University president enabled hunts for rare Africa animals
The Associated Press
News Fuze
Article Launched:09/18/2007 04:11:21 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO—Sacramento State University's president helped win permission for hunts in Africa to supply stuffed animals—including some considered endangered—for a natural history museum, according to documents released by the university.
Two letters from university President Alexander Gonzalez were used by auto dealer Paul Snider to secure special licenses to hunt animals that could not be killed under a standard Tanzanian hunting license.

Three of the species sought by the university—a lappet-faced vulture, a striped hyena and a golden-rumped elephant shrew—were listed as in danger of extinction by the World Conservation Union, an international coalition of nations and nonprofit groups.

Since the letters were written, two additional vulture species sought by the university have also been listed as in jeopardy. The letters, written by Gonzalez in 2004 and 2006, were released in response to a public records request by The Sacramento Bee.

Snider and his wife, Renee, traveled twice to Tanzania to hunt 84 species Gonzalez said would be used in the university's museum.

Snider said university officials approached the couple in 2003 to support the museum. The Sniders eventually pledged $2.4 million to build the museum, which would house their collection of animals shot and stuffed during hunts around the world.

However, university officials said in July they were halting plans for the museum because of campus arguments over the value of hunting. Some of the stuffed animals intended for the museum are in storage while the Sniders look for another location to preserve and display them.

Snider has been hunting exotic animals since the 1970s, but said he was unaware that several animals his safari organizer suggested hunting for the museum were considered at risk of extinction.

Snider said he had asked the organizer to list species that couldn't usually be hunted but which wouldn't suffer from the loss of one or two animals.

"We're not out to cut down on the animals that are in decline at all. A true hunter will not do that," he told the Bee.

Snider said the couple killed several dozen of the animals on lists attached to the university's letters, though not the endangered hyena or vultures. He couldn't recall if he or his wife bagged a gold-rumped elephant shrew, a long-nosed animal that is about as large as a rabbit.

"They came out (of Tanzania) 100 percent legal, but only because the museum had requested them," Snider said.

Some of the couple's collection is currently displayed in natural lifelike settings in a 5,500-square-foot annex of their home in Elk Grove, a Sacramento suburb. A second home on the property is filled with other stuffed birds and mammals, while more animals are in storage in the U.S. and Africa.

Nick Ewing, who chairs the university's Biological Sciences Department, said he refused to sign a letter similar to one Gonzalez signed. He said the faculty's "very vigorous objections" were conveyed in 2004 to Marion O'Leary, then dean of the university's College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics.

O'Leary, who since has retired, drafted the first letter Gonzalez signed. But O'Leary told the Bee he couldn't recall why the university wanted the species he named in the letter.

University spokesman Frank Whitlatch also could not explain the research or educational value of the species sought by the university.

Gonzalez was not available to comment Tuesday because he was attending the California State University trustees meeting in Long Beach, Whitlatch said.

He told The Associated Press the university will develop better procedures to consider such collection requests in the future. He also said the university never accepted the Sniders' money.

"The university would never knowingly support a waiver or seek permission to hunt animals that were on a risk list," Whitlatch said.

Another load of crap. No one educated in the realm of modern hunting refers to anything as "stuffed." What they need is to stuff their paper up their....where the Sun doesn't shine.

I know some people can't help it but it drives me nuts when people use the term "stuff"

Most taxidermist quit doing that nearly a hundred years ago.

I mount the animal skins onto forms.

quote:

golden-rumped elephant shrew

Does Crossman make a pump up .177 pellet double rifle ? Regulated for Beeman pellets with a wide meplat

I personally know the Sniders. They are SCI members in good standing and donate thousands of dollars every year to the Sacramento Safari Club. They donate 10,000 dollars every year at the SSC banquet and fund raiser. They hunt with Robin Hurt who would never take any species that wasnt allowed by law. Both Paul and Renee Snider donate tens of thousands of dollars every year to the Sacramento Recieving Home for children who dont have a safe home to live in. These are facts that can be authenticated and anybody that is still critical of their motives is full of shit. I went to Sac State and they could use a museum of natural history but it seems they are to stupid to realize it. I only hope the Sniders find a school worthy of their donations. Until then Sac State can take their liberal diversity and stick it where the sun dont shine.

