The highly-controversial badger cull may fail because less than 20% of the target numbers of badgers to be culled are being slaughtered. According to sources in the know, only a hundred badgers were killed in the first ten days of the highly controversial cull. The minimum target is 2,081 badgers in the course of the trial, and with just over three weeks left of the six weeks trial in Somerset, it is looking like this slaughter may be one big FAIL for DEFRA and Owen Paterson. One dairy farmer said to Western Morning news, “I understand the West Somerset badger cull may be failing to meet its own target, despite Owen Paterson’s assurances that the operation is proceeding according to plan.” He went on to say, “The information I have been given suggests that as at the middle of last week, the number of badgers accounted for was still well below a hundred.” Some reports suggest that as few as three or four badgers are being shot in a day, which is well below the fifty animals required if our animal loving Minister for the Environment is to have his way. Of course DEFRA refute this by saying it’s just teething problems which will be sorted out, but unless some trigger happy marksman gets lucky, the data suggest the badger killers will fall way short of their target. A spokesman for the National Farmers Union refused to comment on the tiny number of animals killed to date, saying it was too early to draw any firm conclusions either way. The NFU mouthpiece had this to say, “It is a pilot cull therefore we can’t fully assess the effectiveness until it is completed. It still has some way to go. I would say making such comments could be somewhat premature. We shall have to wait and see,” Forgive me for being slightly confused. I thought this cull was to test the humaneness of the methods, yet not one report about animals suffering, (or not) has come out of DEFRA or Natural England, who is supposed to be overseeing the slaughter. It is interesting to note that DEFRA and the NFU, who seem to be dictating UK Government policy these days, have not mentioned what will happen if the number of animals slaughtered fails to meet their targets. Shadow environment secretary Mary Creagh responded in the commons today as to the claims only 100 have been shot so far but it would seem the Government will not be drawn, even for Ms Creagh. She went on to say the report was ‘worrying’. It is not just worrying; it will have a knock on bad effect for farmers too that no answer is forthcoming. Mary Creagh went on to add, “Scientists have warned that a botched cull could spread bovine TB in cull areas, making things worse not better.” A Taunton solicitor, who also supports the hunting fraternity, is in contact with those involved in the cull, he spoke on BBC Radio Somerset, saying that the dairy farmer who questioned the efficacy of the trials wasn’t happy with the culling method used, and on further research I discovered that the self-styled badger welfarist, does indeed favour a special method. He says he can detect which are the infected setts and he favours gassing the badgers with carbon monoxide gas. The same farmer has written several articles couched to make us believe that badgers are the spawn of the devil and should be classed as pests and killed because not only are they to blame entirely for the spread of bTB but are also responsible for hedgehog decline and many other ills. He is not the only one to favour gassing badgers it would seem, and many pro cullers have come out in support of this method on social media sites. There are some racist elements that support the slaughter and they are not shy in making joking comparisons to the holocaust, and on one Farmers Group they have posted a song about the killing sung to the Dad’s Army theme tune. More insults for anti-cull from an MP who should have known better. Mr Ian Liddell Grainger was reported this week as saying those not in favour of a cull were unwashed benefit scroungers who only got out of bed to visit the pub. He allegedly found a dead badger on his door step, which he immediately diagnosed as having been bludgeoned and poisoned to death by those same anti-cull personnel. Instead of calling the police or the RSPCA, Mr Grainger buried the animal and took to the media saying he was very upset by the incident although not surprised considering the mentality of those opposed to the slaughter. The press are also in on the act, and the first badger ate my grannie story has appeared in the Cheddar Valley Gazette. A man from North Wotton was walking his dog, Dolly, when a badger charged out of a storm drain straight towards his dog. This must have been a decoy badger, because while he was fending it off with his boot, another badger shot across the road and bit Dolly’s tail. I wonder how long before the Tory press start with the same kind of anti-badger propaganda? Meanwhile, the good people opposed to the cull are just getting on with the protests and the petitions and the patrols. Joe Duckworth from the League Against Cruel Sports has been at the cull zone in Somerset and he has produced a video diary of events. He said he was proud to be there among so many decent and dedicated people. "The strength of public feeling against the shooting of badgers in Somerset and Gloucestershire is immense, with individuals from all walks of life coming together to voice their opposition and help look out for our black and white friends." Around 500 people marched through Taunton on Saturday in a peaceful protest against the cull currently taking place in Somerset. Brian May gave a rousing speech when he visited Gloucestershire to show his opposition to the culling. He was criticised by some members of the Jewish community for referring to the slaughter of innocent animals as genocide. In my opinion the word should stand. What is happening is animal genocide because we are on the verge of wiping out a genus. A group of people on Face book organised a protest outside of Owen Paterson’s constituency surgery today. Surprise, surprise he didn’t turn up. They stood in the rain with their placards, their faces determined and their minds made up. Where will it end? Many think the cull has a hidden agenda and it’s not just all about badgers. If Owen Paterson succeeds in wiping out 70% of the badger population, there will likely be an explosion in the fox population because those animals compete with badgers for food and habitat. Mr Paterson is a self-confessed blood sports fanatic. Could this be the real reason for flying in the face of all science and ignoring the public who have protested in their thousands? Perhaps our Tory hunters just want another excuse to bring back fox hunting. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/VIDEO-Life-ground-badger-camp-new-footage/story-19782030-detail/story.html http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Badger-cull-trial-doomed-fail-need-simpler/story-17861133-detail/story.html#axzz2enTZ58aH http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Badgers-shock-attack-walker-dog/story-19786976-detail/story.html#axzz2elHfeYrD http://www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/opinion/12092013075732-sv-owen--wildlife-and-ecology-campaigner--it-is-up-to-the-farmers-to-control-tb-in-the-british-cattle-herd/ http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Queen-guitarist-Brian-faced-death-Gloucestershire/story-19780961-detail/story.html
0 Comments
Well it looks as if the killing has begun, although DEFRA and others appear to be keeping tight lips about the war that is raging between farmers, DEFRA and the animal rights brigade. On 26th August a leading figure in the campaign against the cull was arrested attempting to break into a DEFRA site in Gloucestershire. Jay Tiernan was pictured attempting to get through a roll of barbed wire on the top of a wall. He has been released on bail until November. Other protesters have been evicted from their camp site near Watchet in Somerset by the land owner, but they have secured another site in a field on the edge of the cull zone. The National Farmers Union have confirmed that the cull is going ahead in Somerset and Gloucestershire but no official figures have been released as to the number of badgers killed to date. It is expected that before this trial cull is finished, 5000 animals will have been slaughtered, most of which will have been healthy animals with no signs of bTB. One article floating around the Internet recently stated that a study in of 400 badgers that were examined after being killed on the roads in Cheshire, only one showed evidence of TB infection. Quite what DEFRA and Natural England hope to prove with these pilot culls is not clear, as the badger corpses won’t be tested for bTB, they will be taken to a secret location and incinerated. People against the cull could be forgiven for believing that smells very much like getting rid of the evidence. Those against the cull have been taking to social media sites to vent their anger and frustration, while some of those who are pro culling have posted unsavoury messages which are at best childish and at worst inflammatory and incredibly callous. It would seem the Countryside Alliance has taken an especial interest in the badger cull, and they haven’t missed the opportunity to swipe at the RSPCA, again accusing them of acting out with their remit as a charity in promoting anti cull politics. Fortunately righteousness prevailed and once again the Charity Commission ruled that the RSPCA has no case to answer. One prominent Countryside Alliance figure in reply to concerns about wounded badgers suffering was prompted to remark that it wasn’t badgers screaming people could hear, it was hedgehogs cheering. Another editor of a well-known hunting magazine was tweeting about badger terrine, while others talked of a boom in shaving brushes, and one particularly callous commentator remarked, that we already have a cure for TB in badgers, it’s called a bullet. These unfeeling individuals care nothing for the suffering and their comments do nothing to enamour farmers to the public at large. It would be safe to assume that the hunting fraternity are carefully monitoring public reaction to the badger slaughter, because if the Government gets away with this crime, it will pave the way for repeal of the hunting Act next year. Ordinary people, from all walks of life, together with the animal charities are all working to put pressure on the powers that be to end the slaughter. There are many calls to boycott British dairy products from the cull zones and also the shops who stock their products. Waitrose, Asda and M&S have given assurances that their own brand milk is not sourced from those areas. The big three charities are issuing regular statements and the League Against Cruel Sports has been working closely with the Badger Trust in challenging an injunction made by the National Farmers' Union to restrict “persons unknown” from peacefully and lawfully protesting against the Government’s cull. After hearing the argument by the Badger Trust a far more reasoned and balanced order was made. Scientists and naturalists are becoming more vocal with celebrities joining the clamour for Number 10 to stop this despicable act of wanton slaughter. So far it has fallen on deaf ears. Brian May’s petition is still going strong with 289,388 signatures; (please sign if you haven’t already done so. The closing date is the 7th Of Sept 2013) and the song in support of our badgers has made the top 40 in the iTunes download chart and is the most popular track in the iTunes store top 10 rock chart. The Labour Party has also come out strongly against the cull and they have their own petition on their Can the Cull website. Labour supporters also have a website with information and blogs and a Face Book page dedicated to the badger cull and the repeal of the hunting Act vote scheduled for 2014. What else can we do to make the dinosaurs in government listen? It would seem the only solution may be to resurrect Guido Fawkes. What can we do? It is vital we do all we can, and then some. Perhaps the first thing is to write to your MP and ask him or her to sign EDM299 to stop the badger cull being rolled out across the country if they haven't already done so. The final injunction has been amended from the draft and now states that - (1) PERSONS UNKNOWN, participating in unlawful activity designed to harass farmers, land owners and occupiers and/or otherwise interfere with badger cull pilot schemes. This means that it only attaches to those engaging in unlawful protest. For more information the Badger Trust have released a clarification document on the injunction. Related:
There’s an ill wind in the willows A story is unfolding, but it’s not by Kenneth Grahame. This Chapter in Britain’s wildlife saga is about badgers and foxes, whose fate seems to be intricately intertwined. We had word last week that the badger cull trials would definitely go ahead on Monday 26th August 2013. Twitter was agog and the badger patrols were organising themselves to start patrolling at a moment’s notice. The NFU decided to play a hand at this point, and they went to Court to seek an injunction against what they referred to as animal rights fanatics and terrorists. They have the backing of the Countryside Alliance it would seem and indeed a lot of the rich and powerful will be members of both organisations. They do what they do best and attempts were made on social media and in the pro hunting press to negate and label those of us who care about animal lives. It seemed like the final straw was when we heard an injunction had been granted to keep us away from farm land and badger sets. The Countryside Alliance were jubilant and righteous as they always are on such occasions, and stories of farmers terrorised by what they regard as the unwashed lunatic fringe of fanatical animal rights extremists began to appear on their websites and their newspapers. Fortunately on appeal at the injustice, the Badger Trust gained a bit of ground back and the injunction was lifted slightly with a few provisos that law abiding protesters had a perfect right to lawfully protest. Then DEFRA weighed in and tried to blow up a bit of a smokescreen by saying the date of the start of the cull was not known and it would be left to the discretion of the cullers. Undaunted, ordinary decent British people just got on with their plans. Vuvuzelas are being replaced with ultra-sonic dog whistles, and high viz jackets and powerful torches are at the ready. In Somerset the Somerset Badger Patrol Group is planning to go out every other night to begin with, and then every night after the cull actually starts. They are holding a candle lit vigil in Minehead on Monday night. As well as showing their opposition to the cull they are on the lookout for wounded badgers that may crawl away to die. Brian May’s petition is still going from strength to strength and now stands at 265652 signatures but it appears that’s not enough public voices to touch the cold hearts in Parliament who are intent on slaughtering thousands of innocent healthy animals. The Government admits they don’t know the true number of badgers in Britain. If this cull is rolled out across the country there will be a bloodbath of slaughter which may well wipe out badgers from Britain altogether. The Western Morning News spoke to Amanda Barrett, who worked for many years as a producer with the BBC Natural History Unit and who has set up a website called Badgergate, subtitled: "The Need to Know – So Many Myths, So Little Time". Amanda had this to say, "I've never known anything like it in the countryside. How can the Government suppress so much information? And when it does come out, it is often heavily biased.” She went on to comment later in the article “One of the best benchmark scientific trials ever carried out with wildlife showed that killing badgers would not create any meaningful results for bovine TB. Eventually you have to ask, what more can you do? I've