It seems nothing is sacred for some people, and certain sections of the world’s society constantly use and abuse animals who have no means of protecting themselves or fighting back. Some of the worst animal abuses are to be found in the Far East, in the dog meat trade for human consumption. Every year, an estimated 25 million dogs are killed for people to eat. Those animals suffer horrendous pain fear and deliberate torture throughout the whole of their short lives. Every year in Thailand, tens of thousands of dogs are inhumanely transported to neighbouring countries where they are butchered by cruel and barbaric methods. The Soi Dog Foundation charity is working with the Thai government, trying to end this vile and cruel practice, but despite their best efforts, the trade in animal misery goes on. Many of the animals illegally transported from Thailand die before they reach their destination, yet it is arguable that those poor creatures are the lucky ones, as those that are still alive at the journey’s end are not humanely killed. Many are tortured, often for hours before being skinned alive. The reason for this is that people believe that the pain inflicted leads to the tenderising of the meat. Most shocking of all, is that some dogs are still alive when their fur is removed. Soi Dog, with other animal welfare groups, has presented draft legislation to the Thai Parliament for strong animal welfare laws to be enacted, but until the Government actually make the laws, the suffering goes on and on largely unchecked. Towards the end of 2011 some arrests were made in the north-eastern province of Nakhom Phanom and 1,000 lucky dogs were rescued en route from Thailand to Vietnam for slaughter. Four trucks laden with dogs crammed into tiny cages were intercepted and the smugglers arrested as they attempted to smuggle the dogs out of the country. Some of the dogs, stacked high in metal cages, were found to have died of suffocation during the journey. All of the animals were being transported without food or water. Since this arrest the Royal Thai Police and Royal Thai Navy aided by Soi Dog's undercover investigators have made over 25 more arrests and their work goes on. It’s not just Thailand however, in South Korea, thousands of dogs are intensively farmed for the meat trade. Puppies as young as a year old are kept in cramped filthy cages, living in their own waste. The stench and squalor in which the animals are forced to live, and misery of those poor creatures is as unimaginable as it is heart breaking. Most of the farmed dogs live for less than a year.
We MUST act together and support the brave Chinese activists, and others, who are working so hard and at such great risk to themselves.
Please write to your MP and your MEP and let him or her know in no uncertain terms that if they want your vote they must speak up for suffering animals, no matter where in the world those suffering animals may be. It’s also important to support the local groups fighting to end the dog meat trade and the charities who are working so hard to bring this insane cruelty into the public arena. Sources and resources: http://www.dogheirs.com/lucybrucey/posts/2886-animal-rights-activisits-in-china-are-fighting-for-the-lives-of-927-dogs http://www.soidog.org/en/dogmeat/ TEK Note: There many images online but most are too gruesome to post
4 Comments
Animal activists have known for many years that conditions in slaughter houses were bad, but it wasn't until 2009, continuing through 2011, when Animal Aid did some secret filming in nine randomly chosen slaughterhouses that the media started to sit up and take notice and public outrage prompted several petitions and an Early Day Motion to be presented against the cruel treatment of animals raised for meat. Out of the nine slaughterhouse investigated, eight were found to be well below standards both in hygiene and in animal welfare. Animal Aid's report makes harrowing reading and the actual footage is heartbreaking. Horrific cruelty to the animals was widespread, with animals bring kicked, slapped, stamped on, picked up by fleeces and ears and thrown into the stunning pens. Pigs were burned with cigarettes and many animals were shown to still be conscious when they went under the knife. In one incident shown to the Court pigs were beaten about the head and face once every two seconds, the torture lasting for over a minute. Even in establishments where no laws were broken, the animals were clearly frightened and suffered pain. The report went on to show that so called high welfare places like those accredited by the RSPCA and the Soil Association were no better than the standard ones in that they were all guilty of breaches of U.K. welfare laws. Mr Cameron, NO tinkering with the Hunting Act We knew it was coming but we didn’t know what form it would take. Strong rumour has it that the pro blood sports Tory government is attempting to do some mega tinkering with the Hunting Act in order to allow a full pack of dogs to be used to flush foxes to waiting guns. The blighters are aware that a repeal vote will be soundly defeated, so they are planning to circumvent the legislation through a Parliamentary process known as a Statutory Instrument, or SI. If this debate does take place, it has been suggested it will fall on March 26th 2014, so we must be prepared. (Statutory Instruments (SIs) are a form of legislation which allows the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act.) It’s not so long ago that Denmark was in the news for killing a healthy male giraffe while a group of young children stood around and watched. Marius was surplus to requirements, and in spite of a large petition to save him, the zoo went ahead with the killing, then carved the animal up and fed him to the lions while the children looked on. The zoo keeper said he was proud to give the children a lesson in the ways of nature. I only hope that those children didn’t leave with the idea that they could carry out their own versions of his nature lessons once they got home. Denmark is not particularly known as an animal loving nation, yet what happens to its pigs in the name of medical research seems brutal even by Danish standards. Healthy live pigs are strung up on frames and army personnel are invited to fire bullets from high powered weapons into their living flesh. Granted the pigs are anaesthetised when they receive the wounds, but they are allowed to recover after being operated upon by the army medics, only to be killed when their surgery is over, even if the operations were deemed a success. This gruesome practice is apparently to train the doctors in emergency surgery so they are better able to operate on human battlefield wounds. To this