I think the commentators thus far have missed the point of the story: A wealthy individual appears to have used his otherwise charatible contributions to "buy" the influence of the university in getting a permit to hunt species that neither you or I would ever get a chance to hunt. Whether this is actually the case or not is subject to discussion and further examination of the facts. However, if it is the case, we should all find it repugnant that with enought money a person can override both game laws and CITIES agreements.

I have the letter that the Univ. President wrote to his faculty. I won't post it here but it reads like damage control...he says the museum was planned by others before his time...no exemption from the law was intended...they never accepted gifts or funds because it was not in the best interest of the University.

He does state that they contacted the Sniders to say it shouldn't proceed and the Sniders accepted their position and moved on. Not sure what that means but there you go.

All of this is from a California university. That, in itself, should tell you all that you need to know.

As a refugee from the People's Republic, I assure you that this is simply avoiding Green (Red) wrath.

Exactly. Keep in mind that the Sacramento Bee (local newspaper) is one of the most liberal in the country.

The museum is a good idea, would have been heavily funded with private donations and they do have a Natural History dept. and dean. It's a no brainer and it wasn't even this president's idea...he inherited it.

Different governments and educational institutions cooperate all of the time on matters such as this. The mistake the president made was when he started to back up...now he is jammed and can't go back or forward without looking bad.

No CSU probe of museum hunts, Humane Society told
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, September 28, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B4

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)| Digg it | del.icio.us

Despite a request from the Humane Society, California State University trustees do not plan to investigate how many animals were killed to stock a proposed natural history museum at Sacramento State, according to a top university spokeswoman.

"It's irrelevant at this point because we are not going to accept the specimens," said Claudia Keith, the state university system's vice chancellor for public affairs.

Her comments came after Roberta Achtenberg, chair of the CSU system's board of trustees, sent the Humane Society of the United States a letter that neither accepted nor rejected several of the group's requests.

Instead, the letter signed by Achtenberg discussed the hunting episode's origins, and said it will be an "opportunity" for its campuses and others to talk about developing model policies for collecting specimens and artifacts.

Her response "just glosses over the big issues," said Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle. "It seems to have been written to deflect criticism rather than accept responsibility."

Pacelle said the society plans to keep pushing to learn just how many animals died in two separate hunting trips as part of the museum plan.

In 2004 and again in 2006, Sacramento State President Alexander Gonzalez wrote the government of Tanzania asking it to allow a prominent Sacramento couple to hunt 84 different species for the proposed museum.

The couple, car dealer Paul Snider and his wife, Renee, had discussed donating their vast collection of trophy animals, along with $2.4 million, to build a natural history museum on campus.

This summer, Gonzalez abandoned the museum idea amid criticism from faculty. By then, Paul Snider said, he and his wife had successfully hunted a few dozen of the birds, reptiles and small mammals listed in the university letters. Some are now in storage, he said.

Snider could not remember whether he or his wife bagged a golden-rumped elephant shrew, which is on the World Conservation Union's "red list" of at-risk species. The shrew was one of three species on the red list at the time Gonzalez signed the first letter, and two more species named by the university were added later.

"The university never intended to include any at-risk species in any collection, and none were taken," Achtenberg wrote Pacelle.

Keith initially said Wednesday that statement meant no at-risk animals were killed. Then she said the university had not intended for any to be killed. Then on Thursday she clarified that by "taken," Achtenberg meant the university did not take possession of any at-risk animals.

That misses a key point, said Pacelle.

"We're not concerned just about endangered species," he said. "We didn't want any animals killed just to fill a museum when those specimens could have been obtained in non-harmful ways," such as transfer from other museums or existing collections.

Although the practice was routine decades ago, museums today rarely, if ever, send recreational hunters to kill animals for public exhibits, a number of museum experts have said. Museums do, however, send staff scientists to take samples and sometimes kill animals for research collections not seen by the public.

Pacelle said the Humane Society will continue to seek a full public accounting of how many animals were killed as part of the university-encouraged hunts.

He hopes to enlist help from Jack O'Connell, who as state superintendent of public instruction holds a seat on the CSU board of trustees.

O'Connell is "deeply concerned about the welfare of animals," said his spokeswoman, Hilary McLean.

"Regarding the Sac State-sanctioned hunting, Superintendent O'Connell is supportive of further investigation to determine exactly which animals were affected by the CSU-sanctioned hunts and to what extent the campus played a role in that process," she said.

CSU spokeswoman Keith said the university system will reject two other requests outlined Monday in the Humane Society's letter to trustees: to look into exactly how the animals died and to compensate for the killings by making a donation to aid wildlife in Tanzania.

