Animal Life

Saving Lives

Interview with Jonathan Rosenberg

Jonathan Rosenberg is the founder of Tabby's Place, a sanctuary for cats that come from hopeless situations. The facility was inspired by his cat Tabby, who had become ill and died in 1999. When Tabby became sick, Rosenberg decided to change his life and build a special facility for homeless cats. Tabby’s Place opened in Ringoes, New Jersey in 2003, and cares for 100 cats. Some of the cats at Tabby’s Place have health problems that require expensive treatments, such as Corey and Alex shown here.

Many people daydream about quitting their regular jobs and dedicating themselves to their passion, but very few do so. You're one of the rare people who have actually done it. What was the process like? Was it scary to consider radically changing your life this way?

What was the process like ... As the history page (http://www.tabbysplace.org/history.html) explains, it was realizing that Tabby was going to die that was the impetus.  When I realized he was going to die, I felt like I had been hit between the eyes with a sledgehammer.  I didn't know here to go or where to turn for "help".  It was such a painful realization for me.

I finally realized there was no way to run away from this pain.  Instead I felt that the only way "out" was "in".  I had to go deeper into dealing with these kinds of situations.  This led me to envision Tabby's Place, a sanctuary where we would not turn cats away for age or disease.

Once I came to this conclusion, I wasn't scared by any of my ongoing decisions. I just "knew" I was going to do this.

How did you raise the money to build Tabby's Place?

I was an early employee of CNET (www.cnet.com), a successful internet startup.

I love the fact that Tabby's Place has 4 solariums. Do you actually have dozens of cats sleeping together in the sunlight?

Sigh ... For some reason we haven't been able to deduce, most of the cats hate being in the solariums.  They act scared and try to hide.  We do have a handful of cats that love them & they occupy them at every opportunity.

Cats have their own personalities, and of course, some of them may not like each other and get into fights. Is that a big problem with so many animals in one place?

It's an issue, though not a major problem.  We do, indeed, have cats that do not like other cats.  But they learn to live together and, at least, tolerate each other.  So far, the only exception is Scarlett (http://www.petfinder.org/pet.cgi?action=2&pet=2350132), who is now my office mate :-)

Obviously the number of cats that a small organization like Tabby's Place can help is very limited. Nationally, there are many cats still being euthanized in shelters or living wild in very poor conditions.  Is there any grand strategy that you think can address these problems?

Let me start by saying that I'm no expert on this topic, as our mission is to provide a very high level of care for the cats that we accept.  We make decisions based on what is best for each specific cat, not based on optimization of resources, etc.

I think the key has got to be to decrease the number of cats that are unneutered/unspayed. There are lots of ways to approach this, but I'm thinking the key might be education.  At least, I hope that's the key, since it would mean that humans (as a whole) aren't inherently clueless about animals, they just need to see the truth.

Many of the cats at Tabby’s Place require sponsorship to pay for their medical care. Please visit http://www.tabbysplace.org/ to learn more.

The Killing Fields of Montana: The Story of the Yellowstone Buffalo

They rise before the sun is up, dress and eat breakfast before braving the elements outside their large cabin or their teepees; the ground may be covered with deep snow and the temperature below zero, sometimes more than 20 degrees below zero. They are the Buffalo Field Campaign volunteers. They are men and women of all ages: teenagers, as well as adults and families who bring their children, and even one man in his eighties. They come from all over the US and even from abroad. They come from every walk of life united by an overwhelming desire to protect the buffalo. Armed with radios so that they can keep in touch with each other, they also carry video cameras so that they can “bear witness” for the buffalo (really bison) of Yellowstone National Park, the only continuously wild population in America.

