AWI Quarterly

Another Dealer is Exposed for Illegally Acquiring Dogs for

 As many as 1,000 former racing greyhounds may have been acquired fraudulently by a USDA-licensed Class B, random source, dealer and sold for experimental purposes. The owners of the dogs were led to believe the animals would be adopted to homes; instead the dealer, Daniel Shonka, sold them to laboratories for $300-400 each.

Allegedly most of the dogs were sold to Guidant Corporation, a cardiac research facility and manufacturer of implantable pacemakers and defibrillators. The dogs were used for experimental purposes at the company's site in St. Paul, Minnesota. Research facilities that want to ensure they do not get stolen or fraudulently acquired dogs and cats should not use Class B random source dealers.

Most of the dogs Shonka sold for experimentation have been killed, but approximately 100 may still be alive at Guidant. The laboratory is reversing the experimental procedures it conducted on the dogs and is releasing them. Some of the dogs have had surgically implanted wires removed and after recovering from the surgery, the greyhounds will be adopted to good homes as initially anticipated by their owners.

Shonka, a long-time scout for the National Football League's Philadelphia Eagles, runs a kennel for racing dogs at St. Croix Meadows Greyhound Racing Track in Hudson, Wisconsin and operates his so-called adoption program from his home in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Since 1996 he has held a USDA license for his Cedar Rapids location to sell animals to laboratories, but the license does not entitle him to acquire animals by deceit. When the allegations against Shonka surfaced in April, he disconnected his home and business telephone.

No charges have been filed yet, but the USDA, Wisconsin Division of Gaming and the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation are investigating Shonka. Adoption of the Pet Safety and Protection Act, currently pending in Congress, would prevent this illicit supply of dogs and cats for experimentation.

Photo, Note the fresh surgical scars on Biscuit and Saucy, who were among the first greyhounds released by Guidant Research Laboratory.  Having survived the ordeal, they are now together in a loving home.

Trendy Talbots Tied to Tasteless Sales

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has recently released a report revealing the link between Talbots clothing stores and the sale of whale, porpoise and dolphin products across Japan by their parent company JUSCO, one of Japan's largest supermarket operators. Talbots Inc., a retailer of women's specialty clothing since 1947, owns and operates 733 stores in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. In June 1988, JUSCO USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Japanese retail conglomerate JUSCO Co. Ltd. (JUSCO), purchased the Talbots franchise. JUSCO USA currently owns approximately 58.1% of the outstanding common stock in Talbots.

Since JUSCO acquired majority ownership of the Talbots chain in 1988, more than a quarter of a million whales, dolphins and porpoises have been killed by Japanese hunters in poorly regulated and unsustainable hunts. JUSCO's large distribution chain has enabled the Japanese whale and dolphin hunting industry to thrive in spite of repeated international censure.

EIA's recent investigations in Japan have established that JUSCO's supermarket chain is a large distributor of whale and dolphin meat and blubber, with products being sold in hundreds of stores throughout Japan. EIA surveyed 388 JUSCO owned supermarkets in Japan and found that almost half sold whale meat. Subsequent site visits across Japan revealed whale, dolphin or porpoise meat on sale in 22 out of 37 stores. JUSCO supermarkets sell whale meat from protected minke whales hunted in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary and the Pacific Ocean; they also sell dolphin and porpoise meat from coastal populations that are threatened or in decline. DNA analysis of samples taken from JUSCO supermarkets revealed minke whale, bottlenose dolphin, Dall's porpoise, short-finned pilot whale and sei whale (a species that has been internationally protected since 1986).

Not only does JUSCO USA own Talbots, the two companies are also closely united in corporate governance. Four of the nine Directors on the Talbots Board hold key executive offices within JUSCO or JUSCO USA. Talbots is inextricably linked to JUSCO, and EIA is calling on the Board of Talbots to persuade its parent company (JUSCO) to ban the sale of all whale, dolphin and porpoise products in its stores permanently.

ACTION Tell Talbots they have a whale of a problem! Write to Talbots CEO Arnold Zetcher: One Talbots Drive, Hingham, MA 02043 or fax him at (781) 741-4369 and ask him to demand that JUSCO permanently ban the sale of cetacean products in its stores. Log on to for more information and to send an automatic webfax to the CEO of Talbots.

