Author: Kristin Stone

In many parts of the world, apes and monkeys are killed for consumption by humans. Bushmeat is classified as meat from a wild animal, and while apes only make up a small percentage of the bushmeat trade, the effect on their already vulnerable populations is devastating. This is particularly a problem for the great apes in Africa because many cultures have depended on wild animals for food for centuries. Catching wild animals for meat is cheaper than buying beef or fish at the local market, and many people buying bushmeat are not even aware of the problem they are contributing to. In some cases, the meat is exported to countries like China, where people value exotic food such as monkey limbs or tiger paws as delicacies.

According to the Bushmeat Crisis Task force, commercial hunting for the meat of wild animals has become the most significant immediate threat to the future of wildlife in Africa. Not only are they themselves targeted, but apes often fall subject to snares set out for other animals. Given the low reproductive rates of the great apes, present levels of hunting, if unchecked, threaten the survival of all ape populations. Meanwhile, humans who consume bushmeat are at risk, too:  diseases such as Ebola can easily be transferred from one species to another. Educating the public to increase awareness about bushmeat has the potential to improve the situation dramatically. 

There are 6 billion humans on the planet today, and with that number come all of the demands of supporting life. People need land to live on and to harvest food from. There are minimal limitations on how much land each person can own, and people are playing “finders, keepers” with natural resources all over the world. Any time humans invade untouched territory, they push previous inhabitants out. This includes the already vulnerable primates.

Simply put, primates are being kicked out of their homes. There is not enough land available to allow their populations to flourish. Apes and monkeys generally live in tropical areas in or near rainforests, miles of which fall every day as they are logged, razed or otherwise destroyed or plundered.

International trade in tropical hardwoods is one of the main reasons for rainforest loss. Sumatran orangutans in Indonesia are at great risk of extinction due to unsustainable palm oil farms which people plant over their natural habitat. Primates in Madagascar are especially susceptible since only 10 percent of their original habitat remains. Great apes in particular are vulnerable to all of these pressures because their birth rate is so low. In the face of the coming climate change, conditions are likely to get much worse.
 

When sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural practices are implemented, both wildlife and farmers can benefit. 

HSI’s habitat protection and cacao program serves to educate and empower local cacao producers in Costa Rica, Guatemala and Nicaragua to improve their production techniques to ensure a healthier environment and improve habitats for wildlife, while at the same time improving livelihoods of the local communities. 

HSI’s program reaches over 3,000 cacao producers in four cooperatives and over 40,000 acres, home to thousands of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Central America traditionally produced and exported cacao until the 1970s, when a disease struck the region that almost entirely wiped out cacao production. Most producers abandoned cacao production and focused on the production of their secondary shade trees (fruit, wood etc.), resulting in many wild forested areas now home to a broad range of wildlife. HSI’s program aims to reactivate cacao in a sustainable manner that will positively affect the environment and the wildlife living on cacao farms/forests and improve livelihoods for the producers. Additionally, these efforts are fueled by the increase in demand for sustainable and environmentally friendly produced cacao for niche markets (e.g. organic, bird-friendly, Rainforest Alliance certifications). 

HSI’s program is unique in the region for its focus on wildlife and habitat conservation. HSI’s trainings for the cacao program include sessions on how to conduct fauna and flora inventories. These inventories are a necessary component for most environmentally-friendly certifications. By demonstrating the monetary value of maintaining these inventories, HSI hopes to ensure a healthy habitat for the wildlife of the region for years to come.

Many shark species are in peril of extinction.

In the Northwest Atlantic, all recorded shark species, with only one exception, have declined by more than 50 percent since 1988.

In addition, there has been:

• An 89 percent decline in hammerhead sharks in the Northwest Atlantic since 1988.
  
• An 80 percent decline in thresher sharks in the Northwest Atlantic since 1988.
  
• A 79 percent decline in great white sharks in the Northwest Atlantic since 1988.
  
• A 65 percent decline in tiger sharks in the Northwest Atlantic since 1986.
  
• A 60 percent decline in blue sharks in the Northwest Atlantic since 1988.
  
• A 99 percent decline in oceanic white tip sharks in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1950s.
  
• A 90 percent decline in oceanic silky sharks in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1950s.
  
• A 60 percent decline in relative abundance of all sharks in Costa Rican waters in the last 10 years.

 

Existing regulations

The first multi-lateral organization to address the issue of shark finning was the UN Food and Agriculture Organization which, in 1999, produced its International Plan of Action for Sharks, recommending the full utilization of sharks. Since then, the UN General Assembly and some Regional Fisheries Management Organizations have issued similar recommendations that sharks should not be killed for their fins and should be fully utilized. None of these recommendations is legally binding.

A number of individual countries have also banned finning, and these national bans do have a legal basis.

In some cases, only whole sharks may be landed.

In other cases, the ban amounts to a rule that a vessel may not land shark fins that weigh more than 5 percent of the “dressed” weight of the sharks: that is, the weight of the carcass after the removal of the head and guts.

