During the past several years, Congress has been waging a war on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a federal law that has been instrumental in protecting animals (and plants) threatened with extinction. Between 2011 and 2015 alone, over 50 bills have been introduced, largely by Republicans, targeting the ESA.

In 1973, President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act, which protects species threatened with extinction such as the ocelot (top) and the California tiger salamander (bottom). (tiger salamander photo: Gary Nafis)

The most recent bill, the “Endangered Species Management Self-Determination Act” (May 18, 2016), would do the following, if passed into law:

• Delist a species after five years (ESA protection would only be reinstated by a joint resolution in Congress)
• Remove ESA protection from all Puerto Rican and Hawaiian species
• Remove ESA protection from species endemic to one state
• Require approval by both the states and Congress to grant ESA protection to a species
• Allow government officials to ignore petitions seeking the addition of a species to the endangered species list

Defenders of Wildlife, a U.S.-based conservation group, estimates that 900 species could lose their ESA protection if this bill is passed.

The crested honeycreeper (left) and the akekee (right), both from Hawaii, would lose their protection under the Endangered Species Management Self Determination Act. (honeycreeper photo: Jack Jeffrey, akekee photo: Eric Vanderwer)

Other attacks on the ESA include bills that would require the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to publicly share data on where endangered animals reside, including detailed maps (ex. S. 292) — information that would make poaching easier. Members of Congress have also introduced bills to sabotage the process of granting a species protection by requiring the inclusion of inaccurate/outdated data (provided by state governments) in the decision-making process (ex. S. 736). Another commonly used Congressional tactic is to limit funds for upholding the ESA.

S.292 and S.736 attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

Over 100 bills have been introduced targeting individual species. Three recent bills, when combined, would prevent grey wolves from being listed as endangered or threatened in six states. Management of the grey wolf populations would also be returned to the states, a move which has, in the past, led to mass slaughter.

When Wyoming gained control of its grey wolf population in 2012 over 200 wolves were killed.

Another bill – the “Mexican Wolf Transparency and Accountability Act” – would remove virtually all protections for the Mexican grey wolf, a species rescued from near extinction by a tedious captive breeding program spanning almost 40 years. Only around 100 wild Mexican grey wolves remain in the United States (primarily  in Arizona and New Mexico).

The Mexican grey wolf was rescued from extinction by a captive breeding program but is now at risk of losing nearly all its government protection. (Jim brandenburg/ Minden)

On May 24th, representative Ken Calvert introduced legislation to permanently prevent the greater sage grouse from being listed under the ESA. (Danita Delimit)

In March 2016, the FWS announced that it is planning to remove ESA protection from Yellowstone grizzly bears, even though the population consists of only about 700 animals.

Grizzly bear and her cub in Yellowstone National Park (Troy Harrison).

Attempts to weaken the ESA are especially troubling in light of how effective it is. For example, a recent study conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity found that 85% of continental U.S. birds protected under the ESA have increased or stabilized their populations since receiving protection. The recovering bird species range from Puerto Rican parrots and Californian Condors to wood storks and Kirtland’s warblers. The wood stork’s population, in particular, jumped from 29 nesting colonies in 1984, when it was listed under the ESA, to over 10,000 in 2015.

Both the California condor (right) and the woodstork (left) have benefited tremendously from the Endangered Species Act. (woodstork photo: Stephen L. Tabone)

To learn more about Congress’s attempts to weaken the ESA, please visit Center for Biological Diversity

Please take the following steps to help safeguard the Endangered Species Act and the animals that it protects:

• To find out more about federal and state bills that could affect wild animals and the ways in which you can help to pass or defeat them, please visit Born Free USA
• To find out about federal and state bills that could affect all animals, including endangered species, and the ways in which you can help to pass or defeat them, please visit Humane Society of the United States

Dressed in a bear costume and hauling a dummy of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Friends of Animals’ Edita Birnkrant fearlessly paraded into the state capitol building to disrupt business as usual. That’s because she, like many other animal advocates across the state, is outraged about the upcoming state-sponsored mass shooting of black bears. TheirTurn reported on location:

Some of the bears will be lured out of their habitat with food. During a press conference about the bear hunt on the steps of the statehouse, state Senator Raymond Lesniak, who introduced legislation to ban the hunt, said, “Baiting isn’t hunting; it’s target shooting.”

From left to right: NJ State Senator Raymond Lesniak, a dummy of NJ Governor Chris Christie in a bear-proof garbage can, Friends of Animals’ Edita Birnkrant

During the massacre, which starts on Monday, December 7th, hundreds of bears, including cubs and nursing mothers, will be hunted down and killed with guns and arrows.

NJ Governor Chris Christie receives a manual pat down at the NJ State House

Governor Christie claims that the annual hunt protects the public from bear attacks, but Senator Lesniak and the advocates who gathered at the capitol building argue that only bear-proof garbage cans coupled with public education will keep the bears out of residential areas. Dispensing licenses to kill, they say, doesn’t protect the public; it merely rewards Chris Christie’s pro-hunting campaign donors.

NJ Fish & Wildlife promotes killing, not protecting, its animal residents

For more information about the bear hunt and to take action on their behalf, please visit Friends of Animals and the Animal Protection League of NJ Action Center.

A Fish & Wildlife employee weighs a bear during a previous hunt (photo: AP)

One day after activists staged a third protest at the home of its Chairman of the Board on August 4th, the New York Blood Center (NYBC) posted a stunning public statement (Q&A) defending its decision to cut off funding to its former lab chimps (see below).

In the Q&A, which it has since removed from its website, NYBC argues that it neither owns nor has responsibility for the chimps; that the blame for their plight lies with animal welfare organizations who refused to take them; and that their priority is helping humans, not chimpanzees.

With no natural food on the islands where they were relocated, the chimps eagerly await the delivery of food

“We have no obligation to these chimpanzees.”  In an effort to distance itself from its chimps, NYBC asserts that the government of Liberia owns them and is responsible for their care. Nowhere in its statement does NYBC acknowledge that they captured the chimps from the wild; bred them in captivity; conducted experiments on them for 30 years; and dropped them off on islands with no natural food and water, rendering them totally dependent on humans for survival.

Language about ownership in contracts between NYBC and the government of Liberia doesn’t change the fact that NYBC has a moral obligation to pay for their care. In fact, previous executives at NYBC publicly acknowledged this obligation.

In its Q&A, NYBC asserts that Dr. Prince was not authorized to make this statement.

“The animal welfare groups did nothing to help us.” NYBC claims that it attempted to work with animal welfare organizations to find a long term solution for the chimps, but, according to individuals involved in those discussions, NYBC merely attempted to shift the responsibility to these groups without offering to pay for the expenses, such as expanding the sanctuaries to accommodate the chimps and providing them with food and medical care for the remainder of their lives. During these discussions, NYBC was well aware of the fact that great ape sanctuaries in Africa, which are chronically short on space and financial resources, could not assume the millions of dollars in costs associated with caring for its chimps.

Chimp greet a volunteer who brings them food

“Our obligation is to humans. Other organizations better suited to funding and supporting the chimps.” NYBC also justifies its decision to eliminate funding for the chimps on the grounds that humans are a greater priority: “Our mission is to save lives here in the United States. NYBC’s responsibility is to blood donors, hospitals and patients.”

Even if one subscribes to the point of view that humans are more worthy of life than other animals, NYBC doesn’t have to make that choice. The organization, which pays its President over $1.2 million and has $450 million in assets, has earned $500 million in royalties from their chimp research. Even if NYBC was not a wealthy organization backed by some of the biggest corporations in the United States, it would still have a moral obligation to pay for the care of their chimps.

Jane Goodall’s letter to the New York Blood Center

In a demonstration of its lack of ethics, NYBC describes the islands to which they relocated the chimps as “sanctuaries,” even though they have no caretakers, facilities or infrastructure. Given that the chimps had no survival skills and were traumatized by decades of experiments, they should have been relocated to accredited sanctuaries where they would have received much needed care as soon as they were released. Instead, they have been struggling to survive on isolated islands, at times going several days without food and water. Over the years, many of the chimps have needlessly died from starvation.

In a statement entitled “Left To Die In Liberia,” the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) paints a picture of just how difficult the animals’ lives on the islands: “One chimp bargained for food by offering his leg to the caregivers, as he would have done in the lab when being darted.”

Captive chimp at NYBC’s research facility in Liberia

Q&A Posted on NYBC’s website on August 6th

Please join the Facebook page New York Blood Center: Do the Right Thing in order to participate in the online actions and keep apprised of the campaign to compel NYBC to reinstate funding for the chimps.

On May 9th and May 23rd, animal rights activists will stage protests in nine states at theme parks owned by Palace Entertainment, the company that operates the Miami Seaquarium, where the orca Lolita has been held captive for 45 years in the nation’s smallest killer whale tank. Palace, which owns 32 amusement and waterparks nationwide, purchased the Miami Seaquarium in 2014.

Lolita has lived in the nation’s smallest killer whale pool since 1970

Lolita was kidnapped from her pod off the coast of Washington state in 1970. For the first 10 years, she had a killer whale companion, Hugo, who reportedly committed suicide by pounding his head against the side of the tank. Since 1980, she has been alone, unable to interact with members of her own species or engage in any natural behaviors, such as hunting, diving and swimming in the open water. Her tank is just 20 feet deep.

Lolita is 20′ long. Her tank is 20′ deep.

Lolita’s captivity is not just cruel; it is illegal. In fact, Palace Entertainment is violating the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in three ways. Lolita’s tank doesn’t meet minimum size requirements; she has no shade to protect her from Florida’s searing sun; and she does not have a killer whale companion.

In February, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) designated Lolita as endangered because she was taken from the protected Southern Resident Killer Whale population. This historic decision has provided legal ammunition to the groups that are suing the USDA for renewing Palace’s license in spite of its AWA violations.

Animal exploitation (photo: Matthew Hoelscher)

Palace Entertainment has been steadfast in its opposition to releasing Lolita to a seaside pen. In an effort to keep their biggest money maker, Seaquarium spokesperson Robert Rose tells the press that Lolita will die if she is released into the ocean. Advocates, on the other hand, assert that a coastal sanctuary would finally give her the opportunity to live — providing her with space to swim, communicate with her pod; receive rehabilitation; and be released if she is deemed capable of surviving in the wild.

The May 9th protests, organized by the group Shut Down Palace, will take place at Palace’s theme parks in Florida, Georgia, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh & Lancaster) and California.  On May 23rd, a second wave of protests will take place at Palace parks in New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

For Lolita, the Miami Seaquarium is a prison, not a palace (photo: Shut Down Palace)

The #ShutDownPalace protests are not the first major effort to liberate Lolita. In January, over 1,500 activists from around the world descended upon Miami to participate in the “Miracle March for Lolita.” In a rousing speech after the march, Jane Velez-Mitchell of JaneUnchained told the crowd to “get the police tape” because the Miami Sequarium is a “crime scene.”

Miracle March for Lolita on January 17, 2015 (photo: Christina Estrada)

Articles posted on social media routinely direct us to boycott palm oil because its production displaces indigenous communities, kills wildlife, and destroys rainforests, which contributes to climate change. In fact, the cultivation of palm fruit trees is so destructive to the environment and to animals that, to many, palm oil, which is derived from a fruit, is no longer regarded as vegan.

Palm oil plantation on newly cleared rainforest

Some products contain palm oil that is labeled “sustainable,” but what does that mean? In an effort to determine whether or not we should be consuming “sustainable” palm oil, TheirTurn spoke to several rainforest and wildlife NGOs; companies that use sustainable palm; and a leader in the production of de-forestation-free palm.

Orangutans, who are displaced, orphaned, kidnapped and killed, have become a symbol of the destructive effects palm oil (photo: Biosprit-subventionen)

What is sustainable palm oil?

In the U.S., palm oil is found in 50% of packaged consumer goods sold in grocery stores. It is widely used because it minimizes separation and is free of trans-fats. NGOs estimate that 18% of palm currently sold comes from sustainable sources.

At the moment, only one organization, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), has a global certification program, but the criteria are so weak and enforcement so lax that “sustainable” no longer has meaning.

According to a spokesperson at the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), “‘sustainable’ is just a claim; it’s not credible.” For instance, the RSPO will certify palm grown on certain deforested lands. That’s not good enough, according to the RAN, which opposes the clearing of any forest worth conserving. RAN says that the newly-created Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG) is working to strengthen the RSPO criteria and to pressure the biggest manufacturers to adopt a stronger set of requirements from its growers. The process, however, is slow going.

The Roundtable Sustainable Palm Oil certification criteria are weak and often unenforced

Should we boycott palm oil?

Palm oil is here to stay for the indefinite future. The vast majority is consumed in countries in Asia and the Middle East where rainforest conservation is a low priority and consumer demand for sustainable products is negligible. If the American, European and Australian NGOs fighting to save the rainforests call for a boycott, then the companies that use palm will have no incentive to purchase it from sustainable sources. After all, why would companies spend more money on sustainable palm if the people who care about sustainability aren’t buying it? That is why many NGOs argue that demanding and buying responsible palm oil will, over time, protect the remaining forests more than boycotting it will.

The Rainforest Action Network targets the top 20 companies that use unsustainable, or “conflict,” palm oil.

Following are factors to consider when deciding whether or not to buy packaged foods with palm oil at this point in time

• If “sustainable” is not printed on the label, then you have to assume the palm fruit trees were grown on cleared rainforest.
• If “sustainable” is printed on the label, then the palm oil may or may not have been grown on cleared rainforest.
• Tracing palm oil to the actual land on which it was grown is challenging at the moment. As a result, most consumer products companies don’t know the exact source of their palm oil and should therefore not be making sustainability claims.
• In the U.S., any company can print “sustainable” on its label because the government does not have a regulatory agency to monitor that claim.

Palm oil is extracted from palm fruit that grows on trees in the tropics

Can we eat Earth Balance and Justin’s?

TheirTurn contacted the makers of Earth Balance and Justin’s because they make products with palm oil that are popular with vegans. Both companies buy RSPO-certified palm and appear genuinely eager to ensure that it’s deforestation-free, but, short of hiring investigators to follow their palm vendors, they simply cannot guarantee it at the moment.

However, according to the the Rainforest Action Network, Boulder Brands, the maker of Earth Balance, has “made the strongest palm oil commitment” of any U.S. company, demanding that its suppliers move in the direction of providing the company with palm produced in accordance with the POIG’s strict requirements. Now, Earth Balance needs to work with its supplier to implement this higher standard on the ground in Indonesia and Latin America.

Are plant-based foods vegan if they contain palm oil?

What is Palm Oil?

Palm oil is extracted from the fruit of palm trees that can only be grown in the tropics (show map), the heavily-forested areas near the equator that are often described as “the lungs of the earth.”

Palm fruit trees can be grown in the tropics, 10 degrees on either side of the equator. About 90% is currently grown in Indonesia (far right)

Once planted, palm fruit trees bear fruit after four years. After 20 years, the trees are chopped down and replanted because plantation workers can no longer reach the fruit bundles. After four cycles, the yield is reduced. Does that mean that palm growers will move  their plantations to new land that is covered in forest? It’s too soon to say.

When plantation workers can no longer reach palm fruit bundles, the trees are cut down, and new trees are planted.

If every company that uses palm oil decided to purchase it from responsible sources, would there be enough non-forested land to supply the global demand?

According to the Orangutan Land Trust, an advocacy group that works to preserve orangutan habitat, the island of Borneo alone has 35 million acres of unforested land that is suitable for oil palm cultivation, and that far exceeds projected growth for the next few decades: “It is a complete fallacy that new oil-palm plantations need to come at the expense of forests.”

To find out how you can help protect the planet’s remaining rainforests from being cleared for palm fruit tree plantations, please visit the Rainforest Action Network’s Palm Oil Action Team.