written to my MP – I have written to lots of people – and no-one is listening to us.” I think Amanda sums up exactly how we all feel. Voldemort has teamed up with Sauron, and while they enjoy their comfortable lives at home in Mordor with their families, innocent badger families will face a hail of bullets fear and pain. Brian May wrote in his soapbox blog that the Government will achieve their aim in slaughtering badgers because they have relegated that animal to zero status. It has become as so much trash. A non-thing, beneath the notice of us as human beings. And indeed if you look at some of the blogs and the comments from the pro cull supporters, (largely the hunting set) you can see that Brian is right in what he says. Badgers are being vilified and blamed for the decline in hedgehogs. I read an article in a hunting journal the other day which claimed it is badgers and not game keepers that are destroying raptor nests and taking young chicks and eggs. I expect when they get round to thinking about it, these vile people will start blaming badgers for the London plague too. It has been suggested by Brian May and quite a few others, that the badger cull is only part of the plot. If the public stand by and let our Minister for the Environment slaughter our badgers without a complaint, it will give a green light for a repeal of the Hunting Act next year. The vilification and smearing of the organisations that stand in the way of these bloodthirsty dinosaurs has already begun, with the RSPCA bearing the brunt of the dirty tricks at present. The League against Cruel Sports has also come in for a fair amount of insults and intimidation on social media and pro hunting Internet sites, and the defamation has not been restricted to the organisation as a whole. Certain trolls who should know better have involved themselves in personally smearing individual members of the League including the CEO and the Chairman. We cannot let these nasty people win. They belong in the dark ages with the other bloodthirsty traditions of bear baiting and sticking heads on spikes on London Bridge. The pro hunting, pro badger slaughter press are suppressing the true story. We must take every opportunity to spread the word. Education is everything in this war waged against our wild animals in the countryside. More information below: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Somerset-Badger-Patrol-peace-loving-people/story-19704883-detail/story.html http://www.league.org.uk/content/643/Badger-Cull http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferd72fc&utm_medium=twitter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIq2sSbtTlE&feature=c4-overview&list=LLPpHgPlMgE2KX7wM1E-FkvQ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/22/judge-order-badger-cull With the repeal vote due next year and a good possibility the our animal hating Government may try to pull a fast one, let’s take a look at some of those jolly chaps who tell us our British countryside is safe in their hands. The accompanying videos are selected from footage taken over the seasons by hunt saboteurs and monitors who put up with the most appalling abuse both verbal and physical from the hunting fraternity. Hunters not content with abusing innocent people who are there to see fair play, are in collusion with the political arm of their hunting organisation which has mounted another sustained and vicious attack on the RSPCA. The latest RSPCA bashing session has come in the form of accusing the RSPCA of having access to police files in order to carry out prosecutions. This is in spite of a statement from a spokesperson for the Association of Police Officers explaining that the RSPCA has no direct access to the files held on the police computer. “The RSPCA has no direct access to records held on the Police National Computer (PNC). In common with other prosecuting bodies, it may make a request for disclosure of records at the stage that a prosecution is brought. This indirect access does not include firearms licensing, vehicle registrations (which are held on other systems to the PNC) or any information that the RSPCA does not need in order to prosecute a case at court. This process ensures that the PNC is kept up to date with records of prosecutions conducted by the RSPCA.” In actual fact an article in the UK Guardian in 2002 reveals that the same organisation which slates the RSPCA, actually holds thousands of personal files on its opponents, including religious, financial and sexual information. Where will it end, I hope not with a toothless version of an organisation that has been looking after animal interests since 1812. The pro hunting press are also out in force and I can guarantee we will soon be in for more lurid stories of how demon foxes broke into the bank of England and ate the new Governor, then made off with the loot, having found a way in through a window that was repaired six months earlier. As well as attempting to discredit their opposition, the Countryside Alliance is pushing for a move towards a Bill which if it is adopted will make cruelty to all animals against the law. Ah I hear you say, at last. But don’t be fooled. That a pro blood sports organisation is pushing for this must make it suspect in the first instance. The Donoghue proposal will indeed make it an offence to be deliberately cruel and cause unnecessary suffering to both wild and domestic animals. But, consider, there is no definition in law of what constitutes cruelty and the hunters don’t accept that hunted animals suffer. So fox and deer hunting will resume, and the onus will be on the prosecutor to prove, in every kill, that that the animal endured unacceptable cruelty. That is an impossible task, and the hunting fraternity know this full well. The legislation we have at the moment is working. Hunting with hounds is against the law and those caught doing it will be prosecuted and risk being found guilty and punished. There are loopholes in the hunting Act. Mainly introduced in the discussion stage by the hunting lobby who couldn’t bear to give up entirely on their blood fest. But these loopholes can be reviewed and closed, and the legislation can be tightened up to give Britain’s wild animals the protection they deserve. Let us not forget that three quarters of British people want to keep a ban on hunting. Of the quarter of the population left, some of those don’t know or don’t care, so what we are left with is a tiny minority of powerful hunters and their supporters who have actually turned the country inside out in a selfish and spiteful attempt to get their own way. Owen Paterson and his side kick Richard Benyon, are both avid hunters, and the former at least has vowed to work tirelessly behind the scenes to persuade MPs to vote to scrap the hunting Act next year. To my mind this smacks of a conflict of interest, and those MPs who wish to repeal a legal and lawful Act of a British Parliament should not be allowed to vote. After all, the Act is in law and it is working, and three quarters of us are happy with that. It is a tiny minority of people who are using their power and influence to get what they want for themselves. All this commotion behind the scenes, and illegal hunting goes on all the time with the police refusing to become involved and the courts handing out paltry sentences or no punishments at all. It is past time now for these people to adjust and behave. The Countryside Alliance is STILL complaining that the Heythrop prosecution was political, yet why is it political to prosecute animal cruelty which is covered by the legislation in the Hunting Act? They carp that the Heythrop is a powerful hunt with connections to the British Prime Minister and they claim the RSPCA had a political motive in singling out a high profile case. Two things spring to mind for me here, one if a high profile hunt kills foxes out with the law, they must remember they are not above that law however important they may feel they are, and two, if they had any respect at all for our Prime Minister they would not have embarrassed him by deliberately hunting in the first place. The hunting Act must stay, and we must let our Government know we won’t be held to ransom by a group of blood thirsty bullies. Finally please be aware that Cubbing, or Autumn hunting as those participating now like to call it, starts today Friday 9th August 2pm is officially the date and time when hunters will dig out fox cubs and throw them to their hounds in order to teach them to hunt foxes. This disgusting practice is illegal and it happens in the early hours of the morning when no one is usually around. More foxes both cubs and vixens are killed at this time than during the rest of the year. This puts a lie to the hunters claim that they are providing a service to fox kind by only hunting the weak and the old or sick. Despicable people and despicable times. Please let your MP know in no uncertain terms that we do not want the hunting Act repealed in 2014, or in fact ever. Sources: http://www.acpo.