Get The Facts:

Canada is very much like the U.S., but is also very different. Wild animals don’t care about political boundaries, and many problems they face are assuredly bi-national in nature. The issues faced by domestic animals are universal.

Canada is considerably larger than the U.S., in sheer land mass, but has about one tenth the human population, some 31,000,000, creating some interesting challenges in animal protection. The entire population of Canada is about the same as can be found in the state of California.

Most Canadian citizens live and work in what is called the Windsor-to-Montreal corridor, with the City of Toronto, near the middle, being the country’s largest city, with just under 3,000,000 residents (but many more in the rapidly expanding “Greater Toronto Area” (GTA) surrounding the city). Approximately one third of all Canadians live in Ontario. The other major population center is Vancouver and the surrounding region, on the west coast. There is a scattering of cities across the land, all medium to small by international standards.

The country has a multi-party system, although dominated by two federal parties, with strong influence from a third, left-wing party, plus the Bloc, which only represents ridings in the province of Quebec. Canadians elect members to the 308 “seats” in the House of Parliament. Each seat represents a specific riding, none of which are identical in size or population.

Canadians don’t elect their Prime Minister; he or she (once!) is chosen by the party who wins the most seats. If a party (historically either the Conservative Party, formerly known as the Progressive Conservative Party, or the Liberal party) is able to have members of its own party elected to more than half the seats — 154 — it can form what is called a “majority” government, and can pass legislation that the other parties may not support. If no one party gains a majority, it is called a “minority” government, although the party with the most seats gets to choose, from among its elected members, the country’s Prime Minister. A party with a minority government risks defeat if outvoted on certain kinds of legislative proposals, thus triggering an election. It can also be defeated if the other parties gang up and pass a motion of non-confidence.

This is an important distinction that helps to explain why parties are reluctant to challenge practices that have strong regional support. It helps to explain why, although it does not have much support, the notorious Canadian seal hunt (not to mention excessive over-fishing, and the development of the ecologically disastrous “tar sands” oil-extraction, or grizzly bear hunting out west, or clear-cutting of major forests) can be opposed by so many Canadians, and yet still supported, tacitly or overtly, by the major federal parties (the Green Party being something of an exception, but to date it has yet to have a representative elected as a Member of Parliament).

It is made more complicated by an “Upper House,” or “Senate,” which is made up of non-elected officials who can and have defeated legislation passed by the “Lower House,” thus effectively thwarting what is essentially the will of the people. There is also an appointed “Governor General” who represents the Queen and who has the power to either call an election or ask the minority governments to try to form a government in the event of the passage of a vote of non-confidence, or defeat of certain (monetary or budget) proposals. If it sounds confusing, it is, even to many Canadians. At the time of writing, the current Minority government has passed legislation limiting terms to four years, but ignored his own law on the basis that, it claimed, it was not meant to apply to minority governments. Otherwise elections are called when the party in power deems it most auspicious.

Provincial governments are run along similar lines. As is true in the U.S., municipal governments tend to be the most responsive to citizen concerns.

Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute (Born Free USA), along with three other animal protection organizations and a former Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (Ringling) employee, is suing Ringling for violating the Endangered Species Act by cruelly mistreating Asian elephants. The trial is set to commence on February 3, 2009.

The Asian elephant is currently listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), meaning that any acts that would “harm, wound, injure, harass, or kill” an Asian elephant in the wild or in captivity are prohibited. The lawsuit alleges that a number of routine practices by Ringling are in violation of the Endangered Species Act, including the forceful use of a bullhook and the chaining of elephants for most of the day and night. We have amassed a wealth of evidence to support these claims.

Bullhook Use

A bullhook, or ankus, is made of wood, metal, or other substantial material. It is approximately 2 to 3 feet long, and at one end is a sharp steel hook and poker. It is used to poke, prod, strike, and hit animals to “train” them — all for a few moments of human amusement.

We have video footage of Ringling employees repeatedly hitting elephants with bullhooks, as well as video footage of the daily hitting and “hooking” of the elephants to make them stay in line, move in a particular direction, or perform on cue.

In addition, we have Ringling’s own internal written documents that discuss the mistreatment of the elephants. For example, Ringling’s animal behaviorist reported “an elephant dripping blood all over the arena floor during the show from being hooked.” In an internal email, a Ringling veterinary assistant reported that “[a]fter this morning’s baths, at least 4 of the elephants came in with multiple abrasions and lacerations from the hooks.” After the release of this information to the public, Ringling moved to prohibit the release of any additional information to the public provided via discovery.