It seems probable that the hunted animals were shot with guns, and a donation would not be "appropriate for a public institution," Keith said.

Achtenberg's letter, which was dated Tuesday and released to The Bee on Wednesday, also told Pacelle that the museum had been discussed for many years, and that Sacramento State's correspondence had not sought any exemptions from the law.

Stonecreek, a typical leftist comment, nuff said. As for the Tanzania receiving a donation for the furtherance of the wildlife in that country ask any hunter that has hunted there. Who funds the wildlife conservation in that country? It sure the Hell ain't the greenies or PETA, well maybe the PETA my son belongs to - People Eating Tasty Animials - that is the good one.

Editorial: Case closed? Not so fast at Sacramento State

Questions remain about president's handling of the trophy hunt matter
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, October 1, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6

Last year, Congress closed a loophole in the tax code that allowed trophy hunters who were shooting rare animals around the world to take a deduction if they donated the animal to a nonprofit museum -- which could even be the hunter's living room. The hunters could write off the hunting trip at the expense of the IRS and taxpayers.

Now that tax dodge is gone.

But not before President Alexander Gonzalez of California State University, Sacramento, wrote letters to the government of Tanzania in 2004 and 2006 asking permission to allow two Sacramento trophy hunters to kill 84 species -- including some at risk of extinction.

As stories in The Bee by Carrie Peyton Dahlberg have shown, that was supposed to be part of a deal with Paul and Renee Snider to establish a natural history museum at Sac State to house their trophy animal collection, now displayed at their home in Elk Grove. The Sniders offered $400,000 for planning and $2 million for construction. Campus opposition killed the museum deal over the summer.

Gonzalez showed poor judgment in this matter. And now CSU trustees say they have no plans to investigate, dismissing the issue as "irrelevant at this point because we are not going to accept the specimens."

Gonzalez' missteps should not be compounded by obtuseness in the CSU system. The matter is serious and merits investigation.

What experts did Gonzalez consult to determine how the animal specimens might fit with a scientific, research, education and exhibit agenda for a museum? Paul Snider says that the list of animals was drawn up by his safari organizer.

What steps did Gonzalez take to determine whether the safari hunting approach for field collecting was consistent with museum practice and efforts to protect the world's natural heritage? What policies does the university have for turning private "curiosity cabinets" into public museum collections?

This mishap at Sac State comes as CSU presidents are under pressure to raise funds from private donors as the state's commitment to the state's university system shrinks. The CSU system has seen several years of base budget cuts. And while a 2004 compact stopped further erosion, it did not restore funding to earlier levels.

Sac State is expected to raise between 10 percent and 15 percent of its state general fund allocation from private donors. In 2005-2006, Sac State received $16.2 million in private commitments and $148.8 million from the state. So, at 11 percent, Sac State met its "benchmark performance" quota.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislators need to seriously reconsider the state's declining commitment to higher education (and increasing commitment to prisons), pushing public universities into fundraising that too often goes to vanity projects instead of toward financial aid, teaching and research facilities.

Gonzalez has made progress on his agenda to make Sac State a great regional university and community partner, including new campus housing and classrooms, bus-tram links to light rail and increased scholarships. We'd prefer to see him pursuing this vision rather than diverting time and resources chasing private dollars for donor-driven, eccentric projects.

Say, Die Ou Jagter, if you think my last comment was "leftist" (that a rich guy buying the right to hunt species that you and I would never be allowed to take stinks), then you'll love this comment:

Not only did a rich guy bribe a university to sponsor his hunt for otherwise unhuntable species, he intended to build his trophy room on a college campus so that you and I could pay for it with our tax dollars.

In addition, he's cast a pall on innocent, law-abiding, hunters (who pay for their own hunting trips instead of dipping into Uncle Sam's pocket) and given the antis brand new ammunition to use with the public against US. Come on guys, do you really believe this was all about collecting a shrew -- a rodent about the size of a mouse?

I find it interesting that the complaints run the gamut of emotion and intellect. The latest that Kathi posted is complaining about budget cuts and funding issues. What it doesn't state is that President Gonzalez raised annual gift and pledges from $7 million to $17 million in 2004.

I have about a dozen clippings in hand from the Sac Bee newspaper. They actually ran a few letters from hunters (which shocked me) but of course, most of what they are printing is very negative and from every angle. They just can't seem to figure out why they are upset (inconsistency) but they want everyone to know it is wrong for anyone to kill or even view dead animals.