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/RSPCA-access-to-PNC-records-258.aspx http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/01/ruralaffairs.hunting http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/01/29/fox-hunters-revenge-tory-mp-takes-fight-to-animal-rights-def *Video Warning graphic violence to people by hunters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd5dc5T90Vg&list=PL9073A7ABA659B145 A statue of the original brown dog used to stand in Battersea Park as a memorial of the little terrier and other animals that died painful and protracted deaths at the hands of vivisectionists. The statue was erected in 1906 by two Swedish anti-vivisection campaigners against the illegal animal dissections that took place at the University of London. The inscription on the statue read, “ In memory of the Brown Terrier Dog done to death in the laboratories of University College in February 1903, after having endured vivisection extending over more than two months and having been handed from one vivisector to another until death came to his release. Also in memory of the 232 dogs vivisected at the same place during the year 1902. Men and women of England, how long shall these things be?" ” The statue became a target of animal vivisectionists and London University medical students. It was defended by the anti-vivisectionists students and riots at the site continued regularly until the statue mysteriously disappeared in 1910 after the elderly leader of the anti-vivisectionist movement, Francis Power Cobb, was attacked in her office. The National Anti-vivisection Society, (NAVS) and other groups against vivisection, erected a new statue in 1985 in the same place and with the same inscription. By 1963 animals in their millions were being used in experiments to test cosmetics, medicines, tobacco, kitchen cleaners, chemical warfare and even veterinary experiments to produce pet food. In fact if humans had a use for it, animals would suffer for it. Most of the laboratories where these tests on animals were carried out were secret establishments, and the general public knew little or nothing about the suffering that went on behind closed doors and in their name. Eventually, concern in some Government quarters led to the Littlewood Committee’s report and eighty three recommendations for changes in legislation to protect living animals during experimentation. Unfortunately, no legislation was passed to put any of the welfare reforms into practice. It was not until 1983 and after a sustained and concerted effort on the part of animal welfare groups that the Government promised to replace the one hundred year old Cruelty to Animals Act with new legislation to protect animals in laboratories. NAVS realised outright abolition of all animal experimentation would probably be light years away. They formed a coalition with other like-minded groups and drew up a list of key experiments which should be banned in the new legislation.. The testing of cosmetics on live animals was one huge area of contention, as was the testing of weapons of war and the cruel and debilitating psychological tests. Who can forget the smoking beagles and the pictures of shaved rabbits with festering sores and swollen eyes that were used to test household products including shampoo and perfumes. The Draize eye irritant tests were a particularly vile way of ensuring products were ‘safe’ to use on human beings, and the LD50 test, which stands for Lethal Dose 50, meaning that a drug or a product was force fed to a rabbit, rat or sometimes a dog until that animal was poisoned to death. Quite what the mentality of the laboratory worker who would do these things to animals would be, is beyond my comprehension. In 1986, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act received Royal Assent, and indeed the Government of the day were proud of their work in improving animal ‘welfare’. This view, nor the pride, was not shared by those in the animal welfare organisations who had lobbied so long and so hard for change. The real glimmer of hope for laboratory animals did not really begin to glow until the late 1990s when animal testing of cosmetics and the use of higher primates in research began to be viewed by politicians as something which must be seriously addressed. Also at that time, the UKs Freedom of Information Act allowed people to know what was actually happening to animals in laboratories and the resulting public horror was what brought about the process of change. An important step towards the abolition of animals in experiments was taken in 2009 when the European directive on Animal testing was properly reviewed for the first time in two decades, and legislation was passed in 2010, which although it gave only minor concessions, has laid the first steps on the pathway to a Europe wide ban on primate research and a ban on all ingredient testing of new cosmetics. The European Coalition to end animal experiments says, “The European Union was due to be free of all new animal tested cosmetics by 2013. However officials are now considering exceptions for certain types of animal tests. This would mean that animal tested cosmetics could still be imported and sold in the EU. That’s despite massive public opposition to animal tested cosmetics and an existing ban on animal testing for cosmetics inside the EU. Join us in saying NO to cruel cosmetics in Europe.” - See more here “We, the undersigned, do not want new cosmetics that are tested on animals to be available in the EU. Animal testing of cosmetics is cruel and unnecessary. We urge the European Parliament to adhere to the 2013 marketing ban deadline as set out in the 7th amendment to the Cosmetics Directive. Public opinion is against animal testing of cosmetics on ethical grounds, and there is no public appetite for new cosmetics that have been animal tested to be available in the EU after 2013. We urge the European Parliament to listen to the overwhelming majority of European citizens and vote against delaying this ban.” Remember the little brown dog, and millions like him who died in pain and fear. Then think of the millions of animals today who are suffering in laboratories because human beings think they have the right to use animals to further they own ends. The end result can never justify those means if we wish to keep our humanity. THE TIME HAS COME TO LET YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT KNOW THAT WE (THE BRITISH PUBLIC) DO NOT WANT A REPEAL OF THE HUNTING ACT. It would appear that the Government have sent a date for a free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act, although we have no month or set date, it is rumoured that it will be voted upon in 2014. The IFAW, The League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA have produced a joint statement, “We believe that repeal of the Hunting Act would be barbaric and a backward step for a civilised society. Hunting with dogs was consigned to the history books because the