AWI Quarterly

Tuna-Dolphin Battle Continues


Within hours of the decision by the Department of Commerce to allow dolphin-caught tuna to be sold as "dolphin-safe" in American markets, Animal Welfare Institute, Society for Animal Protective Legislation, Earth Island Institute, and other groups were back in court suing the federal government. In dramatically relaxing the standards of the dolphin-safe label, the Department of Commerce asserted that the setting of nets on dolphins causes "no significant adverse impact" even though a brand new study by their own scientists says the opposite.

The National Marine Fisheries Service study found that populations of eastern spinner and offshore spotted dolphins have failed to recover from a seventy percent decline suffered from decades of pursuit and entrapment from tuna boats. It also showed an entirely new category of heretofore unreported deaths-unweaned babies separated from their moms during the chase, and "cryptic kill" where animals are injured and go off to die. Even without counting these mortalities, over seven million dolphins have died through this method of fishing.

Allowing the sale of dolphin-deadly tuna in the U.S., fraudulently labeled as "dolphin-safe," is expected to cause between 20,000 and 40,000 dolphin deaths a year.

The dolphin-safe label is one of the biggest successes in using consumer awareness to protect a threatened and beloved creature. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced new legislation forbidding the change in label that would "blatantly mislead the American public."

As we go to press, an agreement to stay the implementation of the new label has been signed by the Judge. For the moment at least, the dolphin-safe label still means what it says.

Manatees: Betrayed by the Bushes


U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan reminded Department of the Interior attorneys that the agency is not "above the law" and twice ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to "show cause why they should not be held in contempt" for delaying a court ordered directive to implement new manatee protection zones in Florida.

After a two year holdup, another agreement finally was reached on manatee conservation between the Bush Administration and animal advocates including AWI on January 24, 2003. The Corps and FWS agreed to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to designate manatee protection areas in Florida's Caloosahatchee, St. Johns, and Halifax/Tomoka Rivers by March 31, 2003. These three rivers are considered vicinities of the highest annual manatee mortality in Florida. A final decision is due by July 31, 2003.

Irresponsible boaters ignoring clearly marked signs stating
 "Idle Speed Manatee Area Nov. 15 to Mar. 31" as they
 speed through manatee habitat. Jim P. Reid/USGS,
 February 2002

The deal could be positive if implemented properly. It requires that permanent signs or buoys be posted along these rivers informing the public of applicable speed and other restrictions to protect manatees.

It is doubtful, however, that boaters will adhere to posted warnings. Florida's waterways historically have been deathtraps for peaceful manatees who fall prey to speeding boats. In 2002, a record 95 manatees died in Florida because of reckless boaters.

Moreover, without sufficient on-water enforcement, speed signs are meaningless. FWS claims that it "plans to significantly increase the presence of Federal law enforcement officers on the water to ensure boater compliance with speed zones...." We hope they succeed.

Meanwhile, boaters' rights groups are selfishly fighting against manatee protection. Is this really an issue of "boaters' rights"? Mary Jo Melone, a St. Petersburg Times reporter, expresses disbelief in an article entitled, "The 'rights' of a few don't do right by manatees."

She writes, "I'm really struggling with the idea that this so-called right to the water (or to make a living from it) carries more weight than my right, and your right, to live in a state with a well-managed natural environment."

The jury is still out as to whether the government will meet its deadlines and fulfill its requirements. The Bush Administrations, both at the federal level and at the state level in Florida under Governor Jeb Bush, have a bad history of selling manatees down the river. Our lawyers are standing by.

For More Information:

Report Mistreatment of Experimental Animals

www.labanimalissues.org


Labanimalissues.org was created by AWI to serve as a secure and confidential source for the reporting of any specific concerns about the well-being of animals used for experimentation, testing, and/or teaching. Labanimalissues.org is open to all persons wishing to notify us about any laboratory animal welfare problem, whether it involves one animal or many animals; whether the concern is for animals in one laboratory cage, animals used by one principal investigator or animals throughout an institution; and whether or not there has been a violation of any law or guideline.

The objective of Labanimalissues.org is to assist individuals in helping laboratory animals who are suffering unnecessarily or are simply in need of better treatment. Reports can be anonymous, and the website is guaranteed to ensure the highest level of privacy, confidentiality, and security. We will follow-up on each report by taking whatever action we can to improve the situation for the laboratory animals involved. This may include, but is not limited to, personally inspecting the animals, filing complaints with the appropriate oversight agency, and reporting to the media and/or Congress.

Helping Hands for Hedgehogs


Victim of one of the latest exotic pet crazes appears to be the African Pygmy hedgehog. Sadly, many of these animals are being mass-produced in "mill-type" situations where they are viewed as easily replenishable commodities. Novel pets, hedgehogs are oftentimes purchased by individuals who have done little research into how to properly care for them.
Deirdre, a victim of neglect, was rescued
from a family in Pennsylvania, a state that
 prohibits keeping hedgehogs as pets.
 Hedgehog Welfare Society

Although hedgehogs are protected under the Animal Welfare Act, the law's regulations are overly broad to cover a wide range of species and do not provide specific requirements for cage size, exercise opportunities, appropriate weaning age, and proper environmental temperatures to avoid hibernation attempts and possible death-by-freezing.

The Hedgehog Welfare Society (HWS) is an organization that exists to protect the well being of hedgehogs through rescue, research, and education of the people who care for hedgehogs. The HWS expends most of its resources on rescue of unwanted and abandoned hedgehogs, who are frequently purchased on impulse from pet stores. Members of the American and Canadian HWS have rescued hundreds of hedgehogs in the past year from situations where they were  neglected, unwanted, and/or in desperate need of veterinary care.

Another objective of the HWS is advocacy, targeted at breeders and pet stores. The HWS has filed numerous complaints to the USDA regarding unlicensed pet stores and breeding facilities that practice inadequate animal care. These include reports of hedgehogs who have been left injured and bleeding in cages, animals in over-crowded conditions without sufficient room for movement or exercise, unattended cages piled with two inches of feces, hedgehogs soaked in urine, cannibalism, and hedgehogs shipped in bulk to pet stores across the country prior to healthy weaning age. Many unlicensed facilities have been inspected and, once informed of licensing and care requirements, agreed to cease sales of hedgehogs. However, there have been far more occasions where no action is taken in response to the complaint.

For more information about hedgehog rescue or to report abuse, please contact the HWS at http://www.hedgehogwelfare.org

One Family's Crusade to Help Primates


In the outskirts of Santiago, Chile, in a suburb like that outside major cities the world over, lives a very special family dedicated to helping primates. Beyond two huge gates, past five or six small and incredibly affectionate dogs, and through Elba and Carlos Almazan's own home is a refuge for 91 monkeys: Siglo XXI (21st Century), a center for the rescue and rehabilitation of primates.
Elba Munoz Almazan treats all the
monkeys in her care as though they
were her children, bestowing upon them
 endless love and affection. Pro Wildlife

Siglo XXI provides permanent sanctuary for primates rescued from the illegal pet trade in South America or who are currently living in deprived conditions in captivity. The monkeys come from, or are destined for, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, and, of course, Chile. Sometimes gypsy families abandon these animals, or they are confiscated from laboratories. Tamarins, squirrel monkeys and woolly monkeys, are among the inhabitants at the sanctuary.

Monkeys at the facility are housed in a huge backyard city of linked enclosures that provide escape routes for animals who wish to be alone but also present an opportunity for companionship when it is sought. Baskets hang or rest within arms reach of the outside of the enclosures offering ready access to fruits and vegetables, especially cut apples. Inside the enclosures are toys, hanging tire swings, and even hammocks for the enjoyment of the sanctuary's residents.

Twin veterinarians make house calls to heal the animals, many of whom need serious medical attention from wounds suffered as a result of horrible transport conditions or cruel laboratory settings. The work is done right inside the house.

Siglo XXI educates the public about primate welfare, conservation issues, and in particular the inherent cruelty of the illegal trade and keeping primates as pets. The subject is of great interest to the Chilean public, and Siglo XXI has received much media coverage for their laudable work. School visits to the center are popular as well.

Unfortunately, the limited space of the sanctuary site meant that Siglo XXI could not cope with the demand by schools and colleges for greater visitation. As well, they ran out of space to satisfy the number of animals in need of a home-especially urgent since Mr. and Mrs. Almazan have pledged to help house additional confiscated pet and circus primates.