Chaining

Chaining is one of the most common methods used to confine elephants in captivity. It severely restricts an elephant’s movements, eliminating its ability to lie down, walk, or socialize with other elephants. The severity of these restrictions can result in neurotic psychological behavior, physical injury, and even the death of captive elephants.

Newly obtained evidence based on the circus’s own documents reveals that Ringling keeps elephants virtually immobilized in chains for the majority of their lives. Internal records show that the elephants are chained while confined in boxcars for an average of more than 26 hours at a time, and sometimes for as much as 60–100 hours, as the circus moves across the country.

In addition, former Ringling employees will be testifying about the mistreatment they witnessed while working for the circus, all of which corroborates the claims alleged in this case.

* The lawsuit is before the Honorable Emmet J. Sullivan in federal district court in the District of Columbia and is being handled by Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, one of the country’s preeminent environmental law firms.

You Can Help

Please donate to the Elephant Defense Fund and help ensure that we win our lawsuit. With your support, we will do everything we can to end the mistreatment of elephants in circuses and traveling shows. We must not fail.

1. There is effectively no federal regulation of farmed animal transportation in the United States.

2. The U.S. has on the books a law, known as the 28-Hour Law, requiring that livestock transported across state lines be humanely unloaded into pens for food, water, and at least 5 hours of rest every 28 hours. However this law is rarely, if ever, enforced. Even if the 28-Hour Law were enforced, it would still not be adequate to assure the well-being of transported animals.
3. Time spent in transit is stressful both physically and mentally for farmed animals. Problems that commonly occur during transport include overcrowding, lack of bedding, lack of opportunities for rest, and exposure to extreme heat or cold.
4. Poor and abusive handling of animals during loading and unloading and at auctions also increases animal stress, injury, and suffering during the transport process.
5. According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, approximately 0.26 percent of transported pigs die each year as a result of transport — this translates to 260,000 pigs annually.
6. It has been estimated that 0.08 percent of pigs (or approximately 82,000 pigs) per year transported to market in the U.S. arrive as “fatigued” — out of breath and unable to get off the truck on their own.
7. The number of pigs being transported over state lines increased from 30 million in 1970 to 50 million in 2001.
8. In the U.S., it has been estimated that 1 percent of feed lot cattle (or approximately 120,000 cattle) die as a consequence of transport stress.
9. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the average mortality rate is 12.6 deaths for every 1,000 cattle entering feedlots.
10. The U.S. exports thousands of pigs, sheep, and horses each year to Mexico for slaughter.

1. In pet shops, animals must be viewed as commodities in order for the store to realize a profit. This means that, in order to cut costs, animals are too often kept in inadequate conditions and denied needed veterinary care.

2. The cost of providing veterinary care for an animal kept in a pet shop can easily exceed the animal's commercial value — meaning that animals may be left to suffer or even die from untreated illnesses or injuries.
3. In addition to providing often inadequate care to animals, pet shops that sell animals contribute to the already overwhelming problem of overpopulation in shelters and rescue groups.
4. According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, sales of live animals in the pet industry totaled $1.6 billion in 2004.
5. In a 2003 survey, only 38% of U.S. pet shops reported that they did not sell any live animals (birds, small animals, reptiles and amphibians, kittens, puppies, or salt or freshwater fish).
6. Most animals sold in pet shops are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act. Some states have laws that address the care and treatment of animals kept in a retail environment, but these laws vary widely in quality and scope.
7. Too often conditions that seem cruel and inappropriate do not actually violate any laws of the state in which the store is located.
8. In API’s 2005 undercover investigation in California, nearly half of the pet shops visited displayed animals who showed signs of illness, injury, or neglect. Nearly half of the stores also sold animals showing clear symptoms of psychological distress.
9. More than half of the stores in our investigation failed to provide environmental enrichment to one or more animals in their care.
10. Only one state (California) requires that pet shops provide customers with information on the proper care and treatment of the animal being purchased. But in our investigation, more than half of the pet shops in California failed to make such information available.

1. The Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary is located on 186 acres near San Antonio, Texas, and provides a safe, permanent home to more than 500 macaques, vervets, and baboons.

