Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news41~9.htm/text0093.txt

Internet Message Format | 1998-04-03 | 15.4 KB

From: David J Knowles <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CA] Where the parties stand
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>From The Vancouver Sun - Tuesday, May 27th, 1997

By Nicholas Read

The current Liberal government broke its promise to pass a federal
endangered species act. It expanded the Atlantic seal hunt. It spent
thousands of taxpayer's dollars defending the use of leghold traps and it
failed to pass one piece of significant environmental legislation. It's hard
to remember a government that did less to protect Canada's landscape and
natural heritage.

With that in mind, I put five questions about the environment and animal
welfare to the Reform, Progressive Conservative, New Democratic Party and
Liberal parties to find out if any of the was prepared to do any better.
Here are the results:

1) Would your party prohibit trade in bear parts internally and would it
support an international  ban? (Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Northwest
Territories allow bear parts to be sold openly, helping to supply a
predominantly Asian demand for bear galls.)

Reform: No clear answer. Instead, it alluded to a private member's bill put
forward by MP Val Meredith calling for a ban on selling wildlife and killing
wildlife for the purposes of trade.

Progressive Conservatives: No clear answer. It said it would "continue with
aggressive policies" to halt the illegal trade of animals, but did not say
what those policies would be.

NDP:  It is opposed to the trade in bear parts, and believes the federal
government should take action to combat it, but did not say what kind of action.

Liberal: No clear answer. It ignored the question and instead cited a law
passed by the Brian Mulroney Tories prohibiting the trade in some exotic
species within Canada.

2) Would your party support legislation ensuring the humane transport of
animals? (More than three million animals die in transport every year
because there are no enforceable standards for their care.)

Reform: No clear answer. Instead, it quoted the Criminal Code of Canada
which makes it an offence to cause by "wilful neglect" damage or injury to
animals "while they are being driven or conveyed." (The word "wilful" is
almost impossible to prove in court, so the code is useless when applied to
animals in industry.)

PC: A qualified yes. "A jean Charest government would ensure that the
necessary regulations are in place to ensure humane standards are observed."

NDP: Yes.

Liberal: No clear answer. It referred instead to the Health of Animals Act,
which states that animals must be transported "humanely" and cited
regulations for the provision of food, water and rest at specified
intervals. (The act does not define the word "humanely" and regulations
allow for animals to be transported [up to] 52 continuously without food,
water, or rest.)

3) Given that the Canadian Council on Animal Care no longer monitors private
institutions, would your party support legislation protecting all animals in
research? (The CCAC is a government-funded body that sets down a voluntary
code of standards for using animals in government-sponsored research.)

Reform: No clear answer. Again it referred to the Criminal Code.

PC: Another qualified yes."A Jean Charest government would ensure that the
necessary regulations are in place to ensure that humane standards are
observed."

NDP: Yes.

Liberals: No. It said the current system is adequate.

4) Would your party pass endangered species legislation that would protect
individual species and their critical habitats? Would it also require that
the listing of species be done by scientists, not politicians?

Reform: Yes.

PC: No clear answer. A PC government would "create a federal department of
sustainable development which would ensure that proper priority is placed on
the preservation of the environment and all species."

NDP: Yes.

Liberal: It is committed to endangered species legislation, but will not say
what form it will take.

5) Would your party ammend Section 442 of the Criminal Code to make it
easier to charge and punish paople who are cruel to animals? (The presence
of the words "wilful" and "unnecessary" in the code render it almost useless.)

Reform: No. However, Reform MP's would listen to their constituents should
they wish to make a case for strengthening the law.

PC: No clear answer. It "would work with those in law enforcement to ensure
that crimes against animals are fully prosecuted."

NDP: No, but existing provision should be "vigorously enforced."

Liberals: No.



Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 20:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: David J Knowles <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CA] Eagle finds chicken too big to steal
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>From The Vancouver Sun - Tuesday, May 27th, 1997

COBBLE HILL, B.C. - An eagle that wanted to add one of Phylis Graham's
chickens to its diet got more than it bargained for when it swooped down on
her Cobble Hill farm.

"He had stunned the chicken and he was trying to take off with her," Graham
said.