Animal Dealers Arrested and Convicted

Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Division perform invaluable services in capturing criminal animal dealers and following each case to its conclusion. "Operation Chameleon" has resulted in the conviction of over 20 smugglers and reptile dealers in three countries. In 1992, a major Florida reptile dealer, Tom Crutchfield, was arrested and convicted.

Meantime, the prestigious San Diego Zoo had been augmenting its collection through trafficking in rare and endangered reptiles. Earl Thomas Schultz, former Curator of Reptiles, admitted he had misappropriated more than $100,000 of the zoo's money, but used it to "the zoo's benefit and to enhance its reptile collection. Much of the money was used for gifts to dealers." According to The San Diego Union Tribune, "He conducted all transactions in cash, some of which he kept at home." Schultz testified, "I was following directions… I did not take [the money] from the San Diego Zoo."

The Special Agents of FWS Law Enforcement Division have earned the appreciation of all of us who strive to protect endangered species, and they deserve strong support from the Congress and the Administration.

Humane Slaughter Act Resolution Introduced

In 1958, Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman W.R. Poage shepherded the Humane Slaughter Act through the national legislative process. Over forty years later, with great disappointment, it is increasingly evident that the law is being flouted at large slaughter plants across the country. Today, corporate slaughter lines move with such rapidity that every animal cannot be stunned properly and rendered unconscious before being hoisted by a hind leg, violently skinned and brutally dismembered.

To address this horrifying situation, Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R, IL) has sponsored a concurrent resolution "Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958 should be fully enforced so as to prevent the needless suffering of animals."

Although enacted over forty years ago, public interest over this issue still runs high today. In April, a Washington Post investigative report entitled "Modern Meat/A Brutal Harvest," revealed that there are "repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses" and that USDA inspectors have little support from USDA in enforcing the law. According to the paper, "the USDA has stopped tracking the number of violations and dropped all mentions of humane slaughter from its list of rotating tasks for inspectors." Senator Fitzgerald, in his statement on the Senate floor, lamented the practical impact of the USDA's futility in inspecting facilities and recording violations: "This is simply unacceptable. We cannot manage nor regulate what we do not monitor nor measure."

Thus, S. Con. Res. 45 requests that Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman fully enforce the 1958 law to prevent needless animal suffering, resume tracking Humane Slaughter Act violations and report the USDA's findings to Congress annually. It further reiterates, "it should be the policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods." Representatives Constance Morella (R, MD) and Elton Gallegly (R, CA) have introduced a companion resolution in the House of Representatives, H. Con. Res. 175.

During the Congressional deliberations on the original humane slaughter bill in the '50s, Congressman Poage noted that the meat packing industry, "up until a few months ago [had] done practically nothing to meet the requirement of human kindness, and even decency in the slaughtering of animals." It's truly sad that Congress has to remind the USDA and slaughterhouse industry again of the need for basic compassion. The cruelty inflicted on animals in 2001 is even worse than it was when Poage lamented.

Animal Welfare Institute QUARTERLY Summer 2002 Volume 51 Number 3


About the Cover

Sighted off the Azores in the North Atlantic, an extremely rare 13-foot-long white sperm whale calf swims with his mother. Sperm whales are the largest toothed whales - adult males can be fifty feet long and weigh forty tons. Photographer Flip Nicklin could not determine whether this real-life baby "Moby Dick's" eyes were pink, but the calf appears to be a pure albino. Despite his dolphin smile he's in grave danger from his mother's milk, which may be contaminated by absorbed chemicals, heavy metals, and other noxious substances, as a result of ocean pollution. Other threats come from ship strikes, being caught in entangling fishing nets, and whaling. The Japanese kill sperm whales today under the guise of "scientific research," but whale meat and oil end up for sale in Japan. In May 2002, Japan hosted a remarkably contentious meeting of the International Whaling Commission, established in 1946 to regulate commercial whaling. (See story pages 4-5.)