Animals at Siglo XXI share time with
each other as they pick through the
 regularly stocked baskets of fruits and
 vegetables. Adam M. Roberts/AWI

Thus, the couple has undertaken an ambitious expansion project. A beautiful new sprawling plot of land has already been bought to continue their vital work, and they have begun building the enclosures there.

Mr. Almazan is a practicing pediatrician who invests much of his earnings into the rescue center-he and his wife fund the ongoing care for the animals at a cost of about $3,000 a month. Additional funds are needed, however, for the enclosure construction at the new site. AWI has provided assistance for the erection of a security fence on the perimeter of the new property, which will run along a small river.

Without Siglo XXI there is no appropriate sanctuary in Chile available for these needy primates. If you would like to help ensure that the new facility is fully operational, please send a check payable to AWI with a note in the memo line: "for Siglo XXI." All donations will be sent to the sanctuary together. For additional information contact adam@awionline.org.

Saving the Elephant Through Film


With an enormous 20 foot tall inflatable elephant watching over hundreds of guests, the Species Survival Network reception during the 12th Conference of the Parties to CITES began with a showing of the film Wanted Dead or Alive produced by the African Environmental Film Foundation (AEFF). The film, available in eight languages including Arabic, Japanese, and Swahili, presents a comprehensive insight into the role played by the African elephant in the economy, ecology, sociology, and politics in Kenya today.

The film highlights the lasting effects of elephant poaching in Kenya in the 1970s and 1980s, the complexity of elephant society, and the threats posed to both people and animals by any resumption of the international commercial ivory trade. "Yet, through all the daunting challenges," notes the AEFF, "hope continues to burn strong: this film demonstrates the benefits Kenyans can gain by conserving the Elephant, which is not only part of their natural heritage, but is a vital player in their country's economy and ecology."

The film was produced by Simon Trevor, a long-time advocate for Africa's elephants. Simon has served as a game warden in Kenya's national parks and, after many years of successful commercial film-making, now devotes all of his time to the work of the AEFF. For more information, visit www.aeffonline.org.

CITES : Scales Tip Toward Wildlife Conservation

By Adam M. Roberts and Ben White

As the city's stray dogs lazed in the sun near a busy street outside the Convention Center, delegates from more than 150 nations debated the fate of dozens of threatened and endangered species during the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) this past November in Santiago, Chile.

The basking shark, the world's
 second largest fish (pictured here
 feeding), is now protected under
 CITES. IFAW

After two grueling weeks meeting with government representatives, talking to the media, and distributing information, countless animals and plants now face a more secure future. CITES Parties once again rejected Japan's attempt to resume a legal international trade in minke and Bryde's whales. They also approved protection for two shark species, (whale shark and basking shark), seahorses, the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin, a number of freshwater turtles and tortoises and various reptiles in Madagascar, the yellow-naped and yellow-headed parrots, the blue-headed macaw, mahogany, and the monkey puzzle tree. A number of victories were particularly hard-won.

Surely the participants in the CITES process have tired of Japan's repeated attempts to circumvent the International Whaling Commission, which is the competent international body for making decisions related to the trade in whale parts and products. The proposals to resume trade in minke and Bryde's whales, for instance, painfully brought back year after year, garner less support with each submission, despite obdurate pressure by the Japanese delegation and the pro-whaling lobby.

Meanwhile, accusations continue to fly about Japan using foreign aid to "buy" the votes of small island nations in the Caribbean. The outspoken, often comical interventions in support of Japan by the representative of Antigua and Barbuda did little to dispel these rumors. Japan, having been beaten down and defeated again, should abandon its cruel pursuit of a return to the miserable days of commercial whaling once and for all.

CITES Parties also wisely voted against the United Kingdom's proposal to allow the trade in products of the highly endangered green sea turtle from a farm in the Cayman Islands. Questions swirled around the meeting as to the legality of some of the turtles in the farm-it is highly probable that some of the founder stock, the animals used in the initial breeding program, were acquired illegally. There are also serious welfare implications for the cruelly-housed animals at the facility. Dr. Rob Atkinson, Head of the Wildlife Department of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said, "In my opinion, the Cayman Turtle Farm fails to match the welfare standards that would be required in the UK. 42.6% of turtle hatchlings from the farm are dead within the first 18 months, a further 17.1% die within 42 months."

