By Rebecca Rolwing - Associated Press Writer
ALBUQUERQUE- An efficient solution is proposed for up to 200 African antelope trapped at the White Sands National Monument in southern New Mexico: quick, fatal shots to the heart.
The large, horned oryxes were brought to the adjoining White Sands Millile Range in 1969 to be hunted. Over the years the herd has grown to 2,500 strong and some drifted to the national park's 275 square miles of white sand dunes.
The animals at the park have become a nuisance. State officials are recommending the majestic, humped animals be killed and their hide, meat and heads--with straight or slightly curved horn--be sold.
The proceeds, by law, would go into a game protection fund. The irony is not lost on Animal Protection of New Mexico, whic his furious.
"It's particularly bad that we introduced them into that area and when they went into an area that we don't want, then the solution is to shoot them," Executive Director Elisabeth Jennings said.
One proposal would have New Mexico Department of Game and Fish hunters shoot the animals after Easter.
"They're agressive animals-a game warden was mauled by one and they have attacked vehicles," said Bill Conrod, resource management specialist at White Sands National Monument. "They're mean, they can fend off the biggest African predators."
They're also beautiful creatures whose presence is appreciated by most at the military base. "It is quite an animal to see," said Patrick Morrow, a wildlife biologist for White Sands Missile Range.
An $885,000, 68-foot mile fence was built in 1996 to keep the oryxes out of the national park, a parched environment of sand and desert plants.
While it worked for the most part, a herb of 100 to 200 animals became trapped inside the gate, upsetting the ecosystem and threatening native animals, Conrod said.
"They eat native plants, they eat cactus, they eat anything, " he said.
And they multiply at a steady rate. removing the animals from the park will allow the vegetation and soil conditions to recover and will avert a future of oryx overpopulation and eventual starvation, Conrod said.
A plan that proposed five options to deal with the animals is being drafted and will be submitted for public review soon, Conrod said.
Wildlife officials could shoot the animals, drive them from the monument or use dart guns and drugs to capture and remove the beasts. Other options include constructing a one-way fence, "praying" the animals go through it and doing nothing, Conrod said.
The monument prefers to have the animals shot as an efficient, cost-effective plan for animals that were brought to the area to be hunted.
Jennings said her organization recommends a nonlethal method of removing.
The Las Cruces district office of the state Game and Fish Department supports the park's preference, said Lee Duff, district wildlife supervisor.
Still, there are dissenters within the department. Jerry Maracchini, state game and fish director, said he prefers moving the animals out of the park alive.
"If it's cost-effective and environmentally sound, I'd prefer them to be trapped and moved out," he said.
Hunters have been brought in for years to shoot oryxes that wander off the military base, Morrow said.
This fall, permits will be issued to 515 hunters and about 700 will likely be issued in 1999, officials said.
Contact:
1. Superintendent; White Sands National Monument; PO Box 1086; Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico 88330; (505) 479-6124; email: whsa_interpretation@nps.gov
2, Robert G. Stanton, Director, National Park Service; PO Box 37127; Washington DC 20013 (202) 208-6843; email: bob_stanton@nps.gov
3. John E. Cook; Regional Director; National Park Service; 12795 East Alameda Parkway; Denver CO 80225; (303) 969-2500; email: john_cook@nps.gov
4. Bruce Babbitt; Secretary of the Interior;1849 C St NW; Washington DC 20240; (202) 208-3100 email: bruce_babbitt@ios.doi.gov
5. Mr. Jerry Maracchini; Director; New Mexico Department of Fish and Game; 3841 Midway Place NE; Albuquerque, NM 87101; (505) 841-8881;
email: j_maracchini@gmfs.state.nm.us
Web site: www.gmfsh.st.nm.us
6. Animal Protectin of New Mexico; PO Box 11395; Albuquerque, New Mexico 87192; (505) 265-2322; email: AnimalNM@aol.com
SNOWMOBILE HUNT CLAIMS HUNDREDS OF WOLVES
Feb. 26, '98 The Globe and Mail
By Alanna Mitchell
CALGARY -- According to this story, about a dozen native hunters have killed 460 wolves so far this winter in the Northwest Territories in what biologists fear may be one of the biggest and most concentrated commercial wolf hunts in Canadian history. Many of the wolves, the story says citing conservation officers and biologists who oversee the subarctic area, were being chased to death by hunters riding snowmobiles. The hunters track down a pack of wolves, manoeuvre them onto a frozen expanse of tundra, and then, as the animals search vainly for somewhere to hide, chase them until they collapse from exhaustion. Then the hunters shoot them.
The story says that the final tally of wolves killed will be significantly higher than 460 by the end of the season. Several hunters who are expected to be making large kills have not yet prepared the skins for export, so have not been included in the count. The massive hunt is being driven by an unusually strong appetite for fur in the fashion industry and by hefty prices for wolf in the international fur market. As well, the wolves seem to be congregating in the lower Northwest Territories this winter as they follow caribou herds.
The story cites biologists as calling the kill a "local genocide," and say a hunt on that scale has far-reaching, dire implications for Canada's wolf population if it keeps up. Some biologists are especially worried because the Northwest Territories government has no count of the number of wolves in the region and no data on what damage a kill of this magnitude could do to the nation's stock of wolves.
Contact:
The Hon. Don Morin, Premier
Government of the Northwest Territories
P.O. Box 1320
Yellowknife, NT, X1A 2L9
Telephone (403) 669-2311
Fax (403) 873-0385
don_morin@gov.nt.ca
The Hon. Stephen Kakfwi
Minister of Wildlife
P.O. Box 1320
Yellowknife, NT, X1A2L9
Telephone (403) 669-2366
Fax (403) 873-0169
stephen_kakfwi@gov.nt.ca
The Hon. Christine Stewart
Minister of Environment Canada
Centre Blk. Rm. 103-S
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Telephone (819) 997-1441
Fax (819) 953-3457
Be advised, the above authorities will not likely be sympathetic. This update was received:
March 7, 1998
YELLOWKNIFE (CP) - In what may be another clash of values between North and South, the
government of the Northwest Territories is defending a wolf hunt being criticized as cruel
and unsustainable.
"That's probably an unfair characterization," said Bob McLeod, assistant deputy minister of wildlife and economic development.
"In that part of the country you have to understand the geography and you have to understand the people. I don't expect people in Toronto or Europe to understand the people or the geography."
Records show that aboriginal hunters, most based in northern Saskatchewan, have killed at least 460 wolves this year in the Rennie Lake area about 150 kilometres north of the Saskatchewan boundary.
Many of the wolves are being hunted from snowmobiles, with some being chased until exhausted and then shot - a practice illegal in every other province and territory.
Steady demand for wolf fur from the fashion industry has made the hunt worthwhile for hunters. A wolf pelt can bring a hunter between $250 and $350.
FEDS DESTROY WOLF PACK LEADER
Dear Lodge, Montana-
The female leader of a wolf pack that has killed at least 14 head of livestock since 1994 has been destroyed by federal officials, who say they hope her mate and cubs now will stick with wild game.
The wolf was shot Saturday Feb. 28th after federal agents used an airplane and a helicopter to track her radio collar.
To voice your outrage:
CONTACT:
1. Bruce Babbitt
Secretary of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington DC 20240
(202) 208-3100
bruce_babbitt@ios.doi.gov
2. Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service: Jamie R. Clark (this is a
"Ms."); same address as Bruce Babbitt;
(202) 208-4717; fax: (202) 208-6965;
jamie_clark@MAIL.FWS.GOV
3. Mr. LaVerne Smith,
Chief, National Endangered Species Section
452 Arlington Square Building
Washington, DC 20240
(703) 358-2171
fax: (202) 208-6916
laverne_smith@MAIL.FWS.GOV
4. Ralph Morgenweck
Regional Director, Region 6
134 Union Blvd
Lakewood, CO 80215
(303) 236-7920
fax: (303) 236-8295
ralph_morgenweck@MAIL.FWS.GOV
5. Mr. Olin Bray
Region 6 Chief of Endangered Species
PO Box 25486
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-7400 x 249
fax: (303) 236-0027
olin_bray@MAIL.FWS.GOV
6. WEB Reply@MAIL.FWS.GOV (this is for your
reaction to a wildlife issue)
7. Craig Rieben
USFWS Office of Public Affairs; no address given
(202) 208-5611;
craig_rieben@mail.fws.gov
US Fish and Wildlife Service Website: http://www.fws.gov
March 3, 1998
Contact: Ben White, (808) 885-7295.
ACTIVISTS DIVE IN TO STOP SONIC BLASTING OF WHALES
Volunteers determined to halt controversial sonar tests that the Navy is conducting off the Hawaiian coast—tests which use highly endangered humpback whales as targets—sailed out this morning with the intention of getting in the Navy’s way. The planned test involves blasting dangerously loud, low-frequency sounds at the whales—even those who are nursing and calving—until the whales show signs of “acute distress.”
Animal advocates, environmentalists and respected scientists alike have condemned the tests, saying that the incredibly high-volume noise will seriously impair the whale’s reproductive behavior and could cause severe injury; further, many have questioned the tests’ necessity in the post-Cold War era.
The intense blasts of sound could reach up to 150 decibels at the Navy’s discretion, or even be increased to 215 decibels with the approval of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Whale experts say that sound this loud will cause deafness and severe lung trauma, and that the whales might not show outward signs of distress that the Navy can observe.
Since the Navy’s protocol says that the tests cannot be conducted if there are human swimmers are in the water within five miles of the test site, activists who are opposed to this harrrassment of whales are putting themselves between the Navy and the whales. A group of volunteers left Kawai Hae Boat Harbor this morning, aboard the sailboat Mai Le and several small boats. Ben White, of the Animal Welfare Institute, said, “If the Navy insists on blasting endangered whales with sound, but will stop if humans are close, it would appear that that’s where we ought to be.”
March 4, 1998
Contact: Ben White (808) 885-7295
Protesters Halt Navy Tests--For Now
Opponents of the U.S. Navy’s plan to blast humpback whales with deafening levels of low-frequency sound succeeded yesterday in stopping the Navy from going forward. As planned, activists were in the water near a Navy research vessel so the incredibly high-decibel sound source was not employed (the test cannot proceed while human swimmers are nearby).
Fifteen miles off the northern Kona Coast of the Big Island of Hawaii, the Animal Welfare Institute’s Ben White and local activist Miguel Hughes immersed themselves in the ocean near the Navy ship Cory Chouest, from which the intense, lung-shearing beams of sound were to be projected. White held aloft a boathook with two flags attached: one, an earth flag, and the other, the state flag of Hawaii.
The planned test is to take place in the middle of the whales' calving and breeding area, at the height of their calving and breeding season. Aside from the severe injury and distress the targeted whales could suffer from the blasts of sound, the test could seriously impair the whales' reproductive behavior, increasing the jeopardy this highly endangered species is in.
White said, "we'll have a boat out at all times, and cycle volunteers so that there’s always someone in the water." Another possibility is to bring musicians out, to play music into the water—frustrating the Navy’s effort to detect the singing humpbacks.
Congress Considers Leghold Trap Ban
There are twin bills in the U.S. Congress that would ban the Steel Jawed Leghold Trap, which is used to trap fur-bearing animals for their fur. (It also traps at least three times as many "non-target" animals, including domestic animals, endangered species and yes, even humans.)
The House bill is H.R. 1176 and has 76 co-sponsors. (They are: Abercrombie, Ackerman, Andrews, Berman, Bilbray, Blumenauer, Brown, Campbell, Capps, Clay, Davis, DeFazio, Dellums, Deutsch, Dixon, Eshoo, Farr, Fawell, Fazio, Filner, Foglietta, Ford, Frank, Franks, Furse, Gallegly, Gejdenson, Gilman, Goss, Horn, Hyde, Kennedy, Kennelly, Lantos, Levin, Lewis, Maloney, Manton, Markey, Martinez, Matsui, Meehan, Mink, Moran, Morella, Nadler, Neal, Norton, Olver, Owens, Pascrell, Pelosi, Pickett, Porter, Price, Rothman, Roybal-Allard, Schiff, Shaw, Shays, Skaggs, Slaughter, Smith, Stark, Tierney, Torres, Towns, Traficant, Vento, Waxman, Weldon, Wexler, Weygand, Whitfield, Woolsey, Yates)
If your representative is not on this list, write and ask him/her to co-sponsor this bill. Rep. ---------- House Office Building Washington D.C. 20515
A companion bill, S. 1557, has been introduced in the Senate. So far, six states have already banned the barbaric leghold trap, but a national law would spare all animals nationwide from this evil device .