end, the pigs are treated as expendable laboratory equipment. Tools to be used and abused and discarded, with little thought given to them as intelligent living mammals, their flesh not too dissimilar to ours in its reaction to their gunshot wounds. Horrifying images published in the Daily Mirror show the live targets strung up at one end of a room, soon marksmen appear and shoot at the animals as they hang suspended by their back legs. These vile experiments are carried out at Nato's training facilities in Jaegerspris, Denmark. Although these types of experiments are against the law in the UK, for obvious reasons, the hypocrisy and total lack of respect or empathy for sentient non humans obviously doesn’t keep the MOD awake nights. A UK military spokesperson had this to say, "Our military surgeons undertake vital training in Denmark where they learn specialist trauma treatment skills that save lives on the battlefield. All animals used in medical training are anaesthetised before they are treated and by participating in the Danish led exercises twice a year rather than conducting our own, we minimise the overall number of animals used." Eighty per cent of Nato allies have already ended the cruel use of animals in archaic military medical training exercises like these, so why doesn't the UK, Denmark and Germany follow suit? These Nazi style actions are impossible to justify for any reason. They serve no purpose medically or educationally and morally they have no place in a modern civilised country. We are told by the MOD that there is no viable alternative and they deem this barbarism as entirely appropriate and necessary for military doctors to undergo live animal training. Yet in other more enlightened parts of the world instead of shooting stabbing and blowing up animals, doctors do their training on human simulators, like the Caesar manikin. Caesar’s makers describe him like this, With life-sized realism and modelled physiology, Caesar™ offers clinical accuracy for basic to advanced point-of-injury training. Caesar™ can be deployed to any challenging climate, terrain or training environment. Through tourniquet placements, patient decontamination, and extreme temperatures and conditions, Caesar™ remains tough-skinned and resilient.” …… and Caesar even bleeds. The end can never justify the means, and as moral beings we have a duty to protect the innocent. That, after all, is why we keep an army. It can never be right to torture another species so that we may advance. When I think of all of the vile things we do to innocent animals I am reminded of the words of Jean Paul Richter, “Because a heart beats beneath a covering of hair, fur, feathers, or wings, is that heart for that reason, to be of no account?” Sources: http://io9.com/pigs-are-being-strung-up-and-shot-to-train-army-medics-1525030858 http://www.emlrc.org/simulation-caesar.html Related reading at TEK: PETA reveals live goats legs removed with tree trimmers Gavin Grant is leaving the limelight because of concerns over his health, and I am one of many animal lovers who will be sorry to see Mr Grant step down as CEO of the RSPCA. Mr Grant is no stranger in the fight for good animal welfare. From 1987 to 1988 he was campaigns director at the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and he worked as Director of Communications for the RSPCA from 1988 to 1991. He was corporate communications manager at The Body Shop International from 1993 to 1999, where he campaigned against the cruel use of animals in testing cosmetics. In 2012 when he joined the RSPCA as Executive Director, he endeared himself to thousands of us when he said, “Those who get a kick out of it, those who consciously abuse animals for profit or for pleasure – they are the enemies of the animals, and that makes them the enemies of the RSPCA. We take a zero-tolerance approach to animal cruelty: mice, hedgehogs, dogs, cats, badgers, cows, sheep, foxes, snakes — we are here to protect all animals.” And that is exactly what he has done over the two years he has been Chief Executive of the oldest and most respected animal charity in the world. Of course Mr Grant has his detractors, but when you look at his opposition you can see exactly why they don’t want a strong man at the helm of the RSPCA. The Countryside Alliance, that well known hunting club for the rich and privileged, have done their very best (with the help of rags like the Mail, Telegraph and their affiliates) to attack the RSPCA under Gavin’s leadership, and to attack the man personally on social media sites and in the pro hunting press. Sir Barney White-Spunner, Countryside Alliance CEO, referred to the RSPCA as ‘sinister and nasty’, but we all know Mr Spunner has never got over the shock of the successful Heythrop prosecution, and the fact that if hunters are caught with their pants down again, the RSPCA will not hesitate to prosecute under the terms of the hunting Act. Gavin Grant is owed a huge debt of gratitude by those of us who pay more than lip service to protecting animals. He has spoken out against the evil live export trade and the plight of animals in circuses. His leadership against the badger cull never wavered, and he confronted the sporting world over the cruelty of the Grand National. This and much, much more, all his work for animals has never faltered, even against a backdrop of abuse and insults from those who think animal suffering is secondary to their own pursuits and pleasure. Because of Gavin Grant, the RSPCA has once again become a true voice for the voiceless. Animals come first for him, and under him the RSPCA has managed to recover its original purpose. There would be no show without Punch, and the pro hunt lobby are calling for the RSPCA to be stripped of its role as prosecutor, because say its enemies, they are picking fights in courts. (Funny I thought that was what was expected of a prosecutor) Under Mr Grant’s leadership, the RSPCA took on certain members of the Chipping Norton set and won. It was a landmark victory against a group of thugs who thought that the law which said you couldn’t disembowel a fox with a pack of dogs didn’t apply to them. Gavin Grant has been accused of taking the Heythrop case for political reasons. Yet I have never seen a satisfactory explanation for that statement. Why is it political to prosecute those who break the law? That they hobnobbed with the current Prime Minister does not give them immunity from prosecution, and let’s not forget they did break the law when they deliberately set their dogs on an innocent fox. (Perhaps they should have thought of Mr Cameron’s embarrassment before they broke one of Britain’s laws) True to form Gavin Grant did not back down, he had this to say to the