The ivory trade threatens forest elephants
 such as this subadult bull in Dzanga
 National Park, Central African Republic. Melissa Groo

For some species, victory was actually snatched from the jaws of defeat. Although the four good proposals to offer international protection to the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin, both sharks, and mahogany were narrowly defeated in Committee, vigorous campaigning led to a reopening of the discussion on these issues in the full Plenary session during the second week of the Conference. Whale sharks and basking sharks need international protection from the trade in their fins, meat, and oils; the dolphins in question are the first marine mammals protected by CITES from live capture for the public display industry; mahogany is the first commercially traded tropical timber species to be protected. We pursued those countries that either abstained from voting or were absent from these important votes, and, as a result, each of these proposals was ultimately approved in turn in Plenary. UK Minister Elliot Morley deserves special commendation for his leadership on the basking shark proposal, and the delegation from the former Soviet state of Georgia worked diligently to secure this new protection for the bottlenose dolphin.

The Georgians also helped shepherd through a modest but important victory for the world's bears, cruelly slaughtered for their gallbladders and bile. It was suggested by the CITES Secretariat that an important resolution on Conservation of and Trade in Bears, which was passed unanimously in 1997, should be gutted. Not only did we succeed in maintaining the resolution language but we also got additional decisions approved at this meeting calling on certain countries to take demonstrable actions to eliminate the illegal international trade in bear parts.

Of course, not every decision benefited species in need. The Parties failed to act in a measurable way to protect the dwindling global stock of Patagonian toothfish, sold in restaurants in the U.S. and elsewhere as Chilean Sea Bass. Vicuna, found in South America, were downlisted from Appendix I to Appendix II to allow for increased and easier international trade in vicuna cloth and vicuna wool products from Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina, despite the fact that these animals are still poached in the wild for their wool and meat. 

Clearly, the biggest disappointment was on the elephant ivory trade and the United States' role in the elephant debate, which was dominated by contentious, often vitriolic verbal sparring. In the end, Zimbabwe and Zambia were defeated in their attempts to trade ivory legally. Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa lost their effort to trade in ivory annually but were given tentative approval to sell off their ivory stockpiles if CITES, after May 2004, is satisfied that certain conditions have been met.

AWI was terribly disappointed in the United States delegation's impotent stand on the ivory issue. The U.S. delegation, headed by Judge Craig Manson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tried to broker a deal to allow the sale of stockpiled ivory under certain conditions while removing the request to sell additional ivory on an annual basis. They didn't even share their amendment language with the African proponent countries before offering it on the floor! Why the U.S. would offer a compromise allowing the trade in ivory instead of standing firm in support of America's historic opposition to such a deadly trade is mystifying and unjustifiable. Our own government, despite receiving more than 10,000 emails in the few days leading up to the vote, actually voted in favor of the proposals by Namibia and South Africa to resume ivory trade. This is also despite strong letters from the United States House of Representatives and Senate urging opposition to the international commercial ivory trade. Back in October, one-fifth of the U.S. Senate wrote to Mr. Manson urging such opposition, noting, "The United States must not stand idly by and watch as elephant carcasses once again unceremoniously litter the African savannah-their tusks carved off with chain-saws to satisfy global greed."

AWI had asked the U.S. delegation for its position on the ivory trade proposals for weeks, but the U.S. was more tight-lipped and secretive than ever-totally taking itself out of the equation and marginalizing itself throughout the discussion during the meeting over the previous week. The United States portrays itself as a global conservation leader, yet the delegation clearly acted irresponsibly during this CITES meeting.

There is a very real fear that the decision on elephants will spur increased elephant poaching in Asia and Africa and provide an easy opportunity to launder illegal ivory. Elephant poachers and ivory profiteers will only see the headline that reads: "CITES approves ivory sales from Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa," while missing the fine print that the sale is not unconditional.

AWI will continue to work to stop the overexploitation of threatened and endangered species for international commercial trade, especially in its role as a vital part of the Species Survival Network, a global coalition working to ensure strict enforcement of CITES. The next CITES meeting takes place in Thailand, tentatively scheduled for late 2004.