Please write to your two U.S. Senators and ask them to co-sponsor S 1557.
On Monday, March 2, 1998 the Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture met under the ploy of reviewing the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife's activities in implementing Question 1, the 1996 ballot measure that - banned cruel trapping methods, - banned baiting and hunting bears with dogs, and - eliminated the requirement that hunters control the Fisheries and Wildlife Board.
Instead the Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture heard nearly 4 straight hours of legislator and F&W attack on the MA Wildlife Act, in their attempt to repeal the Act. A minimum amount of time was allocated to Wildlife Protection Act (Question 1) supporters's testimony.
Prior to passage and after passage of Question 1, the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (which is controlled entirely by hunting interests and which is responsible for the implementation of the new law) has bitterly attacked Question 1 and has fabricated a case against the measure based upon public misconception of beaver breeding habits (Beavers do not breed to infinite numbers in one location), and coyote predatory habits (There are no known cases of coyotes attacking humans).
Moreover, the F&W have been negligent in installing piping which would have alleviated beaver related ponding (and normal water run-off) problems in those flood zone areas where people purchased houses from unscrupulous developers who built houses in flood prone areas.
Massachusetts residents in particular are urged to write their representatives:
1) write your own Sen & Rep a short, sweet letter stating why the ban on leghold traps/ban on bear baiting/ ban on hunter requirement for F&W board seats should not be repealed. Your Rep & Sen need to be politely educated on the issue. (call the Statehouse switchboard at 617-722-2000 if you do not know your legislators' addresses/ tel #'s)
2) write/speak to the following 17 members of Massachusetts' Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee . Tell them how you feel the Department Fisheries & Wildlife is escalating the wildlife problems (not installing by-pass pipes, spreading misinformation about population problems, still selectively and wrongly allowing only hunters to the Fisheries & Wildlife board). Tell them you don't want to have to worry about companion animals, yourself, or non-target (and target) animals, in the future, being barbarically tortured by stepping on a trap.
address mailings to:
Sen. (or Rep.) xxxxxxx State House - Room xxx Boston, MA 02133
JOINT COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE
Senate Members Room # Tel (617-722-xxxx) (the last 4 digits appear by each name below)
Sen Lois G. Pines, Chair 1639
Robert Antonioni, Vice Chair 1230
Marc Pacheco 1551
Michael Morrissey 1494
Robert Creedon, Jr 1200
Bruce Tarr 1600
House Members (Representative)
Rep Douglas W. Petersen, Chair 2210 (2239 fax)
Eric Turkington, Vice Chair 2210 (2239 fax)
Stephen Kulik 2692
Pamela Resor 2060
William Straus 2210 (2239 fax)
Michael Bellotti 2582
Anthony Verga 2400
Michael Rodrigues 2030
Theodore Spillotis 2090
George Peterson 2489
Forrester Clark 2090
NOTE: Without your letters, calls, faxes, and emails - repeal of this hard-won victory for the animals, unfortunately, may occur.
Questions ? call Mary at 781-535-4023, Evelyn at 617-424-8846, or Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States 301-258-3070
***************************************************
Addition Information from PR Newswire - 3/02/98
BOSTON, March 2 /PRNewswire/ Today, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) testified before the Natural Resources and Agriculture committee of the General Court and denounced the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) for attempting to undermine Question One and to subvert the will of the voters, Voters favored Question One in November 1996 with a 64 percent majority, restricting the use of cruel and indiscriminate body-gripping traps, such as steel-jaw leghold traps, outlawing the use of hounds to hunt bears or bobcats; and liminating the quota system guaranteeing that hunters and trappers dominate the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board.
"The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife is an extension of the hunting and trapping industry, and the agency has engaged in a pattern of behavior designed to subvert the will of the people and undermines an enormously popular and effective law," states Wayne Pacelle, a vice president with The Humane Society of the United States, the chief sponsor of the initiative petition. "This executive agency, which violated the law during the 1995-96 election campaign, has continued to disregard its responsibilities under the Constitution of the Commonwealth to implement the law."