Telegraph when he was accused of playing politics, “The notion that we would take on prosecutions for politics, PR or fund-raising is firstly immensely offensive to those officers who are out there, day in, day out, dealing with a lot of stuff that your readers and most of us never see. It’s a damned difficult job, and they do it brilliantly. The 400 officers across England and Wales are people of integrity who simply wouldn’t chase prosecutions for publicity or politics. So that notion is a nonsense, frankly. It has always been a nonsense.” One of the many tributes I have read to Gavin Grants leadership of the RSPCA is this one from Alan Kirby from POWA (Protect Our Wild Animals). It sums up exactly how we all feel about Gavin Grant, “Gavin Grant is owed a debt of gratitude by the whole anti-blood sports community for having the courage to authorise the RSPCA to step in where the CPS had been derelict in its duty and to prosecute a Hunt that, evidence suggests, had been repeatedly and blatantly flouting the law of the land for years.” Mr Kirby went on to say, “The monitors who collected the proof that forced the Heythrop and two of its members to plead guilty to 12 charges of illegal hunting had, over the past several years, provided police and CPS with what they say was equally good evidence against them on no fewer than 30 occasions, repeatedly suffering obstruction, harassment, threats, property damage and assaults from Heythrop followers for their pains. Most of these illegal hunting cases were rejected out of hand and none were brought to court. This, perhaps, was the real 'political' aspect of the whole affair.” Huge respect, Gavin Grant, and get well soon, for there is nothing better than a strong man (or woman) who is not afraid to stand up to the bullies who hurt animals. In his own words, “What I am trying to do is to recover the original purpose and mission of the RSPCA. The founders saw that compassion was indivisible, and people should be the voice for the voiceless.” Gavin Grant I and many, many others think he has done just that. It would seem that certain factions in the hunting fraternity are looking for new ways to bring cruelty back to the British countryside. Unfortunately for them, and in spite of a Parliament full of blood junkies and a coalition commitment to holding a vote on repeal, the hunting Act seems set to stay as those who want repeal don’t have enough bums on seats to overturn the ban. In desperation, the Donoughue Bill is being resurrected, tweaked and dusted off in the hope that few will see through the spin, and we will all come to fully embrace the concept that making cruelty to ALL animals illegal is the only way forward, and Lord Ds proposal must be expedited and incorporated into British law. Before we rush headlong into supporting this Trojan horse, let us remember that if the hunters want it so badly there must be something fishy in the process somewhere along the line. The panacea Lord Donoughue is offering is nothing short of a backdoor ruse to bring back fox hunting. First a little history on the adoption into law of the hunting Bill and Lord Donoughue’s animal charter. Hunting has always been considered a cruel sport and as early as 1949 attempts were made to have it outlawed. Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in that year, but one was withdrawn and the other was defeated on its second reading in the House of Commons. It wasn’t until Tony Blair became Prime Minister that a serious attempt to finally ban hunting became a viable possibility. In 1999 Jack Straw (Labour’s then Home Secretary) announced that the Government had asked Lord Burns to look into the effects on the countryside of banning hunting with dogs. Lord Burns produced his report in 2002 which was almost wholly concerned with the effect banning hunting with dogs would have on the lives of those in rural areas. He was not asked to comment on the cruelty aspect of hunting, but he did feel it was necessary to say that hunting seriously compromised the welfare of the fox, and that least suffering would be achieved by an experienced sharp shooter catching a fox in the glare of a lamp and taking a shot only if he was certain of a clean kill. (Lamping). It became evident, that once Burns submitted his report, that the Hunting Bill was going to be presented in Parliament, and hunting wild mammals with dogs would become against the Law. (Michael Foster MP Presented his Bill to outlaw sport hunting with hounds, and it might be worth mentioning here that when certain self-styled guardians of the British countryside in the form of fox hunt supporters, got wind of his plans, they threatened to murder him. The threats were taken seriously and he was given police protection.) Of course the hunting set did not sit around idly waiting for their unsavoury pastime to be snatched away by a law which would forbid them to chase and kill an animal with a pack of dogs. In an attempt to circumvent the necessity for an outright ban, Lord Donoughue, a pro-hunting Labour peer, was working on a compromise which he was hoping would be incorporated as an amendment to the current Wild Mammals Protection Act (WMPA) of 1996. On March 9th 2001 Lord Donoghue presented his Bill to the House for discussion. He introduced his legislation by saying, “The present arrangements for protecting animals from abuse are complex and incomplete. They reflect nearly a century of sporadic legislation, especially the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which absorbed earlier legislation dating as far back as the 18th century and which has itself since been amended nine times. That was concerned primarily with captive and domestic animals where humans have responsibility, not with wild animals, and hunting and coursing were exempt. Cruelty was defined as "unnecessary suffering". Lord Donoughue said he was concerned that the WMPA was, in spite of many amendments over the years, too rigid in its approach to protecting wild mammals from cruelty. He felt their interests would be better served by his all-encompassing legislation which would make it an offence to be deliberately cruel to any animal, wild or domestic. In his own words, Lord Donoughue went on to describe his intentions, "Any person who intentionally inflicts, or causes or procures, unnecessary suffering on or to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence". That’s sounds marvellous at first glance, but then he went on to say, “The Bill does not assume or establish that the simple pursuit of properly organised hunting, without specific acts of cruelty, such as digging out and so on, set out in Burns, is committing an act of cruelty. However, it would be for the courts to