Uk: Live Pigs Blown Up to ‘Simulate’ Terrorist Attacks on Civilians


LIVE pigs are being blown up with explosives at Porton Down, the government’s secret military research laboratory, to simulate the effect of terrorist attacks on civilian targets.

In a series of tests at the biological and chemical research centre in Wiltshire, 18 large pigs were wrapped in protective blankets before bombs were detonated a few feet away.

The scientists allowed the pigs to bleed until almost a third of their blood was gone to see how long they could be kept alive.

MPs and animal welfare groups have questioned the use of live animals in the explosions, even though the pigs were anaesthetised throughout. None survived the experiments.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, said: “These are revolting and unnecessary experiments. Sadly, we are too familiar with the effects of terrorism. It is perfectly possible to find out things we don’t know without blowing up pigs to find out.”

Research papers, obtained by The Sunday Times, show that the experiments at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory were carried out because “blast injuries are an increasing problem, owing to the widespread terrorist threat”.

The blasts were meant to recreate the effect of an explosion in an enclosed space, such as the July 2005 attacks on the Underground and a double-decker bus in London, and had been designed to help medics control haemorrhaging from victims.

The pigs were wrapped in Kevlar blankets to protect them from minor bomb debris and placed less than three yards from the explosive. Before being blown up, they had tubes inserted into their blood vessels and bladders, and their spleens removed. A major blood vessel in the abdomen had a wire put into it so the vessel was lacerated during the blast.

Porton Down said the research programme would help British soldiers exposed to bombs in Afghanistan as well as potential civilian terror casualties. Up to 94% of critically injured victims of the 2004 Madrid train bombings were identified as suffering from “blast lung”, an injury that leaks over time.

A spokeswoman said that anecdotally there was already evidence that the research was helping to save lives.

“This work is part of our broad combat casualty care programme. Anecdotally, we are seeing evidence of people surviving because of this work,” she said.

Porton Down, originally set up to research chemical warfare during the first world war, uses a special breed of white pig that has skin resembling human flesh.

Scientists at the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection questioned the validity of the tests, saying that the effect on an anaesthetised pig of a bomb blast would “differ substantially from those of a conscious human being”.

A spokesman said: “We understand the need to deal with the human tragedy, of which sadly there are too many cases. However, we do not believe that mutilating pigs in these horrific experiments is the answer.”

*** Take action and sign at the BiteBack site as follows:

Naam = full name – nom et prénom

Verzenden = send  – envoyer

Thank you!!!!!

Uk: Uk Citizens Required to Take Part in DEFRA Consultation on Use of Wild Animals in Circuses


VERY IMPORTANT! – You Can Stop Animal Circuses by Taking Part.

Defra consultation on use of wild animals in circuses (UK)]


DEFRA have today launched a three month consