{"id":767865,"date":"2022-04-18T07:27:13","date_gmt":"2022-04-18T11:27:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767865"},"modified":"2022-04-18T08:13:57","modified_gmt":"2022-04-18T12:13:57","slug":"to-curb-smuggling-norway-has-been-killing-confiscated-wildlife","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=767865","title":{"rendered":"DEADLY ‘DISPOSAL’: To curb smuggling, Norway and many other countries have been killing confiscated wildlife"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Systematic euthanization is a paradoxical way of enforcing the CITES convention. The victims here are the animals: First they are victims of trafficking, and then they are killed by the authorities.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

JONATHAN MOENS:<\/strong> In 2010, Bj\u00f8rn \u00c5vik was driving from Sweden into Norway, carrying alcohol, tobacco, and four African gray parrots \u2014 intelligent, ash-colored birds he intended to breed and sell in Norway. But instead of declaring his items, \u00c5vik skipped Swedish customs. A camera detector then registered his car, which was selected by Norwegian customs for an inspection.<\/em><\/p>\n

The officers seized the parrots because \u00c5vik lacked the necessary permit from the Norwegian Environment Agency, a national authority responsible for implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, a multinational agreement to protect wild animals and plants.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00c5vik was eventually convicted for attempting to smuggle an endangered species and sentenced to 30 days in jail with two years of probation. As for the parrots, at the time of seizure, they were healthy and had another 50 or more years to live. \u00c5vik says he expected the confiscated birds to be rehomed in a zoo. Instead, a veterinarian killed them under the direction of the Norwegian Environment Agency.<\/em><\/p>\n

Over the past 15 years, Norwegian authorities have seized smuggled animals at least 30 times. In many of these instances, the animals were ultimately killed, raising questions about how the country handles confiscated animals at its borders. Wildlife trafficking experts and animal rights activists accuse the Norwegian Environment Agency of systematically killing endangered confiscated animals. And the problem, they say, extends far beyond Norwegian borders: Smuggled animals around the world often face a similar fate.<\/em><\/p>\n

According to CITES guidelines, officials may euthanize confiscated animals, but only as a last resort, after trying to repatriate the animals to their country of origin or rehome them in local zoos or shelters. CITES does not require national authorities to track what happens to animals after they are confiscated, however, and the resolutions are not legally binding. As a result, critics say, national authorities too often kill animals in an effort to uphold a treaty designed to protect them…<\/em><\/p>\n

The CITES treaty came into force in 1975, as a multinational effort to ensure that the international trade of wildlife and plants does not threaten the survival of endangered species. CITES has become a powerful tool in regulating trade, enabling the recovery of endangered animals like the Nile crocodile and the South American vicu\u00f1a. To date, no CITES-listed species has ever become extinct as a result of trade.<\/em><\/p>\n

But CITES has played a lesser role in ensuring animal welfare standards are maintained, experts say. CITES resolutions act as guidelines, not law, and they don\u2019t require member countries to monitor how they handle confiscated animals, making it virtually impossible to know the extent of euthanization practices around the world…<\/em><\/p>\n

CITES management is complex, wrote Janne Bohnhorst, head of the Norwegian Environment Agency\u2019s Section for Invasive Species and International Trade. In an email, she noted that her agency does \u201cwhat is best for the animals based on an overall assessment.\u201d The agency did not directly respond to a question about whether euthanization of confiscated animals was, or still is, the country\u2019s official policy.<\/em><\/p>\n

National authorities seek to find the best solution for the confiscated animal while also weighing costs and logisitical challenges, Whitbourn wrote in an email to Undark. \u201cWe do not believe that it is undertaken lightly at the national level,\u201d he added, and in certain situations, euthanization may be \u201cthe alternative that best serves the interests of conservation or the animal itself”…<\/em><\/p>\n

Systematic euthanization is a \u201cparadoxical way of enforcing the convention,\u201d says Ragnhild Sollund, a criminologist who has spent over a decade tracking this practice in Norway… \u201cThis is why we have seen, all these years, all these ad-hoc solutions”… Unless the country commits to making real change, Sollund says, confiscated animals stopped at Norwegian borders may continue to face a cruel two-fold fate. \u201cThe victims here are the animals: First they are victims of trafficking, and then they are killed by the authorities”…<\/em><\/p>\n

Norway\u2019s situation \u201cechoes what we\u2019ve seen in many countries,\u201d says Lo\u00efs Lelanchon, wildlife rescue program manager for the global nonprofit International Fund for Animal Welfare. The Philippines, Australia, and Belgium, among others, have all faced similar predicaments. \u201cFrankly,\u201d he says, \u201cit\u2019s everywhere”…<\/em><\/p>\n

Many other countries lack resources and the legal framework to repatriate animals… If an animal\u2019s origins can\u2019t be determined \u2014 as is often the case \u2014 the animals may be killed… Given the lack of legal clarity, rehousing the animals in zoos would seem to be the best alternative to euthanization, but Norway\u2019s zoos lack the capacity to take in many new animals.<\/em><\/p>\n

Addressing these challenges will entail building a system that allows animals confiscated at borders to be quickly identified, transported, and temporarily housed before an evaluation is made… The United Kingdom, for instance, a hub for wildlife trafficking, has a rescue center right next to Heathrow Airport that shelters animals while officials seek permanent housing with local zoos and rescue shelters. Spain and the Netherlands have also partnered with organizations that help authorities process the influx of smuggled animals…<\/em><\/p>\n

Tackling this issue will also mean working with countries to make repatriation more feasible, building additional rescue centers, and providing basic resources at quarantine facilities so that the weight of responsibility doesn\u2019t fall squarely on zoos, experts say… Finding the money and political interest to develop better infrastructure for confiscated animals is easier said than done. <\/em>SOURCE…<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n