decide, as Burns suggests, with which I would be happy. I do not believe that that is a disadvantage in the Bill. It is quite normal for legislation to be tested in the courts and we should all be happy with that.” In other words, hunting would NOT be deemed cruel in the first instance. It would be up to the Courts to decide if a particular hunt had killed an animal in circumstances which may possibly be construed as deliberately cruel. Lord Donoughue’s amendment to the WMPA was not adopted at that time and the Hunting Act which bans hunting with packs of dogs came into UK Law in 2004. Ever since that date, the Countryside Alliance has been trying, unsuccessfully, to push for repeal at best, or amendments to the current legislation. Fortunately for British wildlife, they have failed at every attempt to reintroduce hunting. Possibly in desperation they have turned their attentions back to The Wild Mammals Protection Act Amendment. Lord Donoughue’s old Bill of 2002 has been resurrected by the Countryside Alliance and it is being touted around by the pro hunting set as a positive way forward. They claim, (in spite of many successful hunting prosecutions) that the hunting Act is simply not working and to adopt Lord Donoughue’s Bill is a simple and effective way to reach a workable compromise. What they don’t like to mention is that to adopt this legislation will see the return of legal hunting with full packs of dogs and little scope for prosecutions of cruelty. Let us take a look at Donoughue’s Bill in a little more detail. The Wild Mammals Protection Bill Amendment No 2 (Printed 7th January 2004) Presented by Lembit Opik and supported by Kate Hoey, Gwyneth Dunwoody and no less than ten others who are all staunch supporters of blood sports. The statement reads, ‘Any person who intentionally causes undue suffering to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offense.’ There are exceptions from offense which Lord Donoughue’s Bill seeks to insert into the existing legislation. • A person shall not be guilty if they are acting in accordance with a recognised code or normal, humane, lawful, customary activity. This means that as long as hunters are operating within a recognised code, hunting foxes, deer etc. will not be deemed as causing unnecessary suffering. The ‘code ‘will be a set of rules drawn up by a panel, (which Lord Donoughue calls ‘the Authority’) comprising mostly of those with a vested interest in seeing the return of legal hunting. The RSPCA will be invited to supply a representative, as will the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, but the rest of the Authority will be made up of representatives from the pro hunting/shooting groups listed below. • Country Land & Business association (Formerly known as Country Landowners Association) • The National Farmers Union of England & Wales • The Game Conservancy Trust & the British Deer Society • The Council of Hunting Associations • The British Association for Shooting & Conservation with the national Gamekeepers Organisation • The Joint Nature Conservation Committee • Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. There is also a clause in Donoughue’s Bill which allows for the removal and replacement of an Authority member if it is felt necessary at any time. Otherwise each member will serve a term of three years and will be either re-elected or replaced by another from the same organisation. If Lord Donoghue’s legislation was to be adopted and incorporated into the Law as it stands today, the Hunting Act, which took ten years in the making and over 400 hours of Parliamentary time, would become in effect useless. There would be a loophole big enough to drive a train through and the work and effort that went into the Act we have today will have been entirely wasted. The rules for hunting would be drawn up by a panel of hunters and they would decide what would be construed as ‘unnecessary suffering’. The token RSPCA and veterinary representative would of course have a vote, but it would be always a minority vote which would have no real bearing on the final set of rules. What the Authority would deem as undue suffering is anyone’s guess, but what would be certain is that this Bill would be a ‘get out of jail free’ card. No one would ever be prosecuted, and hunters would be given Carte blanche to chase, terrify and disembowel British wild life once again without fear of prosecution. A far cry from the chocolate box pictures the hunters like to provide in support of their nefarious pastime is ‘terrier work’, or digging out as it is known in hunting circles. Digging out is a barbaric and savage activity, which is as much a part of the hunt as the bucolic images of rosy-cheeked children seen playing with the fox-hounds at the beginning of the meet. Terrier work is carried out by the bully boys of the hunt, who ride around on quad bikes with their little terriers in large boxes on the back. Terrier men are not averse to a bit of people bashing either, and they are often summoned by the gentlemen in pink to hinder and intimidate anti-hunt monitors and hunt saboteurs. According to the website Digging Out which runs a campaign to abolish all terrier work, “Terrier work is all too often a euphemism for fox baiting and in the past was for badger baiting. Terriers are put into situations where they encounter and then fight foxes below ground. The terrier work literature is full of references to the prowess of their dogs in finding and locking onto animals below ground.” And it’s not just the wild animals that get hurt, terriers are often severely injured in the subterranean fights. The men have little regard for the pain of their dogs. That is borne out by the way they are transported and handled and the injuries the terriers receive which are often repaired using homemade sewing kits and no anaesthetic. Imagine what is must be like for a small fox hiding in complete darkness. He has been chased to earth by a pack of baying hounds where he lies exhausted and trembling waiting for the danger above ground to pass. The men have either blocked or netted his other escape routes and introduced a dog into the hole. The fox is trapped and can only fight for his life whilst the men dig him out from above. Sometimes if the fox is facing away from the terrier he may be savaged from behind. His hind quarters will be torn and slashed by the dog which will bite anything within reach of its jaws. Don’t forget dog and fox are fighting in a small space devoid of any light. Terrible injuries can result to both animals from these underground fights which are protracted and always bloody. Fighting terriers, or hard-mouthed dogs, are forbidden under the hunting Act of 2004, but under