2. Many of the Sanctuary residents were rescued from abusive situations in roadside zoos, research facilities, or private possession.
3. The Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary is unique in that the majority of residents experience, living in free-ranging groups in natural enclosures of several acres.
4. The focus of animal care at the Sanctuary is to provide conditions in which the captive populations of macaques, baboons, and vervets are allowed to live out the remainder of their lives with extensive freedom of movement, choice of food, and choice of companions, in accordance with their social nature.
5. Rehabilitation is a key part of the work we do at the Sanctuary. Many of the residents, such as those who had been kept as exotic “pets,” were deprived of the ability to meet their psychological and social needs. Some continue to be psychologically damaged from their interactions with humans. As part of the rehabilitative process, we provide an enriched and stimulating environment, encourages pair and group living, and enables residents to spend their remaining years among others of their kind.
6. Caring people can support our work by “adopting” one of several rescued primates living at the Sanctuary. Adoptive sponsors help us provide food, care, and rehabilitation to their adopted individual. Sponsors also receive many unique benefits!
7. In order to allow the residents the maximum amount of privacy and minimal human interference, the Sanctuary is not open to the public.
8. The Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary is accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS).
9. The original inhabitants of the Sanctuary were a troop of snow monkeys (macaques) who arrived in Texas from Japan in 1972. They were originally part of a troop that had resided in the Arashiyama forest and had been observed by behaviorists since 1954. Around 1970, a group split away from the main troop and moved into the Kyoto suburbs in search of food. Because some residents viewed these animals as “pests,” the decision was made to relocate them. A concerned American citizen agreed to pay to transport the group to Texas, where a sanctuary was then started.
10. In December 1999, API took over the management of what was then called the Texas Snow Monkey Sanctuary, which became the API Primate Sanctuary and is now known as the Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary. In addition to the group of macaques who were descendents of the Japanese arrivals, the Sanctuary also provides refuge for many rescued macaques, vervets, and baboons who had lived most of their lives in cages.

1. The United States catches more animals from the wild for the fur trade than any other country in the world. Three million to 5 million animals are trapped in the U.S. each year by commercial fur trappers.

2. Millions of “non-target” animals are also trapped, including companion animals and endangered or threatened species. Go to Born Free USA’s Ban Cruel Traps website to view our database of incidents in which non-target animals were trapped, or to report such an incident.
3. Traps are commonly used to kill animals for the fur trade, for “nuisance” wildlife control, and in the federal government's killing of native carnivores. Many states allow wildlife damage control operators to sell the pelts of the animals they kill, thereby adding incentive to kill animals instead of resolve conflicts through non-lethal means.
4. Body-gripping traps — a category that includes leghold traps, snares, and so-called kill-type Conibear traps — bring suffering and death to millions of animals each year.
5. Animals frequently sustain severe injuries from being trapped. If not killed outright by the trap, animals can suffer physical trauma, dehydration, exposure to inclement weather, and predation by other animals.
6. Trapped animals are most frequently clubbed or suffocated to death, as bullet holes and blood stains reduce the pelt’s value.
7. The steel-jaw leghold trap is one of the most commonly used trap in the U.S. by commercial and recreational fur trappers today. As of 2005, 89 countries had banned use of the leghold trap, while in the U.S., only eight states had banned or severely restricted its use.
8. The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association, and the National Animal Control Association have declared that leghold traps are inhumane.
9. Trapping regulations vary widely from state to state and are often poorly enforced. Many states have few restrictions on the types of traps that can be used, the number of animals that can be trapped, or how trapped animals are to be killed. A number of states have no laws requiring that traps be checked on a regular basis, which can lead to tremendous animal suffering and injuries.
10. Despite the original intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System to provide a safe haven for wild animals, trapping is allowed on more than half of all refuges across the U.S.

For more information, visit the website of the Coalition to End Aerial Gunning of Wildlife.

The use of fixed-wing aircraft to hunt coyotes from the air began in the early 1920s. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Wildlife Services (WS) agency (formerly Animal Damage Control (ADC)) uses fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters in its attempts to protect livestock from predation and to boost populations of game species. Employed primarily as a “preventive control” measure to kill coyotes prior to lambing season, aerial gunning has been criticized as ineffective, ethically indefensible, and an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. The human cost has also been severe, as the dangerous mix of high speed flying and low altitudes has seen at least 22 crashes during the past 16 years, with 7 human fatalities (all since 1996) and 25 injuries (information obtained by AGRO through the Freedom of Information Act).

