 

This from veteran bobcat researcher Dr. Mark Elbroch of the native cat conservation group Panthera: “Colorado treats bobcats pretty much like they’re treated throughout the West” (except for California where killing is banned without a special permit).

“There are hardly any regulations in any state. There are no bag limits, and no data on how many are out there. The hunting community gets super excited about what it calls the ‘North American Model of Conservation,’ and one of the tenets is you don’t kill for profit or trade,” Elbroch continued. “Trapping violates that model in every way. Bobcat trapping is the extreme — selling fur for luxury items. It’s sickening.”

From December through February, Colorado bobcat hunters and trappers may kill as many bobcats as they please. And hunters are permitted to pursue bobcats with hounds, an inhumane practice for both cats and hounds. 

Bobcat traps are also unselective, catching other species such as Canadian lynx, raptors, otters, foxes, martens, badgers, opossums and skunks. “Lynx, a close relative to bobcats, are naturally attracted to bait set for bobcats and are harmed, injured or killed when caught in traps,” said Colorado veterinarian Christine Capaldo.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife attempts to rebut such reports with: “No lynx in Colorado has ever been reported as accidentally trapped by bobcat fur harvesters.” Of course not. What bobcat trapper would jeopardize permissive regulations by filing such a report?

So, in addition to an estimated 2,000 bobcats, how many non-target animals are killed by the roughly 4,000 bobcat traps set annually in Colorado? No one has a clue. 

Colorado requires “humane,” live traps. But they’re scarcely more humane than legholds and even less humane than quick-kill conibear traps. 

During winter, bobcats keep warm by finding shelter. In live traps they’re immobilized and exposed to cold, rain, snow and wind. Traps must be checked every 24 hours, but there’s virtually no enforcement, so live-trapped bobcats sometimes suffer for days. When traps do get checked bobcats get bludgeoned or strangled.

Before European contact, bobcats prospered throughout what are now the contiguous states. Caucasian immigrants quickly set about rectifying this with an all-out war on the species, behavior that flabbergasted the Indigenous — and for which their only explanation was that the “pale faces” were insane. By the early 20th century, bounties and government control had extirpated bobcats from much of the U.S.

Now bobcats are slowly recovering in every contiguous state, save Delaware. That’s an excellent reason not to kill them.

Bobcats belong to all Americans, the vast majority of whom prefer them alive. But they’re managed for the very few people who kill them for profit. And from a strictly financial perspective, live bobcats are more valuable than dead ones. 

A study published in 2017 in the Biodiversity and Conservation journal based on money spent by wildlife photographers, set the value of a single live bobcat at $308,000. Today the average bobcat pelt fetches $100.