The HSUS's testimony was delivered during an oversight hearing called by the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee to review the MDFW's implementation of Question One.
"The Division has failed to provide assistance to some communities in the Commonwealth that have had conflicts with beavers, pronouncing that Question One, is unworkable. The reality is, there are effective non-lethal means of dealing with beaver conflicts, which are successfully used nationwide.
"In addition, the Division consistently misstates the provisions of Question One. Question One does not ban trapping; it simply restricts the use of body-gripping traps, such as the steel-jaw leghold trap. It permits box and cage traps, and even permits the use of body-gripping traps to protect public health and safety. It even allows private citizens to obtain the use of Conibear traps to kill beaver if other methods have been tried and failed," said Pacelle.
"There is no question that the vast minority of conflicts with beavers can be resolved without killing these remarkable animals," says Dr. John Hadidian, director of Urban Wildlife Programs for The HSUS. "In the rare cases when trapping may be needed, Question One permits non-lethal and lethal traps." Dr. Hadidian served as a research scientist with the National Park Service for more than a decade and specialized in urban wildlife issues.
Question One was approved in 14 of 15 counties in Massachusetts, in 75 percent of cities and towns, and 95 percent of state House and Senate districts in November 1996.
HSUS Calls on Ohio Governor To Nix Proposed Trap Regulations
BOWLING GREEN, Ohio, March 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest animal protection organization with 154,000 supporters in Ohio, sent a letter to Governor George Voinovich opposing regulations to be considered by the Ohio Wildlife Council that would expand the use of body-gripping traps in residential areas.
The proposed regulations seek to change wildlife control policies governing so-called "nuisance" animals, such as raccoons in the attic or woodchucks in the backyard. The proposed regulations, supported by some Nuisance Wildlife Control Officers (NWCOs), would permit the use of body-gripping traps up to 7" x 7" inside buildings; the use of snares, including strangulation devices, for any wildlife "control" activity; and the sale of pelts of furbearing mammals killed as "nuisance" animals during the regular open season with these devices and others.
"At a time when there are effective non-lethal means of dealing with wildlife problems, these regulations turn back the clock and provide incentives for wildlife control officers to kill animals, often with the most barbaric and gruesome traps," states Sandy Rowland, regional director of the Great Lakes Regional Office of The HSUS in Bowling Green, Ohio. "Sanctioning the placement of these traps in urban and suburban areas frequented by children and pets is not a sensible policy, but a prescription for placing kids and pets at risk." The HSUS has documented that body-gripping traps frequently catch non-target animals.
As wildlife return to areas from which they had been extirpated and as people encroach upon wildlife habitat, there will be increasing encounters between people and wildlife. The HSUS and other groups emphasize preventive measures first, and capture using humane box or cage traps only as a last resort.
The HSUS opposes not only the use of cruel traps, but also the sale of pelts from animals killed by NWCOs. "This pelt-sale proposal immediately places killing as the best, first option for nuisance wildlife control officers. They will use non-lethal means of wildlife control as a last resort, rather than as a first line of defense," states Dr. John Hadidian, Director of Urban Wildlife for The HSUS. A survey by the recognized firm of Critter Control determined that non-lethal solutions to wildlife conflicts are favored by people in nine of ten cases.
The HSUS will testify against the proposed regulations at the March 19 meeting of the Ohio Wildlife Council.
SOURCE Humane Society of the United States
On Feb. 5, 1997, Representative Charles Canady (R-FL) introduced H.R. 594, Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1997. H.R. 594 would do the following:
H.R. 594 currently has 70 co-sponsors. Co-sponsors are bi-partisan and consist of both animal welfare and animal rights organizations, including the Humane Society of the U.S. and the Animal Welfare Institute. The bill is currently awaiting action in the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry.
The immediate requirement is that supporters write letters to their congressional representatives urging their support for the passage of H.R. 594. A sample letter can be found at Last Chance For Animals' website.
Last Chance for Animals has also provided a link to the website of the US Congress. By simply typing his or her zip code, the supporter can quickly obtain the name and mailing address of the appropriate representatives.
