Additional News

Enron Corporation, a large power-supply company, recently acquired Portland General Electric. To show its "community spirit" Enron has decided to "donate" a baby female Asian elephant to the Washington Metro Park Zoo in Portland. The company claims that the baby elephant chosen will be an "orphan."

However, when elephants in the wild are orphaned, the rest of the herd will care for the baby, adopting her as their own. In her media statement about Enron's "gift," Sherry Shang, the recently departed director of the Washington Metro Park Zoo confirmed that humans don't need to "rescue" orphaned elephants: "It is expected that the current female adults at the zoo will 'adopt' her as one of their own--a common practice in the wild when calves are orphaned."

The zoo, which has an appalling history of placing elephants from its breeding program into Las Vegas acts and circuses, sees Enron's gift as a money-making draw and a future breeder.

Right now, there are three female Asian elephants advertised for sale by a circus. Enron could turn the lives of these animals around by buying them and donating them to the Washington Metro ParkZoo and the zoo, by giving them a place to retire, could atone for its having turned over other magnificent elephants to the harsh circus life.

Jeffrey K. Skilling, President & COO
Enron Corporation
1400 Smith St.
Houston, TX 77002
fax: 713-646-8381

Kathy Kiaunis, Acting Director
Washington Metro Park Zoo
4001 SW Canyon Road
Portland, OR 97221-2799
Fax: 503-226-6836

More Dogs Sentenced to Die in Oregon

On Friday, January 16th the Linn County Board of Commissioners issued an edict of execution for two dogs allegedly seen chasing sheep near Lebanon Oregon on January 7th. The 2 dogs, Billy (a Cockapoo-Pug mix) and Cody (a Chesapake Bay Retriever) owned by Cheryl Train, were impounded after a local farmer, Jack Lafranchise called county animal control. Lafranchise stated that he owned the sheep and would have shot the dogs himself right then, however did not do so because they were too close to a major highway.

After being falsely threatened with jail by county animal control officers for initially refusing to turn over her dogs, Ms. Train under duress consented to the euthanization of Billy. She refused to consent to the death of Cody, however, since he had been specifically trained not to chase livestock.

The remaining death sentence against Cody has been appealed by attorney Robert Babcock. Babcock is also the attorney in the case of Nadas.

In an interview with Ark Online, Ms. Train indicated that she thought she had been set up. Evidently a year ago Ms. Train owned a dog that killed one of Mr. Lefranchise's sheep. She had the dog euthanized. However Mr. Lefranchise insisted she also pay for the cost of the sheep. Although she agreed to do so, Ms. Train had not been able to come up with the money.

On the day her dogs were supposedly chasing livestock, they came back to the house with wet fur. Cheryl Train is certain they were playing in a ditch filled with water in an area that is far from where the sheep are located.

In addition Mr. Lefranchise lists as his witness to the chasing, a Mr. Robert Babcock. This Mr. Babcock is not the attorney, but in fact is an advocate of the current livestock law. The fact that his name is the same as the attorney is an interesting coincidence. What is more interesting, however, is how this particularly active proponent of the livestock law just happened to be on Mr. Lefranchise's property when these two dogs were allegedly chasing sheep.

Oregon Officials Forcing Dog Owner to Give Them Up Without Any Cause.

The following account was received by Kathie Price of Clackamas County, Oregon:

My name is Kathie Price, I live in Beavercreek, Oregon in the county of Clackamas on a 19 acre farm located 14 miles from the nearest city. In September 1997, I received a letter from the Department of Transportation & Development in Clackamas County. It would seem that a neighbor, had sent in a complaint stating that I owned too many dogs. I own 5 adult rottweilers. I have owned my property for several years, and have had dogs on the property since I purchased it. There were no criminal charges against my dogs in any form. I was just being charged for owning too many, and therefore charged as being an illegal kennel. All of my dogs are legally licensed, and always have been through Clackamas County Animal Control, which is the law.

The neighbor in question, who had reported me, has a long history of trying to cause me problems. He has had the police called on him by myself and myself and my family members, approximately 14 times in the last several tears. The police calls have been due to violence ranging from death threats, to attempted assault, and an attack with a deadly weapon.