Stonecreek, the Sniders don't need help financing their collection or where to house it. If you think that's the case then you don't have any understanding of the situation. You do understand that the money flow was from the Sniders to the college and not vice versa? I speak SLOWLY for your benefit...

quote:

Stonecreek, the Sniders don't need help financing their collection or where to house it. If you think that's the case then you don't have any understanding of the situation. You do understand that the money flow was from the Sniders to the college and not vice versa? I speak SLOWLY for your benefit...

. . . and I assumed that your slow speach was due to a neurological problem; I apologize.

Yes, I fully understand the situation, at least as it can reasonably be interpreted from news reports (which may or may not be fully accurate): The wealthy party in question appears to have been attempting to subsidize their hunting and trophy collecting by "donating" their trophies as a tax deduction. They planned to house them in a "trophy room" built partially with other tax-deductible gifts. Those "gifts" to the University would also likley have come with certain stipulations about the University's obligation to pay for ongoing costs of operation and maintenance of the "trophy room". They also sought, apparently successfully, to hunt otherwise unhuntable species under the "license" of the University, such "license" being facilitated by significant tax-deductible gifts.

Here is what everyone should object to in all of this (assuming that it is as it appears):

1. Hunters of ordinary economic circumstances (and even those in more "fortunate" economic circumstances) cannot hunt rare or protected species. Simply because a wealthy person wishes to hunt such a species should not change the need, if it exists, for that species to be left unmolested.

2. Hunters of ordinary economic circumstances pay whatever they pay for their hunting from their AFTER TAX disposable income. It shouldn't cost a rich guy less to hunt than it costs you just because he's rigged a scam to pay for a third of his hunt with tax money.

3. Likewise, if I build a trophy room, I build whatever I like and pay whatever it costs. I have to secure it, dust it, clean it, and provide heating and airconditioning. Just because you're wealthy, you should not be able to deduct 35% of the cost of your "trophy room", plus offload its maintenence and operations permanently on the taxpayers who fund a public insitution of higher education.

My wife would REALLY like to move some of my modest collection of trophies out of the house. Wouldn't it be nice if I could declare that old elk head worth $6,000 and get a $2,000 check from Uncle Sam for dumping it at the Salvation Army? Wouldn't it be even nicer if I could get the Salvation Army to sign a contract that they would keep my elk head in an appropritate display place, care for it perpetually, and never sell it, so that I could go there and enjoy it any time I wish and at the same time my wife would quit griping about the space it was taking up in the den?

Are you beginning to get the picture?

But worst of all, when all of this stink -- again, whether entirely accurate or not -- about the rich guy-hunter hits the news, it is you and me who suffer in the public eye from the negative press about "hunters".

I typed quickly, but feel free to read at your own pace, Yukon.

A family is willing to donate museum quality taxidermy and pay millions for a building that will provide education to the public...and you think that's bad? FWIW, I had no trouble keeping up with your typing.

quote:

Originally posted by yukon delta:
A family is willing to donate museum quality taxidermy and pay millions for a building that will provide education to the public...and you think that's bad? FWIW, I had no trouble keeping up with your typing.

No, I don't think that's bad at all.

What I think is bad is that they are only willing to do it if you and I pay for a big chunk of it through a tax subsidy. I also think it is bad when they attempt (and succeed) in using the influence of their wealth to hunt (again, financed in part with our money) species that are off limits to you and me. And I think it's bad that the public gets the impression that hunters in general crave hunting "endangered" species. Golden elephant shrews, for god's sake.

Do you think those things are good?

I have tried to educate myself on the issue as it interests me. I have family that works in that University's administration and I have all of the Sacramento Bee's articles on the subject (they are a sorry paper in general). So I know as much as I can about the subject from a distance looking in as I can.

What I don't know (but you seem to think that you do) is the motive behind the Sniders' contributions, hunting agendas, etc. I just don't presume to know why they did something. The tax laws allow for charitable contributions and I like the idea of giving something to a college (I'm in that field myself) that will educate the public. The fact that it would cost very little out of pocket for the school is admirable in this day and age. The federal monies given to Sac State last year would stagger your mind. This would be essentially free and they have a Natural History dept. of studies. I see no problem with the overall concept. Whether or not museums should still be endorsing private people to collect for them...well, that's another discussion but it doesn't bother me and there is a tremendous amount of precedence for this type of thing.

Stonecreek, you and I don't agree on this issue and that's fine. I would like to support the idea of someone contributing from their wealth and hunting experiences back to the community. If you don't support it then you bring division to the ranks and we don't need that but you will not be convinced by me.

You asked what I thought. I'm not interested in going back and forth but that's my take on it. FWIW, the "public" is not upset about the poor little shrews (I have the letters that have been printed). They are upset about hunting in general and museums that show taxidermy. You're being specific...they don't like any of it including the things that you hold dear. Think about that.

i am sure that the people running the Field Museum in Chicago and the American Museum of Natural History in New York would be upset to know that all they really do is take care of a "trophy room". Stonecreek, the Sniders agreed to give $2.4 million to build the damn thing in the first place. i see no reason why they should pay for it's upkeep in perpetuity when it is a public facility. furthermore if you resent people with more money than you taking trips you can't afford--TOUGH SHIT-GET OVER IT!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
furthermore if you resent people with more money than you taking trips you can't afford--TOUGH SHIT-GET OVER IT!!!!!!!

There are a lot of people with more money than I have (although I am in the 98th percentile of incomes for the U.S., which means I am in the 99.999th percentile for the world). I may admire or even envy the opportunities of people of greater wealth to do things my assets will not afford, but I do not resent them. What I do resent, as I have made abundantly plain, is the wealthy buying their way around the law, and I doubly resent them using my tax dollars, in part, to do it. For whatever reasons personal to you, you may not share this resentment.

Even in 1909, there were a few misguided idiots who strongly objected to Teddy & Kermit Roosevelt's museum collecting safari in East Africa. After 100 years.....guess nothings new under the sun!!

Stonecreek, The Sniders don't need money or loopholes, they were just trying to do a good thing for the community. I guess when you are insecure you believe everybody is only concerned with themselves. Thats not true in the Sniders case.

I'm reluctant to get into this one but from someone totally independent of any of it, what it seems is that these people were merely trying to help the school as they seemingly have a history of doing in their community. If we ever knew who orginally asked who and for what there'd be no arguement but I doubt that will ever come out.
That said, to further my own opinion that this was (originally) an innocent move, who the hell in the international hunting community would WANT to hunt shrews and vultures as trophies??? No, I don't buy the arguement that the hunters manipulated the process. Whether they took advantage of an oportunity to get trophies (custom ordered or already existing) displayed that are otherwise homeless... THAT seems much more plausable. But then given the same situation (more trophies than display space) who among us wouldn't? Just recently someone posted a question here about how to dispose of trophies when he down-sizes to a smaller home!
No, what I see is some folks who got involved in something they probably should have stayed away from and the press and the liberal university decided to put all the blame on the rich guy. Sound familiar???

Yeah, rich people get to play under different rules, but to postulate that the Sniders did anything nefarious to get to hunt the highly-coveted golden-rumped elephant shrew is a bit of a stretch.

Of course, who among us wouldn't give our left nut to be able to bag a lappet-faced vulture...

quote:

Originally posted by TANZ-PH:
Even in 1909, there were a few misguided idiots who strongly objected to Teddy & Kermit Roosevelt's museum collecting safari in East Africa. After 100 years.....guess nothings new under the sun!!

Yeah, and it seems that California has a much higher per capita average number of that particular breed. Must be a whole lotta broken chromosomes out there...

Jetdriver, You could start a new breed with the broken chromosomes in this state. I'd be gone but for the family farm. Nevada seem the place to be when I look for the future.

I've contacted the Daisy Custom Shop to discuss comissioning an elephant shrew stopping rifle. The engraving will be best quality English scroll surrounding game scenes of shrews, rats and song birds. The fixed express sight will be regulated at 10 feet, with flip up sights at 20 and 30 feet. There’s still time for me to select a pine blank with lots of figure. I won't opt for a scope as I don't want to spoil the rifle's classic lines. Even with both barrels, the weight should remain under four pounds to insure quick handling in thick lawns and perilous junkyards.

All this aside, if you've ever seen the Snider's trophy room it is by far one of the best collections of full body mounted animals out there. It's one big diorama with hundreds of life size mounts; everything from shrews to giraffes. I visited their home a few years ago, the Sniders are nice people and their trophy room is even nicer.
Here's some pics for those who haven't seen it (off another thread in the "trophy room" section)


Some from their Christmas party.

quote:

World Conservation Union's

2 queers and a fax machine?