majority of the public found it abhorrent. Those calling for repeal of this law are effectively calling for a return to cruelty. We will vigorously defend the law with all available resources, the backing of our one million-plus supporters and the vast majority of the public. We are calling on people to contact their MPs asking them to vote to protect the Hunting Act. The public has consistently opposed the cruel and unnecessary chasing and killing of foxes, deer, hare and mink by dogs, and does not want any return to killing for fun.” People in the know have suggested that because the pro hunting Tories are in the minority, the Government will want to hold the debate on a day when the opposition is at home in their constituencies. And that it is likely to be a Friday. It has been suggested in a few quarters that they may even apply a whip to the vote, as happened in the recent debate on the badger cull. This, of course, would be entirely wrong thing to do as Mr Cameron did promise a free vote, but then perhaps we could be forgiven for not trusting the word of someone who wants to see the return of chasing and killing innocent wild animals for fun. Labour MPs are aware of the dangers, and it is going to be a close vote and every vote against a repeal will be crucial. There will be a need to work hard public awareness from now onwards. A group of dedicated people who work alongside Labour MPs in Parliament have been working on counter measures for some time, and now it is known that the vote is imminent, they, and we, must ramp up the game to ensure those MPs against do all in their power to be in Parliament at the crucial time. A further threat to the Act is the Government’s plan to change the way Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on issues which affect England. If the Scottish MPs are not allowed to be counted in a vote against repeal, then the Act is in very serious danger of being repealed. As things stand at the moment, the Tories cannot guarantee a win but equally nor can those MPs voting to keep the Act,. It is too close a call and it will take a massive effort to ensure that all who need to vote on the day can do so. Anti-hunting MPs have the edge and more momentum at present, yet the Badger Cull, and the apparent lack of overall public anger is convincing the Tories that they could get away with a repeal as well. The ‘Save Me’ petition against the badger cull has a staggering 257407 signatures and rising, and it is proving to be one of the most successful petitions against animal suffering ever. We must keep this momentum going and continue with the fight to keep hunting with hounds illegal. It is difficult to fight an enemy who refuses to fight fair, and that enemy has the backing not only of our own Prime Minister, but also the pro hunting press and a certain section of the rich and powerful in society who is responsible for upholding the Law. Many Chief Constables hunt as do many of our judges., and the pro hunting press are going all out with lurid stories of fox attacks on humans whilst at the same time attempting to smear and render toothless the organisations that are fighting to keep the cruelty of fox hunting from returning to the British countryside. The Countryside Alliance, formerly the British Field Sports association, is coming up with all kinds of sanitising arguments in a concerted and well-orchestrated attempt to persuade the public that hunting is not only humane but it is essential. They are claiming that hunting a fox with a pack of dogs leaves no margin for wounding and it is all over swiftly and humanely and the fox dies in a few seconds from a swift nip on the back of the neck from the lead dog. They say that shooting foxes is cruel and can lead to an injured animal suffering for hours or days and dying in great pain from infection, blood loss or starvation. It is arguable that killing foxes is actually necessary in the first place because they are not really significant pests and are indeed useful to farmers because they eat rabbits, rats and mice and insects which destroy crops. It is the responsibility of the farmer to keep his free range hens safe in fox proof enclosures at night and foxes are not a significant threat to lambs. Most lamb deaths are due to poor animal husbandry, and of the lambs with evidence of having been eaten by foxes most will have been scavenged rather than predated. If it is absolutely essential to kill a fox, then lamping, if carried out correctly, was seen by Lord Burns to be the lesser of two very great evils. Shooting has always been the farmers preferred method of killing foxes that are pests, and hunting on horseback is not a method of control because the hunts don’t kill enough foxes to make any significant difference. Their claim that hunted foxes don’t suffer is rubbish. A fox hunt can last anything from twenty minutes up to several hours. The fox is not naturally a prey species, and he will attempt to hide underground as soon as he possibly can do so. In order to make the chase last as long as possible, hunt supporters go out the day before and block up any holes to prevent the unfortunate animal going to ground. The animal who does manage to find a bolt hole is quickly discovered and a terrier or two is sent into the hole to keep him at bay whilst the men start digging. Eventually the terrified little fox is hauled out and either smashed with a spade or he is shot. Sometimes the fox is thrown alive into the pack of dogs. Two post mortems carried out on foxes for the Burns report showed that neither animal died from a quick nip on the neck, both were literally bitten to death. One had lost an eye and the other had more bites on his flanks and abdomen that would be seen in a dog fight. Both animals had been disembowelled. It is interesting to note that in neither post mortem was there any evidence of damage to the cervical vertebrae, giving a lie to the quick nip on the neck theory. Hunters chase and kill foxes for one reason and that reason is because they get enjoyment out of killing a small mammal who has no chance to defend himself. They even persecute fox cubs, digging the tiny animals out of their homes in order to train the hounds to kill. Fox hunting in all of its guises is nothing other than a despicable and barbaric sport, and it is a minority of British people who want it to continue. That those people are the rich and the powerful matters not, we must make our voices heard. I am proud to belong to a nation of animal lovers. I am British and I am proud of my country and its humanitarian principles. Those MPs who will vote for a repeal are doing so with a personal motive, not because it is right or indeed representative of their constituents. This is surely a conflict of interests and we must make them aware that they are in Parliament to represent us not their own personal agendas. Only A clamour from the British public can sway this vote. Please join me in protesting long and hard to our Government. Please tell your MP in no uncertain terms that you DONOT want a return to cruelty in the UK countryside. Please make the time to tell your MP and keep telling them, we want NO REPEAL OF THE HUNTING ACT. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/english-revolution-in-house-of-commons-plan-to-give-englands-mps-right-to-veto-on-issues-not-affecting-scotland-wales-or-northern-ireland-8698505.html http://www.powa.org.uk/id82.html http://www.diggingout.org/vermin/ http://www.powa.org.uk/ http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/prime-minister-david-cameron-rspca-must-retain-its-powers-to-prosecute-hunters-who-break-the-law http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw8tZLncYIo&feature=share https://www.facebook.com/groups/189745174126/