I was ordered to appear before a hearings officer on January 16, 1998. My 20 year old daughter and I appeared. The hearings compliance officer was a Kathryn Alvin. During the course of our hearing, we were not allowed to enter any of our evidence, including the State of Oregon Humane Laws 603-15-025 through 603-15-050, which is the law that determines who in the state is a kennel. Nor were we allowed to enter evidence showing the long history involving the abuse by the above mentioned neighbor. All of our evidence was ruled inadmissible. The hearings officer ruled that we had in the past been an illegal kennel, by having 5 dogs on our 19 acres, even though these dogs met none of the requirements associated with a kennel. She than order that we must remove 2 of the dogs from our property. I tried very hard to explain to her, that these dogs were much loved family members, older dogs, ages 9,8,5,5,5 and that it is impossible to quote "give away' dogs of this breed and age.

She than said if we did not give them away, they were to be put to death, and verification given to the court by a vet. I than stated that she was condemning these dogs to a death sentence, and she said, yes she was. I tried to approach them to obtain a kennel license, and was inform that since I had broken the law, I would not be allowed to obtain one. Since I live in a rural area, it is not uncommon up here, for many of the land owners to have more than 3 dogs, several families I know of in this area, have anywhere from 7 dogs to 14. None of these people are being forced to remove, or kill their animals.

I believe we are, because our dogs happen to be rottweilers. The confusing part of all of this for me, is why does Clackamas County Animal Control, sell the public dog licenses, that they know are illegal. That makes no sense. A friend of mine went to Animal Control the morning of my hearing, and licensed 6 dogs.

The effect this whole matter has taken on my family, is unbelievable. We are living under constant stress, my 20 year old is threatening to leave the state with her dog, my 14 year old, has spent the last 3 days crying, and most heartbreaking of all, is my 11 year ols son, these dogs have been in his life since he was an infant, we have all laughed for years, that "Andy" has been raised by rottweilers, we have pictures of him, laying on our Sonja, taking his baby bottle. his best friend, our Ciaya, is his bed partner, and life partner, where ever Andy is, Ciaya is. The sweetest sight you will ever see, is him and her sleeping together, she has her own stuffed animals, and baby blanket, you always know when its their bedtime, because Ciaya drags her baby blanket around, and tell Andy "come on bud, its time for bed". My son has been so affected by all of this, he is either hanging around his dogs neck in tears, or trying to figure out a way for them to run away, where no one will find them. needless to say I'm watching them very closely. And its been 3 days now since the hearing, and my son still refuses to eat. This whole situation is destroying our entire family. How and why, these people think they can do this to us, is beyond me, and if this is allowed to happen, in the future, no dog owner will be safe, they will be able to come to your home, and tell you to destroy your animal, for no reasons.

We are trying to fight back, in the only way we can. we have put pleas for help out on the internet. We are in the process of setting up a website. We are asking people everywhere to mail letters of protest to us and our state senator and congress woman. I intend on taking the letters to the governor. We are also seeking donations of any size, (my son has emptied his piggy bank :) to help set up a legal defense fund.

Letters to our Senator (Ron Wyden) and Congresswoman (Darlene Hooley) can be sent to:

Colorado Offers Bounty on Wildlife Poachers

Colorado legislators pushing to impose a $25,000 surcharge on poachers of trophy animals have our unconditional support.

Commercial poachers quickly are killing off Colorado's biggest and best elk, deer, bighorn sheep, moose and mountain goats.

They kill the animals, then sell their heads and racks for $40,000 to $50,000. The waste they leave in their wake is obscene. Poachers, for example, shot 52 cow elk to death near Maybell in late 1996, leaving the carcasses to rot.

The beauty they destroy is immeasurable. Sampson, for example, was a magnificent 1,000-pound bull elk, with a rack of eight points on one side and nine on the other. He was renowned and beloved in Estes Park - until a Lakewood man shot him through the heart with an arrow in November 1995.

Consider the paltry consequences for that man, Randal Lee Francis. He got 90 days in jail and a $6,000 fine for slaying a state treasure.

Later, Francis was convicted of the 1994 killing of an eight-point mule deer buck outside of Eagle without a license. For that, he was fined $1,500 and ordered to surrender the buck's head-and-shoulder mount.

Finally, after killing two bull elk in Jefferson County in 1995, Francis was hit with one of the harshest sentencing packages ever given a poacher in Colorado. Penalties included two years' incarceration, two years' work release, 300 hours of community service and loss of hunting, fishing and driver's licenses.

But Colorado lost one of its finest specimens of wildlife. And the grand total of Francis' fines doesn't begin to touch the huge profits he would have made of just one animal's head and rack. The new surcharge, in legislation sponsored by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Boulder, would at least impose some reasonable financial penalty on those motivated by greed.

The original bill called for a surcharge of $2,000 to $8,000. An amendment by Rep. Russ George, R-Rifle, boosted the surcharge, which would be paid in addition to any other court fines, to $25,000.

While $25,000 may seem a high price, the amount must be high if it is to deter poachers.

"I don't care if we raise a thin dime," Udall says, "if it stops this poaching of our trophy animals."

We urge the House Finance Committee to support this legislation, proving the value that Colorado places on its wildlife.

Wildlife and Fur Traffickers To Get Fee Waiver

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to exempt certain wildlife shipments containing furs, hides, and skins from user fees charged under its wildlife import/export regulations. "Our goal in the proposed rule is to provide economic relief to small businesses and individuals while maintaining an efficient inspection program for wildlife trade," said Kevin Adams, chief of the Service's Division of Law Enforcement.

The Service published a proposed rule in the January 22, 1998, Federal Register and invites public comment on the suggested fee exemption.

Commercial importers and exporters of wildlife and wildlife products now pay user fees for each shipment they bring into or out of the United States. These fees include a $55 inspection fee at the Nation's 13 designated ports and higher administrative fees if goods are shipped through other approved locations. The current fee system, established in 1996, allows the Service to recoup more of the costs of the wildlife inspection program from the companies that use it.

The proposed rule would waive these basic inspection and administrative fees for certain shipments. The fee exemption would apply only to shipments containing 100 or fewer raw furs; raw, salted, or crusted hides or skins; or separate parts of furs, hides, and skins from animals legally taken from the wild in the United States, Canada, or Mexico, that are imported or exported between the United States and Canada or Mexico.

The exemption would not cover shipments that require permits because they contain injurious wildlife, endangered and threatened species, protected marine mammals, migratory birds, or animals and plants subject to trade controls under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Nor would it apply to manufactured products or live animals of any kind.

To qualify for the proposed fee exemption, the wildlife shipment must be imported or exported by the person who took the animal from the wild or by a member of that person's immediate family: spouse, parent, sibling, or child. The contents of the shipment cannot have been previously sold, and the importer or exporter must hold a valid wildlife import/export license.

These criteria are intended to limit the fee exemption to small, low-volume businesses that trade furs, skins, or hides on a small scale, or to individuals who hunt or trap as a hobby or to supplement their income. "We've carefully tried to focus on small shippers who are disproportionately affected by user fees," Adams explained.

Importers and exporters covered by the exemption will still have to obtain an import/export license from the Service at an annual cost of $50, pay any overtime fees or other charges associated with inspection and clearance of the shipment, and complete and file the declaration form required for wildlife imports and exports. They will also be required to sign a statement certifying that they or a family member took the animals from the wild.

The Service's wildlife inspection program helps the Nation control the importation and exportation of wildlife and wildlife products. Its staff of trained inspectors stationed at U.S. ports of entry and border crossings provides a frontline defense against illegal wildlife trafficking--a threat to animal species worldwide.

Comments on the proposed user fee exemption should be submitted to the Service by March 23, 1998. Comments may be sent to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Division of Law Enforcement, 
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 500, 
Arlington, VA 22203-3247.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages 511 national wildlife refuges covering 92 million acres, as well as 67 national fish hatcheries.

The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes Federal excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. This program is a cornerstone of the Nation's wildlife management efforts, funding fish and wildlife restoration, boating access, hunter education, shooting ranges, and related projects across America.

Ohio Animal Bill Killed by Agriculture Special Interests

In Ohio, as in many states, animal abuse and cruelty, no matter how horrible, is a misdemeanor. Ohio HB 437 would have provided for felony penalties for animal cruelty.

The bill passed out of the House Judiciary and Criminal Justice Committee after numerous hearings and the acceptance of a substitute bill (13 to 1) which clearly defined the focus of the bill to dogs and cats, our companion animals.

The Humane Society of the United States was the main driver of this bill and had hired one of Ohio's top lobbying firms.

The Ohio House has a Republican majority and the bill's sponsor and committee chairperson are Republicans.

The bill went to the floor and Rep. Ron Hood (R-Canfield) made a motion to send the bill to the House Agriculture Committee "for further study." He also was quoted as saying "This is an animal rights bill."