For background on the issues discussed at the meeting, please see the previous two issues of the Quarterly, both of which are available on our website, click here. You can also read daily reports from Santiago, please click here and get a full overview of CITES at www.speciessurvivalnetwork.org

Dear Friend:


It is with mixed emotions that we bring you this issue of the AWI Quarterly, which has a special center section devoted to the Animal Welfare Institute's founder and president, Christine Stevens, who died this past fall. I say "mixed emotions" because while her death brought great sadness to me and all the other people whose lives she touched, I know she would never approve of us dwelling on the loss when there is still so much work to do on the animals' behalf. We choose to celebrate Christine's remarkable life and all of her accomplishments.

Thank goodness for Christine! I say with utter confidence that no single individual has done more for animals than she, and animals everywhere were so very fortunate to have had her as their tireless advocate. Christine devoted her life to helping any and all animals in need of protection from the myriad cruelties inflicted on them by humans. No animal was too small to receive Christine's aid and no opponent was too large to take on.

The Animal Welfare Institute and Christine, institutions both, have been integral to my life for the past 22 years. Christine's position as my boss was overshadowed by her roles as mentor, friend, and co-conspirator. I share her belief in the vital niche that the Animal Welfare Institute fills and I am, therefore, humbled and honored to have accepted the AWI Board of Directors' invitation to assume the position of president.

During my tenure at the Institute I have held nearly every job at one time or another and have been involved in most of AWI's campaigns: I have inspected animal laboratories across the country, investigated animal dealers, scrutinized traplines and factory farms, and spoke on behalf of the Institute at a variety of local, national, and international forums. 

I won't say that I will follow in Christine's footsteps, for her shoes simply cannot be filled. But I am firmly committed to continuing AWI's work and building on the phenomenal groundwork laid by Christine, inspired by her love and respect for animals, her devotion to the cause and her incredible fortitude.

Sincerely,
Cathy Liss

The Deliverance of Dancing Bears


By Elizabeth Stanley
Kane/Miller Book Publishers
California 2003; ISBN1-929132-41-7
40 pages, $15.95

Many of us toil by day with focused determination, dreaming at night of a better life-perhaps one that is easier, richer, or more fulfilling. For the imprisoned brown bear in Elizabeth Stanley's The Deliverance of Dancing Bears, the dream is simply to be a bear. Freed from her cage and shackles and the controlling iron ring forcibly pierced through her nose she would be able to enjoy the warm sun, the crisp mountain water, and the enlivening forests to which her kind is best suited.

Sadly, these hopeful visions of freedom, leisure, and companionship are quashed each day by her tormentor, Halûk, who forces her to "dance" for unenlightened humans in order to gain a few coins for himself.

The Deliverance of Dancing Bears, which confronts the cruelty of caging bears and forcing them to dance for us, was published in Australia in 1994, and is now being brought to the U.S. for the first time. Even if it were devoid of text, one could interpret this tale by leafing through the book's vibrant pastel drawings. The text is carefully crafted, however, and Stanley describes the brutality in keeping dancing bears, without graphic detail that might be disturbing for the five to nine year old readers for whom the book is intended. She writes of the bear's claws being "blunted" and her powerful teeth "sawed." The bear "succumbed fearfully to the heavy chain latched to her ringed nose."

The Deliverance of Dancing Bears presents the immorality of forcing bears to dance. But how do we liberate enslaved animals? Is it just and wise to purchase a captive bear (or other creature) from his or her captor in order to free the beleaguered beast? I have experienced this dilemma across the globe; seeing poor, wretched animals for sale in public markets in South America and Asia. Like many others, I struggled with the desire to free the animals, cognizant that doing so would put money in the hands of despicable merchants who would then replace the animal I just saved with another.

Stanley answers the conundrum affirmatively through an old, compassionate villager, Yusuf, who buys the bear. "'How often have I watched you, poor beast, dancing humiliated in the market square on this loathsome chain,' he said. '...I feel too ashamed to have you dancing another day. I have no way of returning you to your home and your loved ones, but come with me, and I will restore to you a little happiness.'"