pressure from the blood sports lobby, some terrier work is allowed to continue under exemptions for gamekeepers and others. What is not allowed is using a terrier other than to flush a fox from cover, but if you think these men give a fig about the law then think again. They are brutal, callous individuals who often try to claim they are providing a service by exterminating vermin. This is a lie on two counts. First, foxes are not vermin and second, they mostly don’t need to be killed. The only thing these vile men provide is a grisly satisfaction for themselves and their ‘sport’. Where ever you find a sadistic act of cruelty you will also find an abuser who will defend his actions by claiming the animal he likes to torture is vermin. In 2011 a gamekeeper was convicted of extreme cruelty when he caught a fox in a snare and set his dogs on the animal, who was forced to fight for his life whilst snared and backed into a corner by this horrible thug. This man watched with a friend, and even videoed the fox’s torment on his phone. Eventually, when the fox was too weak to fight any more, it was shot. His defense in court was to claim he was dispatching vermin. He said it was only a fox and he had done nothing wrong by his way of thinking. The RSPCA Inspector said he had never seen anything so cruel in his ten years of working with the RSPCA. These are the kind of people who often follow the hunt, although they can also be found acting independently, travelling up and down the country in pursuit of their vile entertainment. They are not immoral they are amoral, and they operate in a subterranean culture totally without empathy and without conscience. Setting a dog on a fox is indistinguishable from dog-fighting and baiting. Indeed in 2007 a BBC Panorama program revealed that many dog-fighting rings attend terrier and lurcher shows which are held throughout the UK. Terrier work and cruelty go hand in hand. To find the truth of this we need look no further than Facebook where people openly boast and post their nasty pictures of the wild animals they have persecuted, tortured and destroyed.
“They came upon a young vixen who had just given birth to two young fox cubs. She was too weak to defend the cubs, and against the thugs of this hunt group and the dogs, she did not stand a chance.
The vixen whilst battling to defend herself as she was being torn to pieces would have had to watch as her two newly born cubs were also dragged from the den she had made safe and secure to give birth and feed these two sweet little cubs, the dogs then tore the vixen to pieces and killed her, not satisfied with this cruelty the "huntsmen" if you can call them that, teased the terrier dogs with the newly born defenseless cubs and allowed the dogs to take chunks from them.” The petition calls on the Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police Constabulary to investigate the hunt and people on Twitter also sent messages asking what the police intend to do, if anything. The League has stated on their website, “The League has flagged these reports with South Wales Police, in a hope that they will look into the incidents further to determine if any illegal activity has taken place. The information will also be used by the League’s own Investigations Team, which is tasked to investigate cruel sports, illegal hunting and wildlife crime.” It takes a particularly nasty type of human being to set dogs on a defenseless animal in order to enjoy the outcome. More often than not the animals these vile people torture display a measure of courage that their gutless assailants could never match. This is one of many stories from the archives of the Hunt Saboteurs Magazine Howl 1989 “4th March: Essex Foxhounds hunt a vixen and mark her to ground. Before hunt saboteurs from the mid-Essex group can reach the scene the hunt’s terrier men dig the vixen out and kill her. They left the scene apparently unaware that the vixen was lactating and had obviously given birth. The vixen had been killed just inside the earth where she had stood up to and fought the hunt terriers to protect her young. Hunt saboteurs, on reaching the earth, heard faint mewing sounds from amongst the wreckage of the earth. They started digging and were rewarded with the sight of nine newly born and still blind cubs no more than five days old. Their vixen had sacrificed her life for them – but not in vain. These cubs were taken away to an animal sanctuary and with a great deal of care reared successfully for later release back into the wild, in a safe area.” Hopefully in 2015, and with a change of Government, the law will be strengthened to outlaw terrier work completely and those found breaking the law will be treated to a spell in prison and banned from keeping animals and owning guns for life. http://www.league.org.uk/content/812/Terrier-work-exposed-by-concerned-Welsh-public?ArticleID=663 http://forcechange.com/104273/prosecute-huntsmen-who-killed-foxes-in-front-of-children/ http://www.diggingout.org/ Mr Bradshaw, in the Huffington Post, begins with some comments on his online poll, so I will begin in the same way. Online polls are frivolous at best and do not reflect an accurate cross section of society. A scientific poll like the one commissioned by the League against Cruel Sports recently is a more accurate indicator of the mood of the people. The result of the League’s poll showed unequivocally that 80% of the population do not want to see a return of hunting with scenting hounds. Scientific polling uses sophisticated research methods and random sampling to make predictions about a population. It can be used both in academic research and to gain an insight into how the majority of the public feel about a chosen topic. Random sampling is used in scientific polling because it allows small sample sizes to produce accurate population estimates. The accuracy of scientific polling is assured because the group who are surveyed are selected at random. This is the key factor if we want to produce an accurate result. Polls, as in the one described by Mr Bradshaw, in which people CHOOSE to participate, such as Internet polls, are not scientific, and their results must be largely discounted. An Internet poll on a newspaper website, in which readers decide whether to participate, can be said only to reflect the responses of readers who care enough to vote, and not the general population. With Mr Bradshaw’s poll in mind it can also be said that others who would vote against animal cruelty in the form of digging out foxes, will have no knowledge of the poll therefore won’t get to vote. Conversely, those who are in favour of this cruel pastime may organise a secret memo to get like-minded people to vote in favour.
