Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0140.082 2014-2016COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF HAWAII RECEIVED Time 1.'50 Pm By lo. Date /5 Committee on Agriculture, Water and Energy Sustainability February 17, 2015 Hearing BILL 318 - OPPOSE Bill 318 has NO basis in fact, in actual practice, scientific data or research, to support these proposed requirements for the transport and handling of tropical fish. The testimony offered in support of this bill has been by individuals with no experience in the fishery and no published, peer reviewed documents that qualify them to offer presentations lacking in statements of fact, or are lifted from outdated studies, or were not even done in Hawaii. IATA, the International Air Transport Association, requires shippers to "responsibly pack specimens to survive 48 hours in transit". Feeding fish prior to shipment causes shipping water to become fouled. Ammonia, a by-product of fish waste, is toxic to fish and would insure high mortality rates during transit. So, in order to meet the IATA 48 hour rule, withholding food is "essential to clear the gut of food to minimize the fouling of transport containers". I have included the actual page from the IATA 41 st edition which expressly states this as a requirement for fish. Fish are cold blooded and do NOT require daily feeding, and contrary to the hyperbole heard here today, fasting the fish prior to shipping is NOT starvation, but it certainly sounds dramatic, and that is clearly the intention, to mislead and paint a picture of the poor little fish being mistreated, when fasting is done to insure a safe and healthy arrival. It is important to keep metabolic rates of fish at a low level prior to shipping so that less oxygen will be consumed. This is accomplished by reducing temperature, combined with fasting at least 2 days prior to shipping. These are guidelines from the APEC Fisheries Working Group, January 1999. Comm. No. 1 Y () . �� Ref. To; (4) "SG Ref. Dare FEB 1 7 2015 Water requirements for shipping is not a "one size fits all" situation, but varies by species, pre -shipment conditioning, age, size, and length of transit. Using a gallon of packing water as required by this bill will insure mortality because the depth of water will not allow even oxygen distribution through the water. Fish settle to the bottom of the bag to sleep, but oxygen will tend to concentrate in the upper portion of the bag, depriving the fish of normal oxygen levels. The passage of this legislation will not only limit a fully sustainable trade, but would prevent the normal and ethical transport between facilities under the best standards of practical care. This bill does NOT support the ethical treatment of aquatic life. In fact, it actually will have the impact of insuring high mortality rates, and therefore must not seriously be considered for passage. The State of Hawaii House of Representatives just last week refused to pass HB 883, almost identical to this bill 318. Hopefully, this council will be astute enough to do the same. SignE Date Zip C ZZ Print Nam&�I,_�Av,' r,64t 10M, I Exparn outer C� 1� ,a Top twisted and looped Elastic bands —> It Labels may be Imprinted on box insulation sides, top and bottom 2. PREPARATIONS BEFORE DISPATCH There must be only one species per bag. '¢tie Inner bag should be filled with a minimum of '/4 Mater and the remaining volume of the container is to be failed with oxygen. Volume of water, the quantity of fish in the container, and appropriate insulation are the ship- per's responsibility. Carriers will not re -oxygenate fish shipments unless by special prearranged agreement. Seahorses can be shipped in plastic bags as long as they can anchor themselves to something in order to minimize stress. An anchoring substrate must be a PVCmesh or similar substrate with multiple grasping surfaces for the seahorse, placed inside the bagand weighed down to the bottom of the plastic bag with non-leaded weights. The anchoring substrate must be sufficiently weighted so that it remains in contact with the bag bottom and does not move easily during transport. Anchoring to -another seahorse or any free-floating substrate Is not acceptable. A recommended maxi- mum of three animals of a length of 60 mm (or four of 45 mm) can be packed In a 250-380 mm bag. If shipment goes from warm to cold climate, it is suggested to add a heat pack. Conversely, if seahorses are shipped from cold to tropical climate, ice packs should be used. A Aquatic amphibians can be shipped in the same manner as fish, but as some of them are able to breath air and will do so, the airspace above the water should consist of 50% pure oxygen and 50% normal air as for breathing fish. Pure oxygen can be detrimental to lung tissue. Aquatic amphibians are not to be fed 2 days prior of shipment to avoid fouling of the water. The condition of fish and amphibians is directly affected by: the density, i.e. the number of fish or amphibians according to size in a given quantity of water, temperature of water. For tropical fish insulation must be provided by the shipper within each unitto ensure a suitable temperature