The motion passed and the bill was sent to the Agriculture Committee, a death sentence for any animal-related legislation in Ohio.

Zoo Association Supports Killing Cheetahs

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), the so-called reputable voice for accredited zoos and marine parks, is actively supporting the Safari Club International's petition to downlist the Namimbian population of cheetahs from endangered to threatened in order to allow for trophy hunting and the import of the sport-hunted trophies into the United States.

The AZA also opposes the federal canned hunt bill. There is no way that this group could be worse on hunting issues -- supporting trophy hunting of endangered species and the shooting of tame, captive animals in small, fenced-in preserves. Even the American Society of the Mammalogists and the generally pro-hunting Cheetah Conservation Fund vigorously oppose downlisting and cheetah trophy hunting in Namibia. Only 10,000 cheetahs survive (down from 30,000 30 years ago) and only 2,500 in Namibia (down from 6,000 in 1980).

Below is the text of the groups letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (The comment period to the Service closes Feb. 1 and we need letters on our side).

The Service reopened the comment period (Federal Register, Vol. 62, page 64800, 9 December 1997), and will accept comments from the public until 1 FEBRUARY 1998. Please write to the Fish & Wildlife Service and tell them that reclassifying the cheetah is unacceptable. You can contact them by email at:

Search the Federal Register in 1997 using the keyword "CHEETAH." It should be the first listing.

To contact AZA regarding their support of trophy hunting, write to: LTOMLINS@AZA.ORG (to the attention of Kristin Vehrs)

Dr. Charles Dane
Office of Scientific Authority
Mail Stop: Room 725, Arlington Square
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, DC 20240

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) submits these comments in response to the 19 March Federal Register notice concerning the petition to change the classification of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatu) [sic] in Namibia from endangered to threatened status.

The cheetah populations in Namibia have been stable at 2500 animals for a number of years. Utilizing various education programs, the Namibian Government has made tremendous strides in protecting the wild populations. In addition, increased trophy hunting would result in increased funding for ongoing conservation programs.

Therefore, AZA supports this petition, but with one condition. We request the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism, in consultation with the Office of Scientific Authority (OSA), FWS, develop a program with enforcement provisions ensuring that some of the monies raised from the increased trophy hunting be used for conservation programs, including the funding of an annual cheetah monitoring program. Should the monitoring program find that the wild populations have fallen below 2000 animals, a moratorium must be placed on hunting for two breeding cycles (2 years). At the end of this period, another census of the population would be taken to ensure the population is viable and increasing prior to the resumption of hunting.

AZA is committed to the long-term survival of the cheetah in nature through global management programs.

Kristin L. Vehrs,
Deputy Director
Robert G. Howarth
Legislative Affairs Specialist

Univ. of Wisconsin Monkey Update

The University of Wisconsin went ahead with its plans to evict 101 rhesus monkeys from their home of 35 years at the Henry Vilas Zoo.

The UW shipped the monkeys to Tulane University in New Orleans, even as last-minute efforts continued to transfer them instead to a sanctuary in Texas.

At 8:30 on March 4th, UW Primate Research Center staff members, dressed in white trench coats with heavy masks on their faces, began to unload large crates from a white semi truck and take them inside the round monkey house.

City police and about a dozen protesters were at the zoo entrance to greet the truck, which was escorted by three UW Police and Security squad cars.

Meanwhile, Hank Lufler, executive assistant to UW-Madison Chancellor David Ward, was in last-minute meetings about a possible change of destination.

Karen West, chairwoman of the Dane County Zoo Commission, and Regina Rhyne, a County Board supervisor, met with Lufler at about 8 a.m. on March 4th. Lufler was scheduled to meet with members of the Alliance for Animals after 8:30 a.m. to discuss a last-minute offer by a Texas sanctuary to take over care of the monkeys.

The Wild Animal Orphanage in San Antonio, Texas, Tuesday night offered to house all 150 Vilas Zoo monkeys for a one-time charge of $15,000, which the Alliance for Animals said it would pay.

``We're willing to write out the check right now if that means the monkeys would be safe in the sanctuary,'' Alliance for Animals Executive Director Tina Kaske said after midnight.

At 6:45 a.m., police opened a barricade and allowed the large truck to enter the zoo and drive up to the monkey house, along with a white van driven by primate center veterinarian Chris O'Rourke.