The point Mr Bradshaw made about the abusive comments inciting violence from the anti-hunting side of this issue is also invalid, because we have no way of knowing whether those comments did indeed originate from the ‘antis’ or from pro-hunting agent provocateurs pretending to be antis. That last statement is not as petty or far-fetched as it sounds. There are many incidences where pro-hunting sympathisers have tried to infiltrate or take on anti-hunting disguises in order to cause trouble for those of us against blood sports. An example of this kind of occult behaviour occurred several years ago when a hunter was caught planting a bomb under his own car. It is also alleged that an erstwhile CEO of the Countryside Alliance advised hunters to complain of harassment and violence from hunt saboteurs in order to spoil any video footage of hunts behaving illegally. This advice allegedly came originally from a police officer who felt that was the best way to negate any evidence the ‘sabs’ may have obtained. Mr Bradshaw is keen to portray those of us against blood sports as violent thugs who would happily see hunters dismembered and their animals killed. This is nonsense. Normal people when presented up close and personal with acts of extreme cruelty to people and animals often lash out verbally and may say things they would never wish in a million years. I have personally never met anyone who cared about animals who didn’t care about people too. The same cannot be said for the hunting fraternity who have among their number some of the most thuggish anti-social people in the country. I won’t take up space by providing examples here, but anyone who cares to research this for themselves may wish to take a look at the hunt saboteurs video footage which can be found online on their website. There is also a ‘Real Countryside Alliance’ website with all kinds of useful information and videos showing exactly what the gentlemen in red and their henchmen get up to when they think no cameras are running. Violence on either side is to be abhorred and the incident described in Horse & Hound in 2012 when a group of people wearing balaclavas beat up a hunter in front of his 12-year-old daughter is not condoned or sanctioned by the majority of us against hunting. I would point out that no one was charged because the victim could not identify his assailants, and this has led to calls for the wearing of face covering clothing to be outlawed. Saboteurs who cover their faces do so to prevent reprisals if they live close by or are known to the hunt. It is not the first time dead foxes and other animals have been left on the doorsteps of anti-hunt people, and there is always the worry that property may be damaged or the hunt heavies may lie in wait for an unsuspecting saboteur on his/her own. Hunt supporters also cover their faces, but that is so they can attack people and vehicles without fear of being caught. Peruse the POWA (Protect Our Wild Animals) website, there are plenty of stories about balaclava-wearing terrier men and hunt followers beating up sabs. Is it surprising that these people are violent towards others when they get their kicks out of killing harmless, defenceless animals? The hunting Act is a good piece of legislation and it is working in spite of what the hunting fraternity would have us believe. They are actually incredulous that the law as it stands applies to them too, and it is not there to be merely used by them as they see fit. Mr Bradshaw’s imagined flushing loophole is just that, ‘imagined’. The flushing exemption is there to provide for the humane removal of deer which are causing serious damage to crops or protected woodland. It does not mean all deer have to be shot on site, and neither does it mean he is breaking the law if he doesn’t kill a deer he shoos from his coppice. The law is to prevent stag hound packs from making sport by terrifying and chasing an animal for miles and then killing it when the poor creature can run no more. Hunting wild animals with dogs is banned under the Hunting Act 2004. The League Against Cruel Sports fought tirelessly for over 80 years to obtain this landmark piece of legislation to protect wild animals in England and Wales, with similar legislation already in place in Scotland. Unfortunately, some politicians and the Countryside Alliance want to see the Hunting Act repealed and so it is under real and considerable threat. The process of repeal was started with the inclusion of a promise of a motion vote to repeal the Act which was included in the Coalition agreement. To this end all hunting apologists are working hard in a two pronged attack. First there is the campaign to discredit the Act by pretending it’s not working and attacking the anti-hunting charities by all means possible including dirty tricks, smears and lies in the pro hunting press and even in Parliament. The second attack comes in the form of anti-fox propaganda and periodically we see lurid stories of foxes attacking babies and people in the street. Not a single one of these stories has ever been proven to be true, and in fact there has never been a verifiable fox attack recorded in living memory. Thousands of people are attacked by pet dogs each year and some children have actually been killed, so let us get this into proportion. Next we are told that fox numbers are increasing and they are killing hundreds of lambs and farmers are at their wits end and are desperate for the hunters to come and be allowed to save them from these marauding killers. DEFRA say that lambs die from lack of proper care and that foxes MAY be responsible for less than 2% of lamb deaths. It has never been proven that the lambs the foxes eat were actually killed by them, it is far more likely they were found and scavenged after the lambs had died of other causes. Hunters never did control fox numbers. Shooting was always the preferred method used by those who would never be persuaded that foxes don’t pose a great problem to farmers. Foxes are beneficial to farmers and those in urban areas because they eat rabbits and other rodents. Foxes