In a horrible finale of a three-minute video on youtube, we see an innocent dog shot and killed by Californian police. Max the dog was killed on Sunday night because a trigger happy policeman didn’t think the situation could have been better played another way. I didn’t want to watch the video all the way through. I had to force myself to watch what I knew would be upsetting and unjust. To see an innocent dog die in this way was truly horrific. Max the Rottweiler jumped from a car window to be with his owner who was being arrested by the police. A Californian policeman opened fire; he fired multiple shots into the dog, who eventually fell to the ground writhing in agony with all of his four legs in the air. This is one of the most disturbing videos I have seen and I am certain it will upset most decent people around the planet. The drama started at 7pm with Max’s owner Leon Rosby, who was waking with his dog past a house which was under surveillance by the police. Leon apparently stopped to film the event in order to ensure the civil rights of people in the house were not violated. News reports state that the police were investigating events to do with an armed robbery and Leon was asked to turn down his car radio which was playing loudly and disrupting the police operation. Mr Rosby didn’t immediately comply, and a neighbour says he swore at the police saying it’s my f****g radio. Leon denies swearing saying he is a Christian and doesn’t swear. Eventually, two police officers turned towards Leon, who put Max in his car and then calmly walked over to the police, offering himself up for arrest. As the officers put handcuffs on Rosby, Max started barking. He jumped out of the open car window and headed over towards Leon, who was by this time standing with his hands fastened behind his back. Another police officer ran over and tried to grab Max’s lead. Max is seen to jump up and the policeman fired his first shot into the dog’s body. He shot the dog several times in quick succession. Whatever Leon Rosby’s motives were on that day, Max was an innocent casualty and to my mind, a victim of police brutality. The police saw Rosby’s action in filming their operation as interference, and they placed him under arrest. It is worrying that in this day and age that people don’t trust the police to treat people fairly, and that bystanders feel they must have video evidence to ensure that those who uphold the law do not act out with their remit. But that aside, Max was obviously worried about his owner, and he did the only thing a loyal canine friend would do; he went to his owner’s aid. None of the footage showed that Max attacked the policeman and although I can understand that a Rottweiler is a force with which to be reckoned, it did not mean than the only way to deal with the situation was to shoot the dog out of hand. If the perceived threat had been human, would the police have acted in the same way? Leon Rosby says, and I sympathise, he doesn’t understand why they had to arrest him, and indeed the video footage is clear evidence that at Leon and his dog were no great threat either to the officers or their operation. There are broader issues to be considered in this case. The first and most glaring observation is should American police carry guns? Yes, we’ve all heard America is a dangerous place, but does the second amendment really make people any safer? And should American police be so trigger happy in every situation? Rosby was guilty of playing loud music and filming a police operation. Hardly a heinous crime. The video does not show him to be aggressive. Indeed he is the opposite in that he turns to be cuffed without any aggression or animosity. He put his dog into his car and he obviously didn’t think about rolling up the windows. At best this can be seen as a misunderstanding. Yet for a minor infringement with no extenuating circumstances, an innocent dog is abused and killed because a Californian policeman had a gun. In Florida in 2011 an aging golden retriever was shot and killed by police. Boomer an arthritic old dog had wandered away from his home and was reported by a neighbour to be trying to mate with her boxer. The retriever was cornered by police in a driveway. The officers were trying to get the animal into their van and Boomer either couldn’t because of his arthritis, or was too afraid to jump into the van, so the police shot him. The female officer said he bared his teeth at her. There are many other instances of police brutality towards animals, and perhaps it is time those whose job it is to enforce the laws are properly trained in animal management. St Petersburg Police in Florida, acknowledged that to shoot a dog should not always be the first line in dealing with strays, or animals they regard as being threatening. Boomer was the seventh dog to bekilled by the St Petersburg police in a year, and those killings highlight the need for proper training and a clear policy on non-lethal dog handling techniques. A police officers first action when attempting to restrain an animal should never be to reach for a weapon. Sources and related reading: http://stpete.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/police-kill-12-year-old-pet-golden-retriever http://www.webpronews.com/police-kill-dog-video-goes-viral-lawsuit-to-follow-graphic-2013-07 The graphic footage can be found here In 2011 the League Against Cruel Sports revealed the findings of a public opinion poll which showed that 61% of people were firmly against shooting living animals for sport. Less than a quarter of the UK population were in favour of shooting, and the remaining did not express an opinion. The polling which was carried out by YouGov, also asked how people felt about shooting animals for fun being taught to children. An overwhelming 74% were against teaching children to kill animals and only 7% said they would actively encourage children into blood sport shooting. The Countryside Alliance, formerly the British Field Sports Association runs a national shooting week each year. The aim is to encourage young people to take up shooting as a hobby and while the adverts for the week say that no live quarry are used, the inference is that people will go on to join gun clubs where deer, pheasants and other game are killed for sport. The adverts for the week use clean cut images of healthy looking people, and there is not a whiff nor sight of an animal, (other than a gun-dog) blood or guts anywhere, and the Countryside Alliance is keen to promote shooting as a healthy outdoor activity in which young people can excel even up to Olympic standard. The League Against Cruel Sports has shown in their investigative film, Gunsmoke and Mirrors, a much darker side to the shooting industry where millions of birds are bred specifically to be blasted from the skies each year as a form of recreation by those, who it would seem, cannot be happy unless they are killing things. Rearing game birds is a very lucrative industry and the birds are sent as chicks all over Europe. There are hundreds of different breeding ‘farms’, and they produce approximately 40 million birds each year. Don’t be fooled by the word ‘farms’ as these establishments rear the animals intensively with little care for the welfare of those unfortunates who are born with no other purpose than to be shot. Countryside Alliance claims the birds are “…wild, free-range and natural…” This is total nonsense. The stressed chicks often resort to feather pecking and cannibalism, and in an attempt to stop this they are fitted with bits. These mutilate the birds and prevent their beaks from closing. Every year millions of birds endure horrific conditions as they are transported from France, Spain and Portugal. The League Against Cruel Sports has shown that almost half of the game birds that are released and are not shot die because they haven’t been born into the wild and have never learnt to live a natural life. Many starve or die from exposure. Some are so stressed that they turn on each other, and some are not road savvy and are simply mown down by cars. A few may be caught and returned to the UK farms, but these unfortunates are just killed and thrown away like so much rubbish. Of the birds that are shot, huge proportions are dumped as