  Many people assume that these buffalo are protected by law, but they are not. These animals, the direct descendents of the estimated 30-60 million buffalo that once roamed the plains and that were nearly exterminated, are still slaughtered and harassed every year. During the winter of 1996/1997 the Montana Department of Livestock killed over 1,000. That slaughter, coupled with the die-off from a severe winter, killed nearly two-thirds of the herd. Indeed, more  buffalo have been killed in the last ten years than at any time in the last 100 years according to the Buffalo Field Campaign. The volunteers want to record what happens to these huge beasts, the symbol of America, so all the world can see.

In a severe winter, the buffalo leave the park for better forage at lower altitudes. In spring many of the females head for age-old calving grounds outside the park. Any animal that crosses the invisible park boundary risks being shot. They also risk being chased into corrals or “traps” where they are so crowded that they gore each other in their fear and gash their sides against the walls of the trap. Sometimes they even try to climb over each other in a frantic effort to flee. The videos show the Montana state officials laughing as they chase the buffalo into the traps and prod them and hit them to force them through the narrow chutes. Sometimes all of the animals are shipped to slaughter; sometimes some are released. Of the animals that are later released, some are so badly wounded that they can hardly walk; some survive their release for only a matter of hours.

At times, the cruelty of capture is unintentional. Dan Brister, a board member of the Buffalo Field Campaign, relates the following story of a buffalo that gave birth in the Dutch Creek trap. The Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) released the new mother and her calf.

“But somehow the DOL released the wrong cow and she quickly abandoned the small calf.  Even after its mother had been shipped to slaughter with the rest of the herd, the small calf  wouldn’t leave the side of the trap. Each time a DOL agent carried it to the park, the calf just  turned around and headed back in a desperate search for its mother. Orphaned on its first day  of life, the tiny buffalo stood little chance of survival.”

If the buffalo are not herded into traps, they are harassed back to the park by helicopters, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. These huge beasts are not very aggressive: they do not turn and charge, but instead allow themselves to be herded along by men shouting over the noise of the snowmobiles only a few feet behind them. The noise of helicopters, or vehicles, and the shouting is constant; it seems strangely out of place amidst scenery that looks like a snowy and peaceful Christmas card.

The buffalo are chased relentlessly, mile after mile. Some of the animals are obviously exhausted. One can see a bull being chased, his sides heaving, his mouth open, his tongue hanging out. Female buffalo or cows are also chased. Tiny calves frantically try to keep up with their mothers, running over rough terrain, sometimes stumbling and breaking a leg or falling. Even heavily pregnant cows are so harassed that they sometimes miscarry and deliver a dead calf. Captured on video is a tiny newborn that died, its umbilical cord still attached to its mother that was being harassed during the process of  birth. The volunteers from the Buffalo Field Campaign are also harassed, threatened, and sometimes arrested by government officials.

Asked about the social behavior of these animals, Brister describes seeing six bulls being chased. The bulls were running, but one had obviously injured his leg and was limping badly and finally collapsed. The other bulls stopped and surrounded the fallen bull. They lowered their massive heads, putting their horns under his body. With their support, the injured bull rose to his feet, and hobbled to some thick willows where the snow mobiles could not follow.

The Montana government claims that buffalo spread the disease of brucellosis to cattle despite the fact that no transmission has ever been authenticated. Although brucellosis can only be spread by females, male buffalo are also chased and killed. Furthermore, when the buffalo migrate out of the park, there are no cattle within miles. Sometimes the buffalo that are captured after they cross the park boundary are tested for brucellosis before they are killed and sometimes they are killed without any test. Although elk are also known to carry brucellosis, they are allowed to leave the park at will. Elk, of course, are one of the favored targets of hunters. Other animals including deer, moose, wolf, coyote, and bear have been exposed to brucellosis and could carry this disease, but they are neither harassed nor killed for that reason. No one seems to worry that these other species might spread brucellosis. Since none of this makes sense from a logical point of view, one can only conclude that there must be another reason for killing buffalo.

The present slaughter of the buffalo continues the historical decimation that was in part an attempt to control the Plains Indians by destroying their source not only of food, but of everything they needed to survive. In an 1873 report Interior Secretary Columbus Delano said, “The civilization of the Indian is impossible while the buffalo remains upon the plains...I would not seriously  regret the total disappearance of the buffalo from our western prairies...” General Sheridan echoed the same idea nine years later in a Letter to the Adjutant General. He wrote “If I could learn that every buffalo in the northern herd were killed I would be glad. The destruction of this herd would do more to keep the Indians quiet than anything else that could happen. Since the destruction of the southern herd...the Indians in that section have given no trouble.”

The destruction of the vast herds of buffalo also destroyed the hunting culture of the Plains Indians. Nevertheless, many of the present day Native Americans, who so closely identify with the buffalo that they call themselves the Buffalo People, continue to believe that the buffalo are sacred and that the fate of the buffalo is their fate. An  incident that occurred on March 7, 1997 is revealing. Some Native Americans, including Rosalie Little Thunder, one of the founders of the Buffalo Field Campaign, Timothy Kills in Water, her grandson, and some tribal members had gathered near Gardiner, Montana to pray for the buffalo that had been killed. Within a mile from where they were praying, Montana Department of Livestock agents shot eight buffalo. When Rosalie sought to investigate the shots, she was arrested. This woman, a direct descendant of survivors of the Little Thunder Massacre of 1855 and the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, like many other Native Americans, associates the present killing of the buffalo and the lack of sensitivity to the feelings, religion, and culture of Native Americans with the historical slaughter of the buffalo and the past killing of their ancestors. No wonder they weep in despair over the huge mounds of flesh that are the dead buffalo.

Commercial interests sealed the fate of the great buffalo herds. By the last half of the 19th Century, millions of buffalo were being killed for their hides. Facilitating this kill were  the new railroads across the west that enabled hides to be shipped to eastern mills. The same railroads also contributed to the growth of what can only be called the livestock industry for they also made it possible to raise cattle in the west and sell them in the east, where the demand for meat was great. With the buffalo and Indians removed, the vast western plains became grazing lands for cattle despite the fact that cattle are not well adapted to the dry environment and are relatively defenseless when confronted by native predators. The battles of these “cattle barons” with homesteaders and  sheepherders over the large tracks of land needed by the cattle are well-known through our popular western movies. While these movies may not be entirely accurate, it is true that the conflicts over “grass” were often violent and bloody.

  Commercial interests continue to work to the detriment of the buffalo as the battle over grass continues. The huge number of cattle needed to supply the American hunger for beef still requires vast acres of grass while ranchers still view large herbivores like buffalo and even small rodents like prairie dogs as competitors for grass that impinge on their profits. The Federal Government accommodates cattle ranchers in several ways. The government sells subsidized grazing permits on hundreds of millions of acres, permitting ranchers to graze their cattle on federal land--land that in theory  belongs to all of us--for $1.35 per month for one cow and calf. According to a 1999 special report in the San Jose Mercury News entitled “The Giveaway of the West” Paul Rogers and Jennifer LaFleur assert that “In the West this [subsidized grazing fee] amounts to a little more than ten percent of the $11.10 average charged on private lands.” In addition, in 1931 the Federal Government created Animal Damage Control to kill predators such as bobcats, coyotes and wolves all of whom supposedly harm “animal husbandry.” This agency, supported by our tax dollars and now known as the Wildlife Service, also kills prairie dogs by the millions. The killing of these small rodents continues despite the fact that scientists have shown that prairie dogs are not only a keystone species, which means that many other species are dependent on them, but actually enrich the nutritional value of grass and encourage its growth by their continual cropping.  Added to all these expenses borne by the taxpayer are the additional cost of “protecting” federal lands, such as the land surrounding Yellowstone National Park, for cattle despite the fact that this land is designated as “wildlife habitat.” Protecting federal land for cattle means chasing and destroying buffalo. The Buffalo Field Campaign estimates that the cost of managing the buffalo in order to “protect the land” for cattle will reach $3,000,000 this year. At a time when the budgets of the national parks are being reduced, the government in its zeal to cater to special interests, wastes our tax dollars by continuing to kill our native wildlife and by engaging in a management plan for buffalo that is political rather than scientific.