However, regulations of some countries allow the landing of fins that weigh five percent of the whole weight of the shark. While this may seem a minor point, it does, in fact, make a very great difference to the number of sharks that are actually finned, because a shark’s liver is extremely heavy in relation to its body weight.

A “fins naturally attached” policy with no exceptions is not only a more effective way of protecting sharks from being exploited by the practice of finning, it is also a policy that does not leave loopholes that opportunistic fishermen may take advantage of.

Next steps

While the recommendations issued to date have helped considerably, more must be done.

• With regard to the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, the geographical “gaps” must be filled, in order to cover as many of the world’s sea areas as possible.
• Only a very small number of countries have banned finning, and many more need to be encouraged to enact legislation.
• Those recommendations that are weak or open to interpretation need to be re-issued with much more specific language requiring all sharks to be landed with their fins attached.
• The consumption of shark products should be discouraged in all countries.
• With regard to the enforcement of existing regulations, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and national governments must require on-board observers, Vessel Monitoring Systems, and dockside inspections to ensure compliance. Those companies and vessels that violate the regulations should be fined and prohibited from fishing.
• Individual governments and the World Health Organization need to issue public health advisories against consuming shark fin soup due to the risk of mercury poisoning.

Shark Finning Regulations Update [PDF]

At odds with the country’s tradition of small, independent, rural farms, the majority of Mexico’s commercial eggs, meat, and dairy products now come from large intensive confinement facilities. These operations, known as animal factories (or factory farms), fail to provide for many of the animals’ most basic needs and cause immense suffering. In response, Humane Society International has launched a campaign to improve the lives of animals raised for food in Mexico. The welfare of egg-laying hens on animal factories is one focus of HSI’s work.

Egg consumption, production up

Aggressive marketing campaigns, government policies, and other factors have caused egg consumption in Mexico to soar. Mexico’s national poultry association boasts that Mexicans eat more eggs per capita than any other country in the world—an astounding 49.4 pounds of eggs per person annually.

Mexico is now the sixth largest egg-producing country in the world with more than 132 million egg-laying hens producing 2.3 million tons of eggs each year.

Intensive confinement

All commercial egg production in Mexico takes place in battery cage systems (source: European Commission Report). These operations cruelly confine tens of thousands of birds into massive “sheds”—windowless buildings often the length of a football fields. Inside, birds are crammed into row upon row of tiny, barren, wire cages that are stacked several tiers high, practically to the ceiling.

On average, each caged laying hen is afforded a meager 67 to 71 square inches of space—less than a single sheet of letter-sized paper—upon which to live her entire life. Unable to spread their wings or engage in many important, natural behaviors like nesting, dustbathing, perching and foraging, the birds suffer enormously [PDF].

Sacrificing animal welfare for profit

In order to increase production, animal factories routinely employ inhumane procedures that harm the birds’ health and cause tremendous suffering. “Debeaking” is one such procedure. To prevent laying hens in these crowded, stressful conditions from pecking themselves or their cage-mates, workers at animal factories cut or burn off portions of the birds’ beaks. This painful operation is done without any anesthesia and can cause a lifetime of discomfort.

“Forced molting” is another example. When egg production naturally begins to decline, hens at animal factories are deprived of food and light for extended periods of time in order to “shock” their systems into laying more eggs. Without food and light, the hens temporarily stop laying. Once food and light are restored, they start producing eggs at a faster rate, despite their severely compromised welfare and immune systems. 

Human health risk

The crowding, stress, unhygienic conditions, inhumane procedures, lack of sunlight, and breeding practices typical of intensive confinement poultry production systems have been shown to facilitate the emergence and spread of diseases, including avian influenza (bird flu).

Taking action to reduce the suffering

Barren battery cages are so inhumane that the European Union (EU) voted to phase them out by 2012. In the interim, growing public opposition to battery-cage confinement has encouraged an increasing number of supermarkets, restaurants, and other outlets in the EU and the United States to adopt exclusively cage-free purchasing policies. HSI is asking Mexican companies to do the same, as well as to adopt other policies to improve the welfare of animals used for food.

HSI’s Factory Farming Campaign in India seeks to raise awareness about the conditions under which animals in India are reared, and to empower both activists and every-day consumers to live more compassionate and sustainable lives. 

The vast majority of commercial egg and meat products in India come from intensive confinement facilities that do not provide for many of the animals’ most basic needs and that impose significant stress on them. 

Egg-laying hens spend their lives confined in small, wire battery cages stacked several tiers high and extending down long rows. Each cage is so cramped that the birds are unable to stretch their wings, walk, or engage in many of their natural behaviors. More than 200 million laying hens in India are confined in this manner at any given time.

In addition to animal abuse, a landmark two-year study released by the prestigious Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production concluded that intensive confinement facilities pose unacceptable risks to public health and the environment. Other studies have shown that the crowded, stressful and unsanitary conditions typical of these facilities are ripe for the development of disease, including avian influeza (“bird flu”).

Learn more about HSI’s campaign to end battery cage use.

In 2004, The HSUS published a web article that examined the current global situation regarding the growth of dolphinariums and swim-with-the-dolphins (SWTD) attractions. At that time, we knew of at least 14 operational SWTD exhibits in the Caribbean, with seven or eight more in the planning stages. As of 2013, we know if at least 20, with four or more proposed. We also know of proposals to open new attractions in Russia and China.