Initially, one can make a positive impact by freeing an individual animal. Then one can change the minds of the community in general. In this story, after selling the bear to Yusuf, Halûk surfaces with a new young dancing cub, and Yusuf steps in once more. This time, though, as the new bear is bought, the gathered local crowd begins to understand the depths of Halûk's wickedness and publicly shuns him. Ultimately, two bears are rescued, free to live out their lives in the garden at Yusuf's cottage in the woods; but perhaps more importantly, the community has been educated to the plight of these animals, reducing the likelihood that a similar situation would arise in the future.

Indeed, bear dancing is slowly being banned across the globe. As Stanley notes in her Postscript to the book, Greece and Turkey (the setting for the story) have outlawed bear dancing. There are still serious problems in other countries, however, including India and Bulgaria. What is the cost of freedom?

What price must be paid to make dreams come true? For Elizabeth Stanley, for Yusuf, for me, no price is too great.

-Adam M. Roberts

Activists Stop Construction of Massive Hog Factory

By Gail Eisnitz Chief Investigator, Humane Farming Association

 

Rosebud Sioux tribal members
participate in a drum circle at a press
 conference outside U.S. Senate
 Minority Leader Tom Daschle's Rapid
 City office to protest construction of a
 giant hog factory.
Humane Farming
 Association

In November 1998, a coalition consisting of Concerned Rosebud Area Citizens, Humane Farming Association, South Dakota Peace and Justice Center, and Prairie Hills Audubon Society took on an unprecedented legal battle against what was scheduled to be the third largest hog factory in the world. The factory was to be sited on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in southern South Dakota, the second poorest reservation in the United States. In addition to the cruelty on an almost incalculable scale, it would have generated roughly three times the amount of raw sewage of the entire human population of the state of South Dakota.

Because Indian lands are exempt from state environmental laws, Bell Farms, a major hog factory corporation, entered into a joint venture with the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council to operate its proposed factory producing nearly one million pigs a year on reservation lands. However, the hog factory was subject to federal law, so the citizens' coalition, with Humane Farming Association's financial support, sued the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), challenging it for not first preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The coalition's first legal battle was successful, and the BIA was forced to halt construction of the project until such time as an EIS was prepared. In response, Bell Farms sued the BIA in federal court in South Dakota, and the citizens' coalition intervened on behalf of the BIA. Bell Farms ultimately won that round and construction was allowed to proceed without preparation of an EIS. Contrary to federal laws requiring public input, most tribal members had been kept in the dark about the venture and about the horrors of factory farming. As the coalition continued with its legal battles, it also spread the word on the reservation about the horrendous cruelty, environmental hazards, and terrible working conditions associated with hog factories. When tribal members became aware of the appalling conditions that had been invited into their community, they promptly ousted their existing Tribal Council and voted in a new Council that opposed the factory farm.

In an amazing turn, in June 2000, after a complex and tortuous two-year legal battle, the Tribe, formerly a partner in the enterprise with Bell Farms, filed a motion with the court changing its legal posture in the case, realigning itself with the citizens' coalition and the federal government-against Bell Farms. As the litigation progressed, construction on the hog factory stopped after only two of the thirteen sites were built.

The citizens' coalition, the BIA, and the Tribe appealed the South Dakota judge's ruling in the Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2002, in an astounding victory, the Circuit Court reversed the judge's decision and ruled in the coalition's favor and refused to rehear Bell's case. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court upheld the winning appeal by declining to review Bell's appeal. This means that Bell Farms has no right to operate on Rosebud lands.

On March 6th, 2003, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Council voted unanimously to shut down the two sites that had been built and remove them from tribal land. The Tribe then formally asked the BIA to provide assistance in initiating legal proceedings to evict Bell from the reservation. The BIA has yet to decide whether it will help the Tribe or not.

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Please help by asking Assistant Secretary Martin to shut down the two Bell sites operating on Rosebud lands. Letters should be addressed to:

The Honorable Aurene Martin
Acting Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1849 C Street, NW
MIB 4140
Washington, DC 20240.

Read a history of the Rosebud struggle in Part V of The Price We Pay for Corporate Hogs, by Marlene Halverson, at www.iatp.org/hogreport/. Visit the Rosebud Sioux Tribe website www.rosebudsiouxtribe.org. Read Tracy Basile's interview with Rosalie Little Thunder at www.satyamag.com/may02/basile.html.

Syndicate content