are not vermin and their numbers are not increasing. The population depends on availability of food and suitable habitat. During the foot and mouth outbreak when hunting was suspended, the fox population did not increase. There are a quarter of a million foxes in Britain and that number has remained static over the years. Hunters kill less than 3 foxes out of every hundred, and most of those are killed during the cubbing season. (Something else people who are undecided should perhaps investigate along with the myth of the quick nip on the neck.) Foxes are either torn apart or dug out if they manage to go to ground. Neither death is pleasant or humane. Mr Bradshaw wants debate without bigotry. The issue has already been debated and a law has been made to ban hunting with scenting hounds. The hunting dinosaurs have had their day it is now time to stop the tantrums and start obeying the law and leave our wildlife in peace. Resources: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/hunting/briefguide.htm http://www.league.org.uk/ Two atrocious hunting stories appeared in the news this week. One was covered by the news media, online and in print. The other appeared on the hunt saboteur’s website and on social media sites. Both stories involved the hunting fraternity, and both stories are shocking for their gratuitous violence against people and their wanton cruelty and brutality towards innocent animals. In the first incident, which occurred in late December last year, three men and three children are photographed at a dig out. The shocking series of events was recorded in stills by a farmer who witnessed the hunting of a fox, which was chased across his land by hounds into a neighbouring farmer’s field. The farmer who took the photos is anti-hunting and he had warned the hunt repeatedly that they were not welcome on his land. The fox tried to hide in a badger sett and the mounted hunt moved on. Enter a trio of terrier men, complete with guns, spades, a terrier and three young children, the youngest of whom looked no more than five. As the children watched, one of the men fired a shot into the hole where the fox was hiding while the others began to dig the poor animal out. A beautiful vixen tried to bolt from her tormentors, but she was caught, dragged out terrified and trembling, and shot. The whole disgusting incident was performed in full view of the children who had moved in closer for the kill. This totally barbaric and unnecessary execution of a fox was witnessed by three impressionable young children. A second fox was also killed but it is not clear there who did the shooting. One of the stills shows a man holding out a gun to one of the children. The child is seen reaching out to touch the barrel. The second totally unrelated incident involves the Llangienor hunt, who on the 25th of January this year, colluded in the brutal beating of a young woman saboteur who was punched to the ground by one of the hunt followers. During this cowardly attack on a woman, the mounted hunt milled on horseback, watching and shouting and pointing at the other sabs. At the beginning of the video, two male saboteurs can be seen on the ground surrounded by a ring of red coats on horseback who did absolutely nothing to stop the beatings. The sabs were punched, pushed and pummelled resulting in a slim female (whose only crime was to be against the hunting abuse of animals) being treated in hospital for her injuries. The footage shows that the saboteurs were not the instigators, and they were clearly out-weighed and outnumbered by the hunt heavies who, it would seem, were there expressly to prevent surveillance of hunting activities. It is not difficult to see the violent connection between the two incidents. They both showed cowardly, callous bullies who care nothing for animal or human life, and that these monsters take impressionable children along to watch makes it even worse. Treating children in this way is nothing short of child abuse by brainwashing children into thinking this is acceptable adult behaviour. It is said that by the age of seven an adult character is set, so hardly surprising if in the future the youngsters carry on their parent’s grisly traditions. It would seem that a collective conscience rarely, if ever, troubles these people who close ranks and refuse to divulge the identities of the thugs who break the law. The saboteur’s video shows that the red coats, although they did not appear to administer the beatings, were quite clearly colluding with the beaters because they did nothing to stop the abuse. There were at least two youngsters present who were witness to the violence and the collusion of the other adults. The children who were present when the foxes were killed were subjected to the sight of a grisly and violent death of two small inoffensive mammals who had no way of fleeing or defending themselves. What those children will learn from this is that compassion is wrong, and an animal’s pain and terror can be safely ignored. What normal parent would not want to shield a precious child from such sights as these? No children’s film or TV programme would be allowed to show such scenes, yet society turns a blind eye when rural children are allowed to view this horror as if it’s of no account. As more of these incidents come to light, we see beyond the chocolate box image the Countryside Alliance seeks to portray. The dark underbelly of hunting is seen for what it is, perhaps for the first time, and we are reminded why hunting was banned in 2004. Unrepentant, the hunters claim they have done nothing shameful and this stance is reinforced by the comments from Mr Tim Bonner, the campaign manager for the Countryside Alliance. In a statement to the press Mr Bonner had this to say about the fox killing, “The outrage merely demonstrated that outsiders do not 'understand the realities of the countryside and country life. The children were not in the hole - they were close by - and as far as we are concerned it was a totally professional operation and nothing which should upset anyone. There would be plenty of