But the eagle had trouble getting airborne. Graham's 20 chickens are New
Hampshire Reds, a heavy-set breed, and each one weighs about 4.5 kilograms.

Graham ran up to within a half a metre of the eagle and tried to scare it
away by waving her arms.

Then a swarm of at least 15 smaller birds flew out of the woods and started
attacking the eagle.

"He got about 10 feet up and dropped the chicken and flew away," said
Graham. The chicken survived. "She laid an egg that night, " Graham said.

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 20:41:56 -0700
From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: What's killing wild honeybees?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Fewer wild honeybees will mean poorer fruit, vegetables this year

Copyright ⌐ 1997 The Associated Press

CINCINNATI (May 27, 1997 09:37 a.m. EDT) -- The fruit may be bitter and
vegetables smaller for gardeners again this year because two types of
tiny mites have wiped out most of the wild honeybees in the United
States.

Farmers and orchardists have been hit hard by the bee shortage, but are
finding ways -- expensive as they are -- to cope. However, says Hachiro
Shimanuki, head of the Agriculture Department's bee research laboratory
in Beltsville, Md., "The home gardeners looking for bees to do their
pollination have a problem."

About 95 percent of the nation's wild honeybees have died during the
past two or three years, by some estimates. The mites have been found in
every state except Hawaii.

And although bumblebees, butterflies and hummingbirds also pollinate,
honeybees are nature's most prolific pollinators.

"It was pretty pathetic," Richard Koenig of Cincinnati said of last
year's garden. "Some years, I've had sacks of peppers to give away. Last
year, I was lucky to have enough for myself."

Many farmers and professional orchard owners are having to pay
commercial beekeepers -- who treat their hives for mites -- to bring
bees to their farms to pollinate crops. That costs from $35 to $75 an
acre, depending on the crop.

But all is not lost for the home gardener either.

"It doesn't mean you're not going to have any cucumbers -- it means that
you're going to have fewer cucumbers and more misshapen or shrunken
cucumbers," said Kim Flottum of A.I. Root Co. of Medina, Ohio, which
publishes the beekeeping trade journal Bee Culture.

But the fruits and vegetables that are produced could be bruised or even
bitter, he said.

Most affected will be apple, cherry, plum and pear trees, along with
cucumber, cantaloupe, watermelon, pumpkin, squash, pepper and other
plants in those families.

The mites arrived in the mid-1980s on bees imported from Europe. And
many bees not killed by mites have died from harsh winters in many areas
the past two years.

Before the mite epidemic, there were 5.2 million bee colonies in the
United States, half of which were wild, Flottum said.

Now there are only about 250,000 wild colonies.

The offending parasites are the Acarapis woodeye, also called the
tracheal mite, and the slightly larger Varroa mite.

The tracheal mite invades the bee's windpipe. The Varroa mite usually
attaches itself to the top of a bee's head and looks like a red splotch.

Both feed on the bees' blood, either killing them or making them
susceptible to disease.

Shimanuki said he thinks the worst of the mite problem is over.

"We're making progress," he said. "It all depends on who you talk to,
but I'm the eternal optimist."

Shimanuki said most commercial hives now are thriving because they are
treated for mites. That causes crowding, which in turn sends some of the
treated bees into the wild to make a new, less-crowded hive -- a process
called swarming.

James Tew, a bee specialist at Ohio State University's honey bee
laboratory in Wooster, said, however, that bees that swarm eventually
fall prey to the mites in the wild.

Thus, the U.S. wild bee population likely never will grow on its own but
will have to be replenished by swarms from beekeepers' hives, he said.

"The bees keep trying, but they keep dying out," Tew said.

By KEVIN O'HANLON, Associated Press Writer

================================================

Wonder if toxic chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, artificial
fertilizers) may account for the mite infestation by weakening the bees'
immune systems.

It shouldn't be too difficult to compare wild bee mortality in
organically cultivated areas to that in "conventional" (read toxic)
agriculture.

Andy
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 20:43:23 -0700
From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: WWF backs hunting & capture of African elephants
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

New twist in CITES battle

The Namibian, May 13, 1997

Windhoek - Namibia's bid to have its elephant population downgraded at
the upcoming CITES conference has received a significant boost with a
major wildlife organisation giving support to Namibia's proposals.