In a review of David Mamet’s play, Michael Brockingham called the buffalo “an archetypal symbol of profit pursued to extinction.” The buffalo were almost driven to extinction in the 19th century from greed, the desire to dominate and to exploit. Let’s hope that we gained a greater appreciation of the wilderness and of the buffalo since those bloody days. Will Americans allow the buffalo, the symbol of our country and of our freedom, to remain wild and freely follow their age-old migratory routes that have enabled them to survive the harsh winters of the west for thousands of years?

* I would like to thank Daniel M. Brister, and Stephany Seay for much of the information contained in this short piece, and for showing the videos made by the Buffalo Field Campaign.

**For further information about these volunteers, the buffalo and legislation to protect them, see www.buffalofieldcampaign.org

Article Copyright Priscilla Cohn, Ph.D.

Photos are Public Domain courtesy of U.S.F.W.S.

Priscilla N. Cohn received her Ph.D. from Bryn Mawr College and is professor emerita from Abington College, Pennsylvania State University. She has lectured on five continents and written on animals, environmental issues and ethical problems as well as on contemporary philosophers and the history of philosophy, publishing in both English and Spanish. Among her books are Etica aplicada (Applied Ethics) with José Ferrater Mora, and her more recent Contraception in Wildlife and Ethics and Wildlife.

Exotic Birds, Stolen Lives

Interview with Monica Engebretson, Senior Program Coordinator for the Animal Protection Institute based in Sacramento.

The API calls the situation of captive exotic birds such as parrots and budgies a "hidden crisis." What do you mean?
The problems facing exotic birds are not as obvious to most people as the problems facing other animals such as cats and dogs. For one thing many humane societies and shelters do not accept unwanted birds and many people are unaware of the shelters that do accept them, so unwanted birds do not show up in the shelter as often as other animals. In addition, an unknown number of birds are simply released to fend for themselves when their caretakers tire of them. Unlike cats and dogs, abandoned birds generally do not roam the streets or establish feral colonies (although some exceptions exist). Most soon perish. Like our own native birds the carcasses of released parrots are rarely found probably because predators or scavengers consume their bodies.

Another hidden component of the crisis are the birds who spend the bulk of their lives confined to cages because their caretakers have lost interest in them, have become afraid to handle them, or simply do not see anything wrong with confining and intelligent fight-adapted animal to a cage for the bulk of his or her life. Unlike chained dogs, neglected caged birds are typically kept indoors essentially hidden from view of the public.

There are currently over 100 self-described bird rescues or sanctuaries in the United States, many of which have come into existence in just the last few years and many are already filled to capacity. I don't think the general public is aware of this.

People see birds singing in their cages and assume that they must be happy. Is this true?

Studies have shown that the bird most commonly kept for its singing ability - the canary, also has a high tendency to perform stereotypic behavior in captivity. Stereotypic behaviors are abnormal, repetitive and functionless behaviors that are often performed by captive animals housed in barren or restricted environments and are mostly absent in the wild, and are relatively infrequent in large, environmentally enriched enclosures. The presence of stereotypic behavior is a commonly accepted sign of poor welfare.

Singing is part of a birds' normal communication behavior and it is one of the few natural behaviors that is not restricted by a captive environment. Assuming a bird is content because he or she is singing is like assuming human prisoners are happy because they talk to each other.

Tell us about the Telegraph Hill colony in San Francisco.

The Telegraph Hill colony is an example of a situation where released or escaped parrots have been successful in surviving and reproducing in our urban jungles. At least 74 free-living exotic parrot species have been reported in North America. It has been estimated that there are more than 2,000 free-flying parrots in southern California alone.