Animal rights activists, who arrived at the zoo at about 5:30 a.m., were silent as the crates were unloaded. There had been talks about civil disobedience, but the monkey supporters appeared to be in shock. Many were crying.

Kaske sat in a van sobbing. Her efforts over the past several months -- which resulted in a round of intense negotiations between the UW and the county to keep the monkeys at the zoo -- had failed.

``I couldn't help but think, through all of this, that the university would in the end do what the Madison public wanted,'' she said. ``I just never thought they would stoop to this.''

Susan Trebach, director of the UW News and Public Affairs Office, said at 8:20 a.m. that the UW was considering the offer from the Texas sanctuary, but that plans were moving forward to ship the monkeys to Tulane.

Falk upset: Topf Wells, executive assistant to County Executive Kathleen Falk, said this morning that county officials were deeply disappointed.

``Kathleen, in face-to-face discussions with the university, had consistently requested that the university honor its commitment to protect those animals from invasive research,'' Wells said.

He said the university could have easily delayed action to consider all options for the monkeys.

``The 100 rhesus are going to Tulane for no other reason but that the university has decided to ship them,'' he said. ``The county executive is disappointed that the university has chosen not to honor their commitment. We tried to help them and we're sorry it didn't work out.''

Rhyne, whose County Board district includes the zoo, said she was denied access to zoo grounds this morning by police, even though news photographers were permitted to enter.

``I'm so disappointed in the cause of government this morning,'' Rhyne said. ``We've called on the community to raise the money, they've come through, they've got the alternatives we want, and now they're being ignored.''

She added: ``These monkeys have been at this zoo since I was a little girl. This is just terrible.''

How talks failed: With the public spotlight squarely on the fate of the monkeys, an 11th-hour deal seemed to have been worked out.

Early Tuesday morning, officials -- including first lady Sue Ann Thompson -- were optimistic that a deal would be struck to keep the 50 stump-tailed macaques at the zoo and send the 100 rhesus monkeys to the Texas sanctuary.

But as day turned into night Tuesday, attitudes of county and university officials turned from optimistic to tense to bleak.

A Dane County Circuit Court judge refused Tuesday to grant an injunction blocking the UW from removing the monkeys from the zoo, as sought by the Alliance for Animals.

By 10 p.m., negotiations were deemed a failure by both sides, and it took no time for officials to point blame at the other side.

The UW blamed the county for reneging on previous agreement points, while the county blamed the UW for being unwilling to cooperate.

``Let's be very clear here. These deadlines are the university's and the university's only,'' said Wells, Falk's assistant and the county's point-man on the negotiations. ``It's not like God or the state Legislature or the Supreme Court had decreed March 2 a deadline. That was wholly the creature of the university.''

Graduate School Dean Virginia Hinshaw, who has battled a public relations nightmare over the past several months in her role as supervisor of the UW's Primate Research Center, refused to talk to The Capital Times about the issue, and veterinarian O'Rourke hung up on a reporter this morning.

But Charles Hoslet, special assistant to the chancellor for governmental affairs, said: ``The county and the university were close to an agreement until late Tuesday afternoon, at which time the county changed its position and now has refused to assume almost any responsibility for the monkey colonies.

``The university regrets the county's about-face, but now must proceed with plans to relocate the monkeys.''

Scapegoat at the zoo? Some observers said both parties probably deserve some blame for the near-deal coming unraveled.

The county's offer was significantly different from Monday's UW offer, making no firm commitment to take over the ownership of the stump-tails. The county's offer also would have shifted fund-raising burdens to the university, and changed wording on the rhesus proposal, taking power away from the university to decide whether a sanctuary was suitable.

One of the factors that led to the failure was objection by the Dane County Zoological Society.

Hoslet said the concerns from the society about whether support for the monkeys might detract from the society's fund-raising program for zoo renovations threw a new wrench into the county's position.

John Daggett, president of the society, had said for months that the group would not be able to help in fund-raising for the monkeys should they stay at the zoo. He has also said several times that he was worried about fund-raising competition from the monkeys.

But Daggett said he doesn't want a cage of his own at the zoo labeled ``Scapegoat.''

``This is between the county and the university and is not up to the Zoological Society,'' Daggett said late Tuesday night. ``I don't want to be seen as a scapegoat.''