Traffic, the wildlife trade monitoring programme of the WWF World Wide
Fund for Nature and the World Conservation Union, has announced its
qualified backing for the proposals of Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species summit takes
place in Harare, Zimbabwe, in June.

Hoping to end the seven-year international commercial trade ban in
elephants and elephant products, the three SADC countries have
petitioned CITES to move their elephant populations from Appendix
I to Appendix II.

"Traffic recommends that the 136-country strong Convention ...
accept the three southern African proposals but impose a zero quota for
trade in ivory from each country, and for trade in elephant hides from
Zimbabwe," a statement from Traffic said.

The reputable conservation organisation said this would allow trade in
live animals and hunting trophies, "but not in elephant ivory or hides
for the time being".

"Although it is premature for ivory to be traded now, it's clearly time
to reward good conservation," said Tom Milliken, the Director of
Traffic's programme for east and southern Africa said.

"In Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, the elephant is an abundant species
and clearly does not meet the criteria for the highest level of
protection under CITES."

Traffic's decision comes in the wake of a CITES- commissioned report by
a Panel of Experts which found that the three countries' elephant
populations did not meet the biological criteria for continued
listing on Appendix I, which prohibits international commercial trade in
endangered species.

"Limited trade in live animals and sport hunting trophies and other
products in the future would help Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe recoup
part of their considerable investment in conserving elephant
populations.

All countries have undertaken to return revenues to local communities
living among elephants."

Traffic noted that the cost of elephant protection and management was
high, estimated at US$200 per square kilometre, "a burden most African
countries bear alone with great difficulty".

Namibia is highly commended by Traffic, which said the country had
passed all the precautionary requirements for its elephant populations
to be transferred to Appendix II, according to the CITES
report.

However, Traffic said, Botswana needed to improve its control over ivory
stocks, while Zimbabwe needed stricter implementation of domestic
controls on trade in ivory.

"Both countries have asked Traffic to help put corrective measures in
place."

On the importing side, the CITES panel found domestic ivory trade
controls in Japan to require improvements at the retail level in order
to prevent the infiltration of ivory products from illegal
sources.

Traffic, in a recently released report on domestic ivory trade controls
in Asia, confirmed this finding.

Once Botswana, Zimbabwe and Japan addressed the concerns noted in the
CITES report, Traffic said it believed trade in ivory could resume
subject to strict regulatory measures.

The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has come out
vehemently against the three countries' bid to have the elephant
downlisted and is mustering opposition to the move ahead of the CITES
meeting.

</pre>
                            <!-- END OF PAGE CONTENT -->

    </TD>


    <TD width=50 align=center>

    </TD>
</TR>

                            <!-- THE BOTTOM TOOLBAR -->

<TR>

    <TD colspan=3 align=center fontsize=2>
    <a href="../SUB~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/sub.html">ARRS Tools</a>  |
<a href="../NEWSPA~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/newspage.html">News</a>  |
<a href="../ORGS~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Orgs.html">Orgs</a>  |
<a href="../SEARCH~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/search.html">Search</a>  |
<a href="../SUPPOR~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Support.html">Support</a>  |
<a href="../ABOUT/INDEX.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/about">About the ARRS</a>  |
<a href="mailto:[e-mail]">Contact ARRS</a>
    </TD>
</TR>


                                <!-- END OF MAIN -->

</TABLE></center>




        <!-- THE UNDERWRITERS -->

<table border=0 width=100%>
    <tr><td>

<center>    <hr width=285>
<Font Size=1>THIS SITE UNDERWRITTEN IN PART BY:</FONT>
<BR>


<a href="../../../tppmsgs/msgs9.htm#981" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/cgi-bin/show_support.pl?id=t889237342&sec=sbn_bottom&url=http%3a//www.go-organic.com/" target=_top><img src="../../SUPPORT/BANNERS/CROSS-~1/GO-ORG~1.GIF" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/support/banners/cross-promotion/go-organic.gif" border=0 alt="Go Organic"></a>


<hr width=285>

    <br><font size=2>
    <b>The views and opinions expressed within this page are not
necessarily those of the <br>EnviroLink Network nor the Underwriters.  The views
are those of the authors of the work.</b></font>
    </center>
    </td></tr>

</table>

</BODY>

</HTML>