Marjorie Cooke
Roger Fouts, Ph.D.
David O. Hill
Fredrick Hutchison
Cathy Liss
Christine Stevens
Cynthia Wilson

Christine Stevens, President
Cynthia Wilson, Vice President
Fredrick Hutchison, CPA, Treasurer
Marjorie Cooke, Secretary

Scientific Committee
Marjorie Anchel, Ph.D.
Gerard Bertrand, Ph.D.
F. Barbara Orlans, Ph.D.
Roger Payne, Ph.D.
Samuel Peacock, M.D.

International Committee
Aline de Aluja, D.M.V., Mexico
Ambassador Tabarak Husain, Bangladesh
Angela King, United Kingdom
Godofredo Stutzin, Chile
Agnes Van Volkenburgh, Poland
Alexey Yablokov, Ph.D., Russia

Staff and Consultants
Ava Armendariz, Publications Coordinator
Amy Conklin, Administrative Assistant
John Gleiber, Assistant to the Officers
Diane Halverson, Farm Animal Advisor
Christopher J.  Heyde, Research Associate
Lynne Hutchison, Executive Secretary
Cathy Liss, Executive Director
Nell Naughton, Mail Order Secretary
Greta Nilsson, Wildlife Consultant
Viktor Reinhardt, D.M.V., Ph.D.,  Laboratory Animal Advisor
Jennifer Rinick, Research Assistant
Adam M. Roberts, Senior Research Associate
Wendy Swann, Research Associate
Ben White, Special Projects 

  Table of Contents


Take a Bite Out of the Toothfish Trade

Japan Stymied on Home Turf: IWC 2002,
by Ben White

New Book by Whaler Exposes Cheating

Corral the Coral Trade

Zebra and other animals were killed with AK-47s while drinking from natural dams in Loliondo. ( Adam M. Roberts/AWI)

Environmental Crime - the Globe's Second Largest Illegal Enterprise

Australia Serves up Increased Kangaroo Exports

Koalas Must be Protected

The Killing Fields of Loliondo,
by Meitamei Ole Dapash

Elephants Still Under the Gun,
by Adam M. Roberts

Jose Lutzenberger, a Man of Principle and Wisdom


NABR's Misinformation Cripples Animal Welfare and Scientific Integrity,
by Christopher J. Heyde

Chefs and environmentalists endorse AWI's criteria requiring that pigs be allowed to behave naturally. ( Diane Halverson/AWI)

AWI's Pig Husbandry Program Sets a National Standard

Considering Cruel Chicken Confinement

Animal Factories Don't Want You to See Their Cruelty

Congress Wants the Humane Slaughter Act Enforced

15,500,000 Laying Hens at Stake


Moja the Artist,
by Dr. Roger and Deborah Fouts


Comfortable Quarters for Laboratory Animals

One of the rescued wild elephant orphans, Icholta, takes a cool mud bath. ( Gerry Ellis)

Wild Orphans,
by Adam M. Roberts

My Fine Feathered Friend,
by Christine Stevens
Comments? Questions? Click Here

rBGH Reconsidered


By Chris Bedford

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) was the first genetically engineered food product to be sold in the United States. Approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration on November 5, 1994, rBGH has played a significant role in the industrialization of dairy production which has serious implications for animal welfare and poses a serious health threat to consumers. In the last year, new information has come to light on rBGH which raises important questions about the efficacy and the ethics of the FDA approval process itself.

What it does

rBGH, also known as BST (for Bovine Somatotropin) and Posilac (Monsanto's product name), is injected by needle into cows every two weeks to increase individual animal milk production (by weight) from 10 to 15 percent. rBGH can extend lactation periods for up to three times their normal length. The current rBGH record is 1,374 days of milk production during a single lactation.

Bovine growth hormone (BGH) is a normal product of the pituitary gland of cows. rBGH, a synthetic version of BGH, is produced by snipping a piece of cow DNA that carries the code for (r)BGH and inserting it into the DNA of e-coli bacteria.

The unnatural extension of lactation produced by rBGH severely affects the cow by doubling the metabolic stress from the onset of lactation and draining her of needed nutrients, particularly calcium. Use of rBGH also stimulates production of another bovine hormone, Insulin Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) by up to 80%. In turn, IGF-1 is secreted into the milk in increased levels.  