Montana Lures, then Kills Yellowstone Bison

January 21, the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL) scattered
hay at their capture facility outside West Yellowstone, MT to bait buffalo
leaving Yellowstone National Park. They hazed the buffalo who were outside
of the park into the capture facility during the night.

Thursday, five buffalo were captured and shipped off to a slaughter house
in Sheridan, MT. These will be the first buffalo slaughtered by the DOL
this winter. The bison in the trailers were bleeding from gore wounds they
inflicted on each other in the pens and in the transfer process.

The DOL also relocated four of Yellowstone's buffalo away the Duck Creek
drainage, to be released at Horse Butte. These buffalo were marked with
bright orange paint and could be injured.

At 11:30 a.m. Thursday, Buffalo Nations volunteer Dan Howells locked
himself to a trailer getting ready to relocate the four buffalo. With a
kryptonite bicycle lock around his neck, Howells, a 29 year-old non-violent
protester from Michigan, stated "We must stop the buffalo slaughter. These
buffalo do not belong to the Department of Livestock, they belong to the
people of the United States. The buffalo should be allowed to be wild and
free." Howells was cut free from the trailer, and charged with
obstruction, a misdemeanor.

Buffalo Nations believes that the Department of Livestock does not have the
right to capture and slaughter our last wild buffalo herd. Yellowstone's
bison are not livestock, and should not be subjected to conditions which
are alien to them. The DOL has no right to bait wildlife into leaving the
park. Last year, buffalo were indiscriminately shipped to slaughter even
though the tests for brucellosis are at best 70% effective. This resulted
in the slaughter of bison who tested positive at the facility but tested
negative at the slaughterhouse.

Buffalo Nations is calling for the concerned citizens of the United States
to express their outrage to Montana's governor, Marc Racicot (email:
mailto:momholt-mason@mt.gov., mailto:amalcolm@mt.gov), over the
resumed slaughter of this nation's heritage, the last wild buffalo.
Unfortunately, a Federal Judge has already conceded that at least 100 more
can be killed this winter.

Montana Bison Update

A mellow winter, with little snow and mild temperatures, has came to the rescue of the Yellowstone National Park bison.

With no need to wander from the safety of the park in search of forage, the infected (? huh?) animals stayed put this season. Only 11 bison have been shot (I guess 11 doesn't seem like many unless you were one of the 11-Ed.) or shipped to slaughter, a far cry from the nearly 1,100 killed last winter. None has been killed since January 29, 1998.

Conditions in the park have all but eliminated thoughts of resorting to a controversial program of feeding bison hay to prevent them from wandering and possibly being killed.

But the favorable weather has not erased a federal lawsuit filed by conservation groups and Indian tribes to block use of a federal-state management plan that relies heavily on killing migrating bison to keep them from spreading disease to cattle.

Critics of the strategy say they fear it could lead to another dramatic decline in the Yellowstone bison herds if next winter is a harsh one.

For now, those arguing over how best to manage the bison agree that this winter has brought welcome relief.

Yellowstone Superintendent Mike Finley said the lull in bison movements has been a blessing beyond saving animals. State and Federal agencies have had more time to work on completing a long-term bison management proposal without daily confrontations.

Julie Lapeyre, who advises Gov. Marc Racicot on bison issues, acknowledged that last winter's killing increased political pressure to finish developing a permanent plan that relies less on shooting and slaughter.

But that effort has not waned with the quiet winter in and around the park, she said.

"The urgency of it is just as great from our vantage point, and I get the same impression from the federal government," she said.

Jim Angell, an attorney for the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, said the courts helped as much as the climate.

A Federal judge's order in December that no more than 100 bison can be killed without a court hearing helped set a different tone for controlling the animals this season, he said.

"The state of Montana has been much more forgiving of bison outside the park," Angell said. "There's more hazing and letting some be. There's been less reckless, pointless killing."

The controversy over what to do when park bison leave Yellowstone has persisted for a dozen years. About half the park herd of about 2,000 animals carry brucellosis, which causes cows to abort their calves and undulant fever in humans.

Ranchers fear that allowing bison to roam into Montana will lead to infected livestock and prompt other states to demand costly testing of cattle before shipment.

Buffalo Nations
PO Box 957
Yellowstone, Montana 59758
(406) 646-0070
email: buffalo@wildrockies.org

Enron Corp's plans to obtain a baby elephant from the wild and give to Porland, OR Zoo.