The Caribbean is one of the hottest spots for dolphinariums in the world. The cruise ship industry fuels this growth—destination ports need to compete for passenger dollars with shore excursions that can be enjoyed in a few hours. Dolphinariums, particularly SWTD attractions, not only fit the bill in terms of time, but are highly lucrative. Cruise line passengers pay up to $150 per half hour to swim with dolphins, and hundreds (if not thousands) of people might go through a facility (depending on its size and the number of dolphins it has) in a single day. Unfortunately, many of the countries involved have no regulations governing the operation of captive dolphin exhibits, and most use wild-caught animals.

Cuba remains the primary source in the region for wild-caught bottlenose dolphins. Cuba insists that its capture operations are sustainable and based on sound science. However, a paper in the Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals, (1) based on information originally presented at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee’s Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans, argues that there is as yet no evidence to support these claims. Despite conducting research over the course of 10-12 years, Cuba has yet to determine a population estimate for the coastal dolphins targeted for capture (and virtually none of the results of this “research” have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature). The annual live-capture quota has been set at 15 animals for many years; without a completed population assessment or even a working estimate of numbers, the claim that this removal rate is sustainable is entirely without merit.

Clearly, the captive dolphin situation in the Caribbean remains fluid. New facilities are constantly being proposed, defeated, opened, and, once in a rare while, closed. Our initiative to approach the problem from the demand side by meeting with cruise ship companies will hopefully bear fruit and decrease the demand for these facilities in the Caribbean and elsewhere. On the supply side, we must still unmask and expose capture operators and dolphinarium entrepreneurs wherever they appear and seek to set up shop.

New research is constantly being published, with results that often confirm what our common sense tells us is true—dolphins are unsuited to confinement in concrete tanks or small sea pens and they do not have magical healing properties. The most recent peer-reviewed publication debunking the myths surrounding captive dolphins was published by Lori Marino and Scott Lilienfeld in Anthrozoos.(2) They offer a critique of dolphin-assisted therapy that clearly indicates that this “miracle cure” is neither miraculous, nor a cure.

But the bottom line is, there is a demand for this “product”—captive dolphins performing for us, swimming with us, healing us—or else NGOs such as The HSUS/HSI wouldn’t be constantly responding to action alerts and pleas for help from local communities. We must reach the people who visit these dolphinariums, who want to swim with dolphins, who want dolphins to heal their children—we must convince them to step back and consider the situation from the dolphins’ point of view. The dolphins don’t want to interact with us as much as we want to interact with them. In a widely circulated cartoon, artist Paul Noth showed two dolphins swimming together, one saying to the other, “If I could do only one thing before I died, it would be to swim with a middle-aged couple from Connecticut.” From this perspective, the yearning to be close to these fascinating creatures can perhaps be seen for the selfish desire that it is. The desire is understandable, but it is not in the best interests of the animals.

If you ever find yourself swimming with a dolphin in the wide, blue ocean—unexpectedly, unplanned, with the approach toward you completely voluntary and free of charge on the dolphin’s part—be grateful for the gift and don’t ruin it by trying to capture this gift in a tank or a pen and paying $150 for it.

---

1. Van Waerebeek, K., Sequeira, M. Williamson, C., Sanino, G.P., Gallego, P., and Carmo, P. 2006. Live captures of common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus and unassessed bycatch in Cuban waters: evidence of sustainability found wanting. LAJAM 1:39-48.

2. Marino, L. and S.O. Lilienfeld. 2007. Dolphin-assisted therapy: More flawed data and more flawed conclusions. Anthrozoos 20: 239-249.

The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) is a legally binding, multilateral agreement that entered into force in February 1999. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) implements and provides the Secretariat for the program.

This agreement was established, in part, as a result of the U.S. Dolphin Conservation Act, misleadingly-named legislation that was passed in 1997 over the objections of many animal and environmental organizations. Among other things, the Dolphin Conservation Act weakened the definition of the “Dolphin Safe” label and lifted the tuna embargoes against countries that set nets on dolphins. The AIDCP has adopted most of the provisions of the U.S. Dolphin Conservation Act, thereby supporting a weakened definition of the “Dolphin Safe” label.

The countries that have ratified or acceded to the AIDCP are Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Perú, the United States, Vanuatu, Venezuela and the countries of the European Union. Bolivia and Colombia are applying the AIDCP provisionally.

The countries that are party to this agreement are not exporting their tuna to the United States because of lawsuits that successfully challenged the weakening of the “Dolphin Safe” label. In August 2004, U.S. Federal Judge Thelton Henderson ruled in our favor and upheld the “Dolphin Safe” standards, stating that the U.S. government ignored the advice of its own scientists when it attempted to weaken the label. This case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and again the Department of Commerce’s attempt to weaken the definition of the well-known and trusted “Dolphin Safe” label was rejected in April 2007. The government allowed its time to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court run out; therefore, “Dolphin Safe” standards continue to prohibit the chasing or netting of dolphins.