Pursuit with low-flying aircraft, and the added intensity of loud gunfire, can physically and psychologically harm both coyotes and non-target species, resulting in injury (or death), anxiety, stress, and fear. Given how difficult it is to aim at a moving animal from the air, wounding and crippling rates are likely to be significant, although Wildlife Services has never analyzed wounding rates in its aerial-gunning program.

While Wildlife Services argues that aerial hunting is selective for offending coyotes, one of WS’s own studies found that only 6 of 11 coyotes killed from a helicopter in one study had recently attacked or fed on sheep. In the Rocky Mountain News of April 4, 2000, Craig Coolahan, WS’s Colorado State Director, attested to the inherently indiscriminate nature of aerial hunting, stating, “[w]e do the best job we can targeting coyotes that are guilty of predation. But the only way I can guarantee I have the right one is if it’s glommed onto the neck of the lamb when I shoot it.”

In 2004, WS used low-flying aircraft to kill 37,372 animals, including coyotes, bobcats, wolves, red fox, and ravens, on public and private lands in the west.

Aerial Gunning Is Dangerous and Costly

• Since 1989, Wildlife Services has crashed at least 22 helicopters or planes while aerial gunning, resulting in at least 7 fatalities and 25 injuries. The USDA’s aerial gunning accidents have occurred in California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming — although the program operates in all Western states.
• On March 13, 2000, a pilot in California was seriously injured and an observer sustained minor injuries when an ADC aerial hunting plane collided with wires. On March 27, 2000, a helicopter crashed in Texas with two fatalities.
• In March 1998, after a fourth fatality within 18 months, the USDA ordered an investigation of the aerial-gunning program. Despite the costs to the American taxpayer, the injuries and loss of human lives, the review team concluded that the aerial-gunning program is vital to WS and represented “the most efficient method available for protecting livestock.” The review team also determined that the program was underfunded and recommended that annual funding be increased from $2.7 million to about $6.4 million.
• Critics of the program believe that money is not the issue. Rather, aerial gunning is simply an inherently dangerous activity because it requires flying at low speeds and altitudes while in pursuit of the targeted animal.
• When a pilot in California crashed her plane in 1998, WS stopped the aerial gunning program for a few months and began an investigation. A “pilot safety initiative” — costing taxpayers $1.1 million — emerged from the investigation.
• Claims made to injured pilots or death benefits to the families of killed WS agents cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in workman’s compensation payments, social security payments, and tort claims in the courts. And the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration both spent untold amounts investigating these incidents.

Aerial Gunning Is Inhumane

• Wildlife Services’ Colorado Environmental Assessment (EA) clearly reveals that wounded animals may be left to die an agonizing death, “Because of the large expanses involved, it is rare for even WS ground crew personnel to actually observe coyotes being shot by aerial hunting operations” (Colorado WS EA at 4-21).
• Because WS uses snowfall to track coyotes in early spring, agents are probably killing pregnant or lactating females. Deaths of the latter leave young pups to starve in the den.

Wildlife Service’s Lethal Predator Control Is an Ineffective, Costly, and Unfair Use of Taxpayers’ Money

• Nationwide, nearly half (48%) of WS expenditures went to its livestock protection work. In four Wildlife Services state offices (CO, ID, NV, and WY), livestock protection work consumed 90% or more of expenditures. In the 17 western states, Congress allocates approximately $10 million each year to Wildlife Services’ livestock protection work.
• Many ranchers who make use of Wildlife Services’ predator control program raise livestock on publicly owned land. A full two-thirds of WS predator control money is spent on public lands. This free handout creates perverse incentives for ranchers, who learn to rely on taxpayers rather than take action to protect their herds.
• The National Agricultural Statistics Service found in 1995 that for cattle and calf deaths, coyotes caused 1.6% of all deaths and that predators overall only caused 2.7% of cattle and calf deaths. Other causes of death were far greater: digestive problems (19.7%), respiratory problems (27.5%), unknown causes (15.2%), birthing (14.8%), weather (9.5%), other (9.1), poison (1.1) and theft (.4%). Predators cause less than 3% of deaths to cattle, yet millions of dollars of taxpayer money is wasted each year to control coyotes and other predators.
• While the percentage of damage actually caused to livestock is relatively low, the cost of lethal wildlife control is high. When state and local contributions are added, WS kills coyotes at an average cost easily exceeding $100 per animal. Costs sometimes exceed $2,000 per animal.
• In every western state, the cost of Wildlife Services’ livestock protection work exceeds reported livestock losses.