The Telegraph Hill colony is the subject of a recent book "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill" by Mark Bittner and a documentary film by the same name, produced by Judy Irving. The flock is made up primarily of Red-masked Conures, Aratinga erythrogenys - native to Ecuador and Peru. There are also a few Mitred Conures, Aratinga mitrata -native to Peru, Bolivia and Argentina, which have interbred with the Red-masked conures producing fertile hybrids. It is suspected that most of the founding flock members were wild-caught and were brought to the U.S. prior to the passage of the Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992. The Act essentially banned the commercial import of wild-caught birds for the pet industry and aviculture.

How many exotic birds are captured in the wild each year?
The number of birds taken from the wild for the bird trade is estimated to be in the millions, however it is impossible to determine the exact number for several reasons. First, the trade in birds within their countries of origin may be as large or larger than the international export trade and there exist no systematic surveys of the number of captive birds held within exporting countries. Another is that export numbers fail to account for the number of birds that die during capture and transportation prior to export. It has been estimated that up to four times as many parrots are captured than make it to market. Finally, export statistics track only the legal trade and, as such, fail to take into account the number of birds smuggled illegally into the trade. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the illegal trade in wildlife is second only to that of drugs in the United States.

How big is the exotic bird breeding industry?

The size of the United States bird breeding industry is also unknown because, for the most part, the industry is completely unregulated. Birds and bird breeders are not currently covered under the Animal Welfare Act, but that may soon change.

After the U.S. Department of Agriculture agreed in a 2000 court settlement to include birds, rats, and mice under the Animal Welfare Act, lobbyists for the research industry pressured Congress to amend the Act to eliminate birds and virtually all mice and rats bred for research from the definition of "animal" under the law. However, some birds, rats, and mice such as those bred for the pet industry are still covered under the law. The USDA is now in the process of developing regulations.

What's your own background, and how did you get involved in animal protection issues?

I remember successfully lobbying my first grade teacher for the release of or our class pet -a native wild-caught horned lizard. So, I guess you could say I got involved in animal protection issues when I was six.

In college headed up the campus animal rights club and earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Wildlife with a minor in Environmental Ethics. I began working for the Animal Protection Institute about a year after graduation and have been with the organization now for five years. I began working on exotic bird issues almost immediately, largely because it seemed the animal protection movement was overlooking the issues facing captive birds.

In addition to my work at API, I serve as an advisor to the non-profit Indonesian Parrot Project/Project Bird Watch, with which I have traveled twice to Indonesia. The organization is working to provide sustainable income to villagers in parrot-rich areas of Indonesia to protect parrots and parrot habitat from cruel and destructive trapping and logging activities. I am also a board member of the Avian Welfare Coalition and the Midwest Avian Adoption and Rescue Service.

What political actions can people take right now in the U.S. and elsewhere to help exotic birds?

Politically speaking, individuals can support laws aimed at improving the care and treatment of exotic birds in captivity and those aimed at protecting exotic birds in the wild.

The USDA is currently accepting public comments on how best to regulate birds under the Animal Welfare Act. While comments on this phase are due November 1, there will be another opportunity for public comment on the draft regulations. Interested individuals can check API's website for more information and updates www.api4animals.org or join our action alert e-mail team.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is currently entertaining a proposal from Argentina to allow for the importation of wild-caught blue-fronted Amazon parrots. API of course has adamantly opposed this proposal. While the public comment period is now closed on this specific proposal, we can expect similar situations to arise in the future.

One of the most frequent complaints API receives regarding birds is their care and treatment in retail pet shops. Many states lack adequate pet shop laws especially with regard to the sale of birds. API has drafted model legislation for the care and treatment of animals in pet shops (including birds) and offers assistance to individuals interested in pursuing a change in their state laws.

More information about issues affecting exotic birds and how individuals can help can be found at API's special campaign website www.MoreBeautifulWild.com under "Birds."

Photo of caged birds in Indonesia copyright Monica Engebretson