of 20°C (68°F) for the longest possible period. Container Requirements Plastic bag (polyethylene) inner container / U9 to contain water Fibreboard outer container U11- LabeW may be Imprinted on box Some species must be individually packed due to their sensitive reactions or aggressive tendencies. Shippers must pack fish to survive unattended for at least 48 hours from time of acceptance by the airline. Note: For aquatic amphibians from tropical regions like Pipe, Hymenochirus, Typhlonectes, the temperature should be about 20'C (68°F). For other species like Axolotl, Newt and Salamandar larvae, Andrias and Cryptobranchus, the temperature should not exceed 15°C (59°F) 1 © The shipper must clearly mark on the container the local i time and the date when the animals were packed. The shipper must indicate the acceptable temperature 51 range (in Celsius and Fahrenheit) on the outside of the box in which the animals can be stored. 3. GENERAL CARE AND LOADING (see Chapters 5 and 10) ❑ Fish must be fasted for a few days prior to shipment in order to reduce excreta and subsequent ammonia for- mation. Animals must be held in areas where the ambient air temperature reduces the heat transfer to the absolute minimum. Q No consignment of fish list in this container requirement must be accepted if the planned journey exceeds 48 hours (unless life support is available). Consignments of live fish must be treated as perishable items and handled accordingly. For the purpose of providing life support for aquatic species during transport, a cylinder containing oxygen (compressed), UN 1072, packed in accordance with the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations, may be carred to oxygenate the water with the approval of the appropriate authority of the States of origin, destination and of the operator. Refer to CR59 and CR60. ❑ Note: Current regulations of some countries prohibit the use of oxygen flowing on any cargo aircraft. 01`'21' 41" EDITION, JANUARY 2015 319 9 ra �a�4W IATA IATA Live Animals Regulations 40th Edition (English) Effective 1 October 2013 - 31 December 2014 ADDENDUMI Posted August 7th, 2014 Important Notes It must be noted that the IATA Live Animals Regulations container requirements stipulate the minimum requirements for air shipment. The construction principle of containers described within these Regulations are not intended to conform any airworthiness requirement. Structural aircraft containers must comply with the specifications published in the IATA ULD $e6f AiGaI Manaal-Regulations. Although few limitations exist for freighter aircraft, such factors as the size of the compartment door and area of the aircraft hold determines the acceptability of live animal consignments. Consequently, this must be considered when determining the size of the container to be used, in accordance with the principles of design outlined in this section when routing the consignment. Many aquatic species are listed by CITES in Appendix I and II (see 6.2). It is imperative that the appropriate CITES documentation is completed before acceptance of the shipment and such documents must accompany the shipment as well as the usual shipper's and health certification, export and import permits/licensees. See 7.3 for CITES documentation requirements. It is a CITES pre -requisite that all CITES listed species are packed and shipped in accordance with the IATA Live Animals Regulations. It is also a legal requirement by many governments that have incorporated these Regulations into their national legislation in regards e#9the shipment of live animals by air. Therefore, care must be taken that compliance is evident at the time of live animal shipment acceptance. In addition to the above General Requirements, the Specific Requirements that are relevant to the individual species must be consulted and adhered to. The illustrations shown in the following specific container requirements are examples only. Packages that conform to the principle of the written guidelines for the species but look slightly different will still meet the IATA standards. Page 3 of 13 Humane Watch I Racketeering Lawsuit Names the Humane Society o... Awe 481Wi M U MAN EWATG H . O RG Keeping a watchful eye on the Humane society of the United States http://www.humanewatch.org/rico_lawsuit/ Racketeering Lawsuit Names the Humane Society of the United States and Two of its Attorneys Background: After years of being on defense in a lawsuit filed by several animal rights groups, Feld Entertainment (owner of Ringling Bros.) went on offense, filing a lawsuit against animal rights activists under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in 2007. Feld amended its complaint in early 2010 to include HSUS and two of its lawyers, Senior VP Jonathan R. Lovvorn and Kimberly Ockene. The Facts: A decade ago, animal-rights groups sued Feld Entertainment (parent company of the Ringling Brothers circus) alleging elephant abuse in violation of the Endangered Species Act. That lawsuit was dismissed by a US District Court in late 2009, and a US Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. In dismissing the lawsuit, federal judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that the animal-rights plaintiffs had essentially engaged in a pay -to -play scheme by paying the lead witness Tom Rider more than $190,000—his sole source of income during the litigation. The court found him to be "not a credible witness" and "essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness," adding that he "often gave conflicting answers and was repeatedly impeached on the witness stand." While HSUS was not an original party to the suit against Feld, it merged with one of the original parties, the Fund for Animals (FFA), in 2004 while the suit was ongoing. HSUS has tried to separate itself from FFA, but as Feld told the court during its RICO suit, HSUS acted as an "independent racketeer": HSUS is in it as an independent racketeer.... They sent six payments to WAP [Wildlife Advocacy Project] that were earmarked for [plaintiffs' witness] Tom Rider, and those payments were made, as we showed, out of a HSUS bank account, on HSUS stationary, a HSUS check sent by a HSUS employee, Jonathan Lovvorn, who had been a partner in that firm before he came over there [to HSUS]. So the idea that they didn't know about this, that they were innocent, that they were duped, it's ridiculous. They were in the middle of this. According to the court, the alleged scheme revolved around a nonprofit group set up by some plaintiffs' lawyers: Beginning in December 2001 and continuing until at least the beginning of 2008, the organizational plaintiffs made payments to [the Wildlife Advocacy Project] for the purpose of funding Mr. Rider. While FFA/HSUS (Mr. Markarian) testified that it was not certain whether WAP used its "donations" for other purposes as well, this testimony is undermined 1 of 2 2/16/2015 4:15 PM Humane Watch I Racketeering Lawsuit Names the Humane Society o... http://www.humanewatch.org/rico_lawsuit/ by the documents underlying FFA/HSUS's "donations," which indicate that the money was specifically for use in connection with this litigation. FFA/HSUS's testimony also is questionable given that in 2003, plaintiffs' counsel, Ms. Meyer, specifically sent an email to the representatives of the organizational plaintiffs, including Mr. Markarian, requesting funds to support Mr. Rider's advocacy efforts regarding the elephants and the lawsuit, and expressly suggesting that the funds for Mr. Rider could be contributed to WAP so that they would be tax deductible. In plain English: the plaintiffs allegedly conspired to funnel money to a witness. Feld believes the alleged racket operated in violation of state and federal laws, such as RICO and the Virginia Conspiracy Act. In all, Feld alleges numerous torts and actions, including bribery, illegal witness payments, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, andconspiracy to harm a business. Bottom Line: The animal rights groups fought for years to get the RICO suit dismissed but in July 2012 a judge threw out their request and has allowed the suit to move forward. We don't know how many thousands (or millions) this legal defense has cost HSUS, but we doubt that the donors giving $19 a month thought their money was going to pay lawyers to defend corruption charges. It's another reason to make sure donations to animal groups stay local. Further Reading RICO Update: Lawsuit Against HSUS Moves Forward RICO Update: Was HSUS Involved in a Pay -to -Play Racket? Racketeering Lawsuit Filed against HSUS and its Lawyers by Feld Entertainment, 16 February 2010 Press release: "Racketeering Lawsuit Fingers Humane Society of the United States" All content (D 2015 Center for Consumer Freedom About Humanewatch I Privacy I Dropbox Humane Watch (just like every pet shelter in America) is not affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States. Any confusion related to perceived similarities is unintentional. 2 of 2 2/16/2015 4:15 PM PrintFriendly.com: Print web pages, create PDFs http:Hwww.printfriendly.com/print?url=http:Hocj.com/2014/05/hsus-... HSUS forced to pay in circus lawsuit ocj.com /2014/05/hsus-forced-to-pay-in-circus-lawsuit/ Never miss the latest news affecting Ohio agriculture. Subscribe to Digital Dale and follow along via Facebook and Twitter. Feld Entertainment, the parent company of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, received a nearly $15.75 million settlement from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal-rights groups that filed a frivolous lawsuit against them. The lawsuits in federal court in Washington have dragged on for more than a decade. In 2012, a judge said the case, alleging abusive treatment of elephants, was frivolous and forced Virginia-based Feld Entertainment to spend millions in legal fees. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals already agreed separately to pay more than $9 million to settle. HSUS said in a statement: "The HSUS and The Fund for Animals fight tirelessly to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals, including elephants by circuses, and will be stepping up that work in the months ahead. Although The HSUS was never a plaintiff in the case against Ringling, we believe it was prudent for the parties to settle, because this court would never address the core claims of elephant abuse, and there would be significant cost in continuing to litigate. We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to The HSUS and The Fund for Animals will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from The HSUS will go to Feld. We are also urging Feld Entertainment to devote the settlement money to help protect threatened and endangered elephants and combat the plague of poaching that is decimating wild populations." Feld issued a statement saying Thursday's final settlement is a vindication of its practices. In response to the ruling HSUS watchdog group HumaneWatch pointed out the long history of extreme tactics in the name of animal welfare. "The animal liberation movement has long been associated with extremist, bullying, and sometimes even terroristic tactics in pursuit of its radical goal to institute prohibition on how we use animals, whether for food, fiber, or entertainment. The FBI cracked down on the terroristic fringe over the past two decades. And the suit -wearing, lawyered-up part of the movement has now had its day in court. It comes up $15.75 million poorer, but with its inner workings exposed, the rest of society should feel better off," said the HumaneWatch team. "Sadly, the real losers in this case are the thousands of individual donors who gave money to HSUS thinking that they were helping local animal shelters, only to find that their donations are footing the bill for HSUS's mismanagement." 1 of 1 2/16/2015 4:31 PM HumaneWatch Another Frivolous HSUS Lawsuit Gets Tossed http://www.humanewatch.org/another-frivolous-hsus-lawsuit-gets-to... � W1* HUMANEWATCH.ORG Keeping a watchful eye on the Humane Society of the United States Sep 26 2013 Another Frivolous HSUS Lawsuit Gets Tossed The Humane Society of the United States only gives 1% of its budget to local pet shelters. Where does the rest of the money go? A significant amount is spent on employing dozens of in-house lawyers, which leads to frivolous litigation. The latest HSUS "fail" is a lawsuit intended to harass the pork industry. Last year, as a part of its campaign of harassment against pork farmers, HSUS sued the USDA over an action by the National Pork Board, the quasi -governmental pork checkoff program that the agency oversees. Checkoff money is mandatory and goes toward research and general promotion of pork consumption. If you've seen commercials promoting pork as "Pork: The Other White Meat," that's what the case was about. In 2006, the National Pork Board purchased the slogan from the National Pork Producers Council, which is a private trade organization for pork farmers, and agreed to pay $60 million over 20 years. HSUS concocted a theory that the National Pork Board, by paying for the slogan, was illegally sending checkoff money (which was collected for marketing and research purposes) to the Pork Council, which is allowed to lobby—something the Pork Board is not allowed to spend money on. But HSUS's lawsuit didn't get far. A federal judge dismissed the suit yesterday, finding that HSUS did not have standing to file the complaint because it has no stake in how the checkoff spends its money. (No kidding—after all, HSUS is trying to end the use of animals for food.) The judge ruled that the other two 1 of 2 2/16/2015 4:17 PM Humane Watch I Another Frivolous HSUS Lawsuit Gets Tossed http://www.humanewatch.org/another-frivolous-hsus-lawsuit-gets-to... plaintiffs, a pork farmer and a left-wing Iowa group, also did not have standing. You can read the 34 page opinion here. It's a thorough dissection. Here's a bigger question: How much money did HSUS waste on this suit that could have been spent on helping pets? Where in HSUS's mission does it state that it cares about pork marketing money? The entire suit smelled like sour grapes to us. HSUS doesn't like the Pork Council, so it crafted a lawsuit that wasted time and money in an attempt to mess with it. It strikes us as too many lawyers with too much time on their hands. HSUS supported another lawsuit last year against another checkoff—the beef checkoff—but that went nowhere fast, with the plaintiff, an HSUS "ag council" member, dropping the suit. Strangely, you don't see all these lawyers in HSUS commercials. That's why we made a parody: Lawyers in Cages. Speaking of lawsuits, there's one piece of litigation that HSUS must want to go away: The federal RICO lawsuit fingering; HSUS and two of its in-house lawyers, including a senior vice president who runs HSUS's legal department. That lawsuit alleges malicious prosecution and abuse of process, among other claims. That litigation, according to court documents, is moving toward discovery and depositions. We'll be sure to keep you posted. Posted on 09/26/2013 at 4:17 pm by Humane Watch Team. Topics: Main Permalink All content (0 2015 Center for Consumer Freedom About Humanewatch I Privacy I Dropbox Humane Watch (just like every pet shelter in America) is not affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States. Any confusion related to perceived similarities is unintentional. 2 of 2 2/16/2015 4:17 PM