Non-Lethal Predator Controls Are Cheaper and More Efficient in the Long Term

• Killing predators to reduce economic losses caused by livestock predation has proven to be ineffective. Ostensibly to protect livestock, livestock producers have waged war on predators for centuries, with marked lack of success in solving conflicts. Wildlife Services is no exception.
• Non-lethal predator control methods effectively and humanely ward off predators without disrupting ecosystems.
• Proven methods include the use of guard animals, mixing sheep with cattle, frightening devices, fencing, penning during lambing and calving season, and the prompt removal of carcasses from birthing areas. Using two or more of these techniques together dramatically reduces the need for lethal predator control.
• Non-lethal methods allow wild animals to maintain their important roles in the ecosystem. Since coyotes eat mostly rodents, not sheep, some farmers say that leaving the coyotes alone helps reduce rodent problems on their land.

Killing Predators to Protect Wild Ungulates Is Ineffective

• In many western states coyotes have been blamed for declines in wild ungulate populations, such as mule deer and pronghorn. However, a large body of scientific evidence disputes that predators force game animals into decline.
• Studies that investigated responses of entire mule deer herds to intensive coyote control have failed to demonstrate that mule deer numbers increased as a result of coyote control.
• Wild predators kill wild prey in the natural world. They provide the unique service of removing the weak, sick, diseased, and malnourished from the population. Predators, therefore, improve the overall health of the ungulate population and in turn prevent overgrazing and the resulting soil deterioration.

Killing Coyotes Increases Overall Coyote Populations

• In areas where coyote populations have been controlled, the ratio of females to males increases and animals from outside areas quickly fill the void. Research has shown that 75% of the local breeding coyote population must be reduced to significantly reduce local populations for more than a short period. They postulated that coyote control causes an increase in litter size (from 4 to 10 pups) and increases the number of yearling females breeding. Control measures result in otherwise “behaviorally sterile” females breeding when a void in territory opens up. Like wolves, coyotes allow only the alpha pair to breed. Disruptions to the pack cause all females within that pack to breed.
• Lethal control techniques have ensured that only the most resilient coyotes survive, resulting in the creation of what some scientists call a “super coyote.”

1. Each year, in response to actual or perceived conflicts with wildlife, millions of animals are killed by the federal government and by private wildlife damage control operators. Lethal control efforts are largely inhumane and generally doomed to fail as they don’t address the root causes of conflicts or provide long-lasting solutions.

2. Most conflicts with wildlife can be mitigated or prevented by simple changes to human behavior, as outlined in our Living with Wildlife brochures and resources about how to coexist with native wild animals such as the coyote.
3. Effective approaches to common conflicts with urban wildlife include tightly securing garbage cans, capping chimneys, and not leaving pet food outside.
4. Lethal control often fails to resolve conflicts with wildlife over the long-term because new animals quickly fill the void created when animals are removed. Unless the actual cause of conflicts, such as access to food, water, and shelter, are addressed, problems typically recur.
5. “Nuisance” wildlife control is a growing and largely unregulated industry. Many states have few or no regulations providing proper oversight or defining humane care and handling of wildlife affected by this trade.
6. Wildlife control operators, hired to handle conflicts with “nuisance” animals, often employ inhumane killing methods including drowning, bludgeoning, and injection of chemical solvents such as acetone. (the primary ingredient in nail polish remover) — methods still legal in most states.
7. More than 2.5 million animals are killed by the federal government each year, through the United States. Department of Agriculture’s “Wildlife Services” (WS) program. Animals targeted include coyotes, bears, wolves, bobcats, vultures, cormorants, and ravens, all killed to benefit private and corporate interests.
8. Wildlife Services kills close to 100,000 native carnivores each year, primarily to protect livestock interests. Animals such as wolves and bears are also killed to boost “game” stocks for hunters and to protect corporate-owned timberlands.
9. In every western state, the cost of Wildlife Services’ livestock protection work exceeds reported livestock losses.
10. Methods employed by Wildlife Services to kill animals include trapping, aerial gunning, poisoning, denning, and shooting.