The increased stress combined with the presence of IGF-1 increases the frequency of clinical mastitis, a very painful condition of the cow's udder. The warning label on Monsanto's Posilac explicitly states, "Cows injected with Posilac are at increased risk for clinical mastitis." Increased incidence of mastitis, in turn, necessitates increased use of antibiotics which can pass through to the milk. Currently, only four out of 82 commercially used antibiotics are tested for on a regular basis. A Wall Street Journal investigation found 20% of milk tested had illegal antibiotics present. Other studies have found 38% higher levels. These antibiotics can contribute to antibiotic resistance in human consumers.

The increased stress combined with IGF-1, a known human health hazard, is at the center of the new information. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval is based on an assertion that BST and IGF-1 is destroyed by the pasteurization process.

But normal pasteurization heats milk to 168 degrees for 15 seconds to destroy bacteria and other contaminants. The FDA approval study, conducted by a Canadian undergraduate named Paul Groenewegen from Guelph, Canada, cooked the milk for 30 minutes, one hundred and twenty times longer than commercial production practice. According to Groenewegen, only 19% of the rBGH and IGF-1 were destroyed in the FDA study's extended pasteurization process, not the 90% claimed by the agency.

In addition, activist Robert Cohen has uncovered information that suggests that Monsanto's rBGH formula approved and tested by the FDA was different from the one now on the market. If this is true, it makes the entire FDA approval process invalid. Small family dairy farmers, animal welfare activists, environmentalists, consumers and others have focused on this improper approval process in an effort to have Posilac withdrawn from the market.

rBGH in the European Union

In November, 1999, the European Commission adopted a measure that would permanently ban the use of rBGH in Europe. This action, announced by Commissioner David Byrne before a European Parliament hearing on November 24, 1999, represents the final act of a six-year struggle over rBGH use.

On December 20, 1994, the European Commission prohibited the marketing and use of rBGH, also in the European Union until December 31, 1999. The prohibition was enacted to give two EC scientific advisory bodies time to study the impact of rBGH use on animal welfare and public health. One of those committees, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, examined the effects of rBGH use on (1) the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and (2) the overall effect of rBGH use on dairy production.

On March 10, 1999, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare issued a 90-page report that concluded, "BST (rBGH) use causes a substantial increase in levels of foot problems and mastitis and leads to injection site reactions in dairy cows. These conditions, especially the first two, are painful and debilitating, leading to significantly poorer welfare in the treated animals. Therefore from the point of view of animal welfare, including health, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare is of the opinion that BST should not be used in dairy cows."

Monsanto, with support from the U.S. government, sought to counter these European actions by having the rBGH ban declared an illegal restraint of trade under GATT. But before such a charge could be brought under the treaty, international standards for rBGH use had to be established. On June 30, 1999, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, meeting in Rome, Italy failed to agree on an international standard for the Maximum Residue Level (MRL) for rBGH in milk. This ruling effectively stopped the GATT complaint by the United States and gave a green light to bans on rBGH by individual countries and the European Union.

Right now, rBGH is licensed for use only in Mexico, the United States and South Africa.

--Small family dairy farmers, animal welfare activists, environmentalists, consumers and others have focused on this improper approval process in an effort to have rBGH withdrawn from the market.

Photo, rBGH makes cows extremely susceptible to mastitis infections.  Note the enormously enlarged udder and the cow's depressed demeanor.

WTO and Sea Turtles Clash Again and Again

Turtles symbolize the over-reaching impact of globalization and the corporate usurpation of "free trade." This, after the Animal Welfare Institute led protestors through the streets of Seattle, Washington and Washington, DC in public demonstration against the damaging application of the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) obscure trade rules on animal welfare, conservation and environmental legislation.

US law requires shrimp trawlers to employ turtle-excluder devices (TEDs), which prevent turtles from drowning in shrimp nets. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates "that TEDs are effective at excluding up to 97% of sea turtles" from shrimp nets.

No shrimp may be imported into America from countries not certified as having sound comparable regulatory policies involving the use of TEDs by shrimp trawlers, unless shrimp harvesting does not involve sea turtles. This TEDs law was challenged by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand in 1996 as an unfair barrier to free trade.

Article XX of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which established the WTO) allows for ten exceptions to international trade dealings, including measures "relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources." However, it must also be determined that such a regulation is not applied arbitrarily or discriminately. The WTO decided that the US sea turtle law was necessary to conserve natural resources, but the implementation of the law was arbitrary and unjustifiably discriminated against the WTO member countries that brought the case.

To comply with this unaccountable international trade body's ruling, the US amended its regulations, easing the requirements for compliance, enhancing due process by communicating directly with nations requesting certification to export shrimp to the US, offering technical assistance to countries requesting it and negotiating multilateral sea turtle conservation agreements. The National Marine Fisheries Service even held training workshops in Pakistan and Australia.

Dissatisfied with America's extensive efforts, Malaysia argued that its "exporters continue to suffer a loss of export opportunities and market share in the United States for wild-harvested shrimp due to the prolonged import prohibition" and appealed to a new WTO Panel. On June 15, 2001, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body upheld America's revised turtle protection measures.

While the US went through various machinations to comply with the original WTO ruling, Malaysia never even attempted to attain certification as a nation that could export shrimp to the US. 

Under the WTO, countries should be treated equally. Malaysia and the recent Dispute Panel itself treat the US decidedly differently. The Panel concludes, for instance, "given its scientific, diplomatic and financial means, it is reasonable to expect rather more than less from the [US] in terms of serious good faith efforts." So as a relatively wealthy nation, the US must meet higher standards in order to apply its own domestic legislation to protect animals-the very type of unequal treatment about which Malaysia complains.

Further, Malaysia defended the rights of "sovereign harvesting nations" by arguing that it was unfair for the US to determine unilaterally what conditions must be met in order to export shrimp to America. But if Malaysia suggests that it loses sovereignty by having to do certain things to gain access to the US market, surely it would agree that the US loses its own sovereignty without the power to set its own import regulations to protect endangered species.

The recent Panel ruling suggests that animals and the environment can be protected under the WTO-the outstanding question is whether we should have to endure five years of legal wrangling and other contortions in order to apply this much needed animal protection. And, of course, Malaysia can appeal once more.

Caption:  Hawksbill sea turtles, like other turtle species (green, loggerhead, flatback, leatherback, olive ridley, and Kemp's ridley) are in danger of extinction. US leadership and international protection are vital to their long-term survival. (Ursula Keuper-Bennett/

In Remembrance of Nick Carter


Nick Carter's death on March 16th in Zambia marked the loss of a dedicated and passionate conservationist. His work took him all over the world from London's emergency animal clinics in the 1950s to the Far East and Africa to investigate wildlife smuggling and illegal whaling. His painstaking investigations to expose pirate whaling operations gained him recognition in the 1970s and led to the seizure in South Africa of two whaling ships before their maiden voyages. Countless endangered whales were saved.

In 1994, Nick was a recipient of AWI's Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Law Enforcement Award for his last project, the Lusaka Agreement, a unique African initiative establishing a multinational Task Force to fight cross-border wildlife crime. Working quietly behind the scenes he shepherded the idea from paper to reality over 8 years, winning the Goldman Environmental Award in 1997. Instead of keeping the $75,000 prize, he gave it away, helping to establish a Fighting Wildlife Crime Fund. This was typical of Nick. He died owning nothing of value but his books. His personal needs came last. Work was his life. His wisdom, strength of purpose and clear sense of right inspired many. His death leaves a vacuum, but the legacy of his work and the motivation he inspired in others will ensure his spirit lives on.

—Rosalind Reeve

I want to add a note about one of Nick's brilliant ideas: He took a small ad in a journal for maritime engineers asking readers to communicate with him about any information they might have on pirate whalers. Wonderfully, he received a message from the engineer employed by a pirate whaler. The engineer bravely videotaped the piracy, including an endangered humpback whale being dragged up the slipway, butchered, and boxed for the Japanese market. The tape was shown widely on European television to great effect.

—Christine Stevens

The Farm Bureau Prediction on China


According to the May 2000 issue of Multinational Monitor, Alex Jackson speaking for the American Farm Bureau says, "China is our number one growth market in the world." Wheat, corn, soybeans and meat are expected to be the biggest "market gainers." Jackson claims that by 2020 "China could account for a quarter of all U.S. agricultural exports."