Additionally, it will be particularly helpful to write letters to Representative Richard Pombo (R-CA) Chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry. Pombo, a former cattle rancher, has traditionally been non-supportive of animal welfare issues. Letters written firmly, however in a respectful, courteous tone are expected to be most effective.
The passage of HR 594 would be a tremendous step toward ending the epidemic of pet theft which is placing all our companion animals in danger.
Fur Industry PR Scam Exposed, Fur Sales Drop Despite Hype
In the fall and winter months of 1997 fur industry PR hacks managed to generate over 700 media stories pronouncing that fur was back. "Fur sales are booming!" they declared.
This was all a part of carefully designed plan to convince the public that it was once again acceptable to wear fur. Though the actual fur sales figures did not indicate that there was more consumer interest in furs, reporters acted as if the word of the fur industry was the word of God.
So what really happened? Despite all the hype, which surely should have increased fur sales since it was nothing more than free publicity, fur sales actually declined! In the March 2, 1998 issue of industry trade journal Sandy Parker Reports, it was guessed that 1997 fur sales dropped by at least 10%. Actual sales estimates will probably be released in early April.
So why the hype? The Fur Information Council of America (FICA) claims that fur sales increased by 5% in 1996. What they didn't mention to the media, is that the average fur coat was selling for about 14% more that same year. A worldwide decline in mink production had pushed supply so low that the actual retail prices had increased. Yet with coats selling for 14% more than the year previous, they could only generate a 5% increase in dollar volume.
Obviously the number of actual coats sold had declined. But the industry still touted their "sales increase" and "return to the fashion limelight."
The media fell for this hook, line and sinker. The New York Times started a media frenzy, which took the scam and ran with it. Reporters just didn't want to listen to the facts, even when anti fur groups were faxing them actual industry documents that contradicted the industry press releases.
Even with all the pro fur media coverage, sales didn't go up. In fact, Sandy Parker Reports called the winter of 1997-98 "one of the most disappointing retail fur seasons in memory."
For the first 11 months of 1997, fur imports were down by nearly 10%. Imports account for roughly 60% of US retail fur sales, so this is a good way to gauge the fur market. The figures for December fur imports were not available at press time.
Furriers are not at all happy about this. Many seem to be angry with the fur trade associations for making such boastful claims, and getting their hopes up. Fur World referred to the "heavy does of rhetoric served up by trade associations about the positive results due to come" in an angry article in their February 23rd edition.
One thing the fur industry refuses to do is credit animal rights activists with their declining sales. Yet, why else wouldn't people buy fur? As Fur World magazine pointed out in that same Feb. 23rd edition, there was record high employment, a 24 year low in unemployment, and a skyrocketing stock market. So why didn't people buy furs?
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that anti fur groups have successfully convinced a majority of women that it is wrong to kill animals for frivolous, luxury products. In fact, North America and Western Europe are not the major fur markets anymore. Fur farmers are being forced to dump their skins in developing nations, which are just now seeing the birth of anti fur activism.
The drop in the Asian economies caused the prices of female mink skins to drop by as much as 35%. If American women were buying furs, wouldn't it be their demand that propped up mink prices, not Korean demand?
Perhaps the most telling sign of instability in the fur industry was the recent bankruptcy of Andriana Furs. Andriana had reportedly sold $22 million worth of furs in 1996, but that figure dropped to $10 million in 1997.
Andriana is a major fur retailer who had three stores in Chicago, and did caravan sales in hotels and stadiums across the country. Now they are struggling to survive and have already closed 2 of their 3 stores. It is doubtful they will be able to get the consignment merchandise to continue their caravan sales. With Andriana's sales having reportedly dropped by more than 50%, one must ask how anyone can claim anything other than the fact that the fur industry is dying.
Austria has banned fur farming. This happened because it was found that fur animals could not be kept in intensive confinement and still be happy. The British Fur Trade Association, aware that the government there is close to banning fur farming, tried to deflect criticism by claiming none of their members gas mink. CAFT got video footage of their president driving a tractor between his mink sheds with a large gas canister attached.
This sort of exposure has destroyed European fur sales, and is destroying American fur sales. Don't believe the hype. The media was burned by fur industry lies. Now we must set the record straight.
Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade
PO Box 822411
Dallas, TX 75382
MINKLIB@aol.com