children of that sort of age involved in pheasant shoots and ferreting.” He went on to claim it was pest control requested by the farmers. This is in spite of the farmer stating clearly that he had no problem with foxes and in almost twenty years of farming he had never lost a single lamb to a fox. These bloodthirsty dinosaurs have got to go, and we must stand up now and make our voices heard. According to many anti-hunt people the police are not upholding the law as they should and often collude with the hunters. We are shamed as a society and we lose a portion of our humanity if we remain silent. Please write to your MP and tell him/her that the police must start to vigorously prosecute hunt abuse of people and animals, and the courts must begin to hand out maximum sentences for those who indulge in these abuses. Terrier work and digging out must be abolished forever and if these vile people can’t hunt within the law then they must be banned from keeping animals for life. Hunting Tim Bonner claims the digging out was perfectly legal, but let us not forget the words of Martin Luther King Jr. when he reminded us that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546867/Shocking-photos-moment-fox-dragged-hole-hunters-shot-children-young-FIVE.html?ico=home%5Eheadlines http://www.league.org.uk/
Doing the rounds on social media at the moment is a picture of millionaire banker and Tory party donor, Sir David Scholey. His notoriety on this occasion, is not to do with his wealth or his political allegiance, it is because he is pictured posing behind a bloodied and very dead lion which he shot on holiday in Africa. He seems proud of himself, and indeed boasts of having hunted all over the globe. Others who are less enamoured with his exploits asked him about his bloodthirsty hobby, but he is unrepentant, saying, "I have been hunting all over the world for many, many years and I have always hunted within the legal arrangements of the country concerned. I regard that as an entirely personal matter. All the animals I hunt are wild beasts. And I have felt threatened by them at times. The lion I killed certainly wasn't an endangered species where I was hunting it. Obviously, if I felt there was anything wrong in it I wouldn't do it. The object is to dispatch the animal with a bullet it never hears. That's why it's important to be a very good shot before you even think about hunting. I continue to hunt big game, not as much as I used to but I do continue to do it." Sir David is part of a flourishing industry which makes huge sums of money from killing trophy animals. There are about 160 ‘farms’ raising lions in South Africa today.
Her body is no more than a factory farm for lion cubs; a living money spinner for the unscrupulous and the heartless, whilst the South African government rake in the taxes and money from tourism.
In the late 90s South African law was such that a captive bred lion must live for two years in the wild before it could be hunted. The breeders challenged this in the high court and won, and canned hunting took off to such a degree that almost 2,000 lion trophies were exported in the first few years after lifting the ban. Consider that there are only about 2,000 lions left in the wild, and this becomes an even bigger shame for that country. There is also a growing demand for lion parts including bones for Chinese remedies, and many lion skeletons as well as living animals are exported to the Far East for use in medicine and for exhibiting in zoos. Inevitably, the canned hunting business has led to an upsurge in poaching as everyone wants a slice of lucrative lion pie. So much so, that the wild lion population has declined by 80% in the last 10 years. Fiona Miles, Director of Four Paws Lions Rock Sanctuary in Africa, says it is shocking that the majestic King of the jungle has been turned into a commodity to be used and abused by people hungry for profit. Education and tourists with cameras rather than guns may be the way forward, but those in the know say the ‘lion walks’ are just a front. Another way of exploiting their tame lions before they sell them on to other concerns to be shot like fish in a barrel or end up as a Chinese aphrodisiac, or a living hell in a foreign zoo. Most of us would agree that this trade in lions earns South Africa little respect. It is depressing and distasteful that the repulsive sport of hunting any animal is perpetuated and encouraged by governments who should be protecting our wild life heritage. A lion’s head on a wall or full length as a rug is nothing more than a vulgar status symbol of bored wealth. Pieter Kat's official LionAid blog posted some information on one of Britain’s own political party’s thoughts on lion hunting . Pieter was alerted to an auction to be held at the Gala Dinner for the UK Independence Party. One of the items on auction was, “Lot 12: The skin, with head, of a lioness shot in Zimbabwe. (Reserve £200). Donated by Geoffrey Clark (who did not shoot it!). Current bid stands at £250.” LionAid objected strongly to this auction as did Catherine Bearder MEP. The Independence Party was invited to a BBC Radio interview with LionAid, but Nigel Farage declined. UKip, unmoved by the morality of the issue, did put out a statement on their website claiming that whilst the auction was not to everyone’s taste, the lion skin plus head was an antique which was originally given as a gift to a party member after working in Zimbabwe. UKip revised the auction wording claiming, "Antique skin, with head, of a lioness shot in Zimbabwe. (Reserve £200) Donated by Geoffrey Clark (who did not shoot it!)." So there we have it. Another crime against nature by big business making huge profits from pandering to those who have more money than conscience. Canned hunting, showing the courage of the rich who aren’t afraid to go up against a tame lion armed only with a shotgun and backed up by an army of guards. These vile specimens of humanity are then delighted to pose for their holiday snaps, grinning broadly beside the still warm corpse of what was once a beautiful living animal. |
|