No CSU probe of museum hunts, Humane Society told

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.

About the writer:

• The Bee's Carrie Peyton Dahlberg can be reached at (916) 321-1086 or cpeytondahlberg@sacbee.com.