Caribbean Conservation Treaty Spawned

By Adam M. Roberts

Hundreds of species in the Wider Caribbean Region-including the American crocodile, Hawksbill sea turtle, Brown pelican, Cuba Sandhill crane, St. Lucia parrot, Spectacled bear, Giant armadillo, Cuvier's beaked whales, bottle-nosed dolphins and corals-have gained new protection under a Protocol to the Cartagena Convention concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW). When twenty-eight nations signed SPAW in Kingston, Jamaica in January 1990, they did so "conscious of the grave threat posed by ill-conceived development options to the integrity of the marine and coastal environment of the Wider Caribbean Region."

Unlike other multi-lateral conservation treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), SPAW not only protects species by prohibiting trade in wildlife, but also by prohibiting fishing, hunting or harvesting of threatened and endangered species, and by calling on Parties to designate protected areas in their sovereign jurisdiction to sustain "the natural resources of the Wider Caribbean Region." Parties shall, for example, "regulate activities, to the extent possible, that could have harmful effects on the habitats of the species." The protected region under SPAW extends throughout the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and areas off the Atlantic coast of Florida.

According to an analysis of SPAW by the United Nations Environment Programme, "248 out of the 481 species covered by, or proposed to be covered by the SPAW Protocol are also currently regulated under CITES." This means that 233 out of the 481 species addressed under SPAW gain international protection that would not exist were it not for this valuable Treaty.

Nine countries that signed the Protocol officially have ratified it: Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, the Netherlands, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Panama, Venezuela, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago. These Parties have historically advocated weak positions on wildlife conservation and endangered species protection. At the most recent meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in Nairobi, Kenya, the Cuban delegation worked tirelessly (though, thankfully, unsuccessfully) to reopen the international trade in hawksbill turtle shell at the behest of Japan, the primary market for products made from turtle shell, called "bekko." The representative from the Dominican Republic spoke out in favor of this failed proposal. Cuba and St. Vincent and the Grenadines also spoke out in support of a Japanese proposal at CITES to downlist gray whales. Without the involvement and vote of the United States in SPAW there may be no strong conservation voice during the deliberations of the Parties to SPAW. In fact, Cuba is scheduled to host the first important meeting of the Parties this September.

The Treaty was originally transmitted to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 20, 1993 and has lain dormant there for eight years now. Then Secretary of State Warren Christopher testified: "All concerned agencies in the Executive Branch strongly support early ratification of the Protocol....I recommend, therefore, that the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean Region be transmitted to the Senate as soon as possible for its advice and consent to ratification...."

Now, there is an immediate imperative for the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification to enable the United States to have a vote during the Parties' Havana Conference. The State Department, which sends to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a letter every two years outlining the Administration's Treaty priorities, has assured us that SPAW will be toward the top of that priority list. Unfortunately, other, more controversial Treaties, are slowing down the submission of that letter.

The looming question is whether the Foreign Relations Committee will agree to move the Treaty under the new leadership of Senator Joseph Biden (D,DE), who has assisted nobly in saving dolphins from tuna nets.  If it does, will the Senate approve it, will the President ratify it, and will it be submitted to the depositary government, Colombia, in time for the US to have a vote during the first meeting?

Before the historic Party switch of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, the Chairman of the Committee was Republican Jesse Helms. On May 15, 2001, New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith sent a letter to Helms encouraging swift action on the Treaty. "The SPAW Protocol will enhance substantially the ability of nations in the Caribbean region to protect indigenous wildlife and the habitats on which these species depend," wrote Senator Smith. The new Senate leadership should listen to Bob Smith and others in support of the SPAW Protocol and approve it without delay.


Seals are one of the many animals protected under SPAW, Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife. (Kip Evans/NMFS)

Bottlenosed Dolphins, the largest of the beaked dolphins, inhabit shallow, coastal waters, and have been traded live from Cuba, the US and Mexico to Portugal, Spain, Honduras, and elsewhere. (J. Stafford-Deitshch)

Vibrantly plumed scarlet macaws are subjected to illegal international trade and are at risk from the destruction of their forest homes. (Dave G. Houser/CORBIS)

Endangered ocelots, mainly hunted for their fur, inhabit jungles, marshes, and tropical rainforests from the United States, through Mexico and Central America, down through Argentina. (Tom Brakefield/CORBIS)

Syndicate content