surplus to requirements because many more are killed than could ever be sold or eaten. Their carcasses are dumped in mass graves which can pose environmental risks. There is no mandatory firearm-training requirement in the UK and many birds are wounded by inexperienced shooters, including children, taking pot shots at living targets. These poor creatures often face a painful and lingering death. Highly-toxic lead shot is lost into the countryside which pollutes water and soil and enters the food chain when the dead birds are scavenged by other animals. It’s not just the game birds that suffer, the RSPB has evidence that protected birds of prey are regularly shot around game ‘farms’ to protect the young grouse or pheasants from predation. Cruel snares are set to catch foxes and other animals who might happen to be in the vicinity of a game farm, and the snares are indiscriminate and lethal causing strangulation or severe injuries to the animals limbs or abdomens depending which part of the animal is caught in the snare. Snaring regulations are ineffective, and although it is supposed to be illegal to use certain types of snares, and the law requires that snares are to be checked at least once a day, it would appear that some people take no heed of the Law and animals are left to die painful and protracted deaths. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, self-locking snares are prohibited (the self-locking snare tightens with a ratchet-like mechanism), yet this type of snare is still often used, causing horrific injuries to rabbits, badgers, otters, foxes, deer, birds and even domestic pets. The leading animal charities like the League and RSPCA are campaigning to have snares outlawed in the UK, but the government has resisted this saying they are essential for pest control. DEFRA has drawn up guidelines for good snaring practice, but in reality people don’t care about the suffering, and I actually believe that the more brutish amongst us actually enjoy making animals suffer. This has become even more apparent with the number of nasty FaceBook pages which attract the base and the cruel amongst us to the groups where animal torture and suffering seems to be a reason for celebration. This is 2013, I find it difficult to believe that in our modern enlightened age we still allow a minority of bloodthirsty morons to use and abuse animals for pleasure. Please show your contempt for blood sports and write to your MP, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment Owen Paterson. Please tell these people that they work for us and we don’t want Britain’s animals tortured like this any more. http://vimeo.com/45496168 Watch the League’s film Gunsmoke and Mirrors. See for yourself the cruelty of the blood sports pleasure industry. Owen Paterson has won the vote on the badger cull debate by 49 votes. This was achieved because of a three line whip put on Tory MPs to vote for their party policy. Only one Tory had the guts to vote for her conscience and she will no doubt be penalised by her colleagues for doing so. A motion calling on the Government to abandon its plans for six-week pilot badger culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire over the summer was defeated by 299 votes to 250. Pro cullers are congratulating themselves, yet the result for this three hour debate was never binding, and indeed if the result had been one based on science rather than bullying and those against the cull had won, it would have made no difference to our Environment Minister and his bloodthirsty cronies who were always determined to press ahead with the slaughter of 70% of our badger population. Mr Paterson insists that the ‘best evidence available’ shows culling badgers can make a ‘significant contribution’ to reducing the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle’. He thinks that unless we tackle the infection reservoir in British wildlife we will never eradicate the disease in livestock. However, many top scientists and vets believe the opposite to be true, and some eminent figures in the scientific community feel that culling badgers may actually make the problem worse. Mary Creagh MP said in her opening speech that the policy is ‘bad for farmers, bad for the taxpayers and bad for wildlife’. She went on to say that the 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial, commissioned by the previous Government, showed the cull would not work. Mrs Creagh said the policy was bad for farmers as it would cost them more than it saved them and it would turn the public against them. She also said that shooting the animals was ‘untested’ and indeed the marksmen did not have experience in shooting running targets. She said a Labour Government would be ‘led by science’, and vaccination offered a better alternative. It was pointed out that the Government had dragged their feet on vaccine research and had actually stopped some of the injectable vaccination trials which had been started by the last Labour Government. They also cut funding on the research. “Two or three years of vaccination would give badgers full immunity,” she said, and then went on to say “The cull has been disowned by the scientific community and runs a real risk of making the disease situation worse. Complex problems require complex solutions. This is not the solution.” Mrs Creagh pointed out that farmers themselves and some vets are against the cull. She read out a letter from a dairy farmer to that effect. In his response, Mr Paterson said that badger culling was just ‘one element of a comprehensive approach to the eradication of Bovine TB’. He went on to say “But it is an essential element and one that can help us start to win the war against a bacterium that has proved so damaging and resilient to other interventions,” I am reminded here of the statement made by Professor John Bourne in 2008, when he was addressing the annual conference of the Association for Veterinary Teaching and Research Work. Professor Bourne said, “I think the most interesting observation was made to me by a senior politician, who said, ‘Fine, John, we accept your science, but we have to offer the farmers a carrot. And the only carrot we can possibly give them is culling badgers’”. TB is primarily an air-borne disease which requires close animal contact. Would it not be fair to assume that intensive farming and animals kept over winter in cramped dirty sheds may play a large part in cross infection. This was mentioned in the debate, as was the dirty drinking troughs, but typically Mr P was determined that this was not going to be a sticking point when it came to killing badgers. It would seem that no amount of experts will make a difference, and vested interest and money will once again be the major influencing factor in the slaughter. It is worth noting that there are farms in the middle of the bTB hotspots which are TB free and they continue to remain so. Perhaps it would be worth looking into the farming practices on those farms to find out just what those farmers are doing right. The Badger Trust had this to say, ‘More than 30 independent scientists wrote an open letter to the Government saying that culling badgers should not be the focus of any policy to control bTB. These leading experts on the badger cull continue to stress their opposition. Lord Krebs has recently dismissed the cull as “crazy”. Professor Bourne told Badger Trust that “Eradication isn’t a goal to pursue; control of the disease is. A badger cull simply delays the day when effective controls on cattle are introduced.” Sir David Attenborough recently said, “The evidence is that a badger cull on a scale or level of efficiency that seems feasible will not solve cattle farmers' problem – that problem is truly serious. Understandably, the feeling is that something must be done, but the evidence is that it should not be a badger cull.’ The final report of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) suggests that TB in badgers simply follows the trend in cattle, i.e. a rise in TB in cattle is followed by a rise in TB in badgers. A decline in TB in cattle is followed by a decline of TB in badgers.[2] The Coalition government’s current policy differs from the Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT) in three key areas: it is farming industry, rather than government , led; it uses free-shooting rather than cage trapping and shooting, and it is carried out over six weeks rather than twelve days and then stopped. The cull is simply not supported by science or indeed economics. We have been told that the costs of the cull will be borne by the farmers but the expenses (tax payers’ money) have spiralled out of control and already the costs of the pilot schemes will be higher than the savings made on the perceived reduction in bovine TB cases. This money would be far better spent to fast track the cattle vaccine already in existence but not yet licensed and to increase use of the injectable badger vaccine already successfully in use. It is becoming increasingly obvious that unproven and untested, the policy for the pilot trials means that 5,000 badgers are open to significant abuse with regard to welfare and humane issues and that they are indeed a carrot for the farmers. ‘ So it would appear that this cull is not supported by scientists, yet for some reason the Government is determined to go ahead. We have been told that the costs of the cull will be borne by the farmers but the expenses, which are already in excess of a £1 million, will be paid for by the tax payer. This money would be far better spent to fast track the cattle vaccine already in existence but not yet licensed and to increase use of the injectable badger vaccine already successfully in use. Five thousand badgers will suffer and die because of this ill-conceived cull. Owen Paterson pays lip service to animal welfare. In deed he is unmoved that the humanness of the killing will be calculated by the noises made by the dying badgers. He talks about our exports to the Continent being in serious jeopardy if we can’t reassure out European neighbours that we are doing something to tackle bTB. This again shows little regard for animals. The live export trade has long been a huge bone of contention for animal welfare groups including the RSPCA. If all animals were slaughtered in the UK then there would be no need to worry about vaccination rules on the Continent or elsewhere. But let us not forget that our Minister for the Environment is also a blood sports fanatic who has vowed to work behind the scenes in Parliament to convince MPs that fox hunting should be made legal once more. It is not surprising then that someone who thinks it’s okay to disembowel foxes as a fun day out, will not be swayed by any empathic pleas from voters to spare Britain’s badgers. He will not countenance the science either it would seem. If he is happy with the killing, at the end of the trial period, the Minister will give the go ahead to roll out the programme to other areas in Britain. The killing could go on for as long as 25 years, and as we don’t know how many animals we have in the countryside, we are in serious danger of making badgers extinct in Britain. Perhaps it is time for Owen Paterson to go. How is it possible to have an Environment Minister who supports hunting, who is not bothered about the Bees, and who will forge ahead with a cull which the public don’t want, and which is condemned by our leading scientists? Watch the video from the Badger trust http://justdosomething.org.uk/ Please continue to show your support for badgers by signing petitions and complaining to your MP Mrs Miggins reports from the March Wearing black and white we gathered at Tate Britain to show our opposition to the senseless and cruel slaughter of Britain’s badgers which officially is due to begin today in pilots in west Gloucestershire and west Somerset. There were many famous names among the crowd, the actress Virginia McKenna being one of the first to speak. She spoke about the suffering caused to cows and badgers alike by bTB and went on to explain how the Governments attitude was making things worse because the money was being spent on culling thousands of badgers instead of spending it on better animal husbandry on dairy farms and working towards a successful vaccination programme for cows and badgers. Amid cheers and whistles Bran May gave a rousing speech. He came dressed in a black jacket and shirt with white stripes, and with his trade mark hair style he looked very much the badger king. “Thousands of badgers are going to be killed in a scheme which will not make life any easier for farmers. We don't believe it will work. We don't believe it's humane. And there is a better option which is vaccination.” He went on to say that it is important that we support the farmers who are against the cull because they were not having an easy time of it. Some of them are afraid to speak out because of threats and intimidation, and he also said that the farmers themselves had been misled by a government which was determined to take the wrong option. There was support also from Bill Oddie, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Hunt Saboteurs Associated as well as representatives from the Blue Fox Group in Parliament, and many other animal welfare groups. The message from all of the groups was the same. No country in the world has ever eradicated bTB by killing badgers, and this includes Ireland, where claims to the contrary have been dismissed as lies and spin. In spite of the scientific view that the cull is bad science and it will not work, and the humanitarian view that it is cruel and if it is rolled out across other areas, it will decimate the badger population to almost total extinction, our Minister for the Environment still plans to go ahead. Owen Paterson was hailed as the true villain of the piece as he is accused of pandering to the powerful farmers union and ignoring the advice of his own experts. He won’t have it all his own way however, because it was announced that the Labour Party have called for a full scale debate and vote on the cull which is scheduled to take place on Wednesday June 5th. Brian May stressed that it is vitally important that people against the cull make their feelings known to their members of Parliament before this date. MPs must be aware that their constituents want a resounding NO when the time comes to vote. Although a vaccine is several years away, there is a trial being carried out on a Gloucester reserve by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust. They have even made a short film showing how to trap and vaccinate a wild badger. The badgers are humanely trapped, injected and marked with coloured paint to prevent the same animal being injected twice. It shows it can be done. Where there is a will there’s a way. It would appear, however that this government are not willing to look for a way because killing badgers is cheaper and easier in the long term. The demonstration of support for our badgers was a huge success in terms of numbers and enthusiasm. People of all ages and from all over the country came to show their disapproval of the badger cull. Approximately three thousand people gathered outside Tate Britain at 12 noon on 1st June 2013 dressed in badger outfits of one kind or another. After the speeches and announcements we walked slowly along towards Parliament Square, to the chants of ‘Sab the Cull’ and Owen Paterson Out Out Out’. Looking back at one point at the mass of people, the procession looked like a long snake of placards and black and white costumes and masks. Unfortunately we were not able to go all the way to Parliament Square because a demonstration against the BNP was in progress in that area. The police said we had to stop at St James Park Tube Station, however I believe a large group did go on to St James Park for a picnic, and on the way they were joined by some of the anti BNP group who took it in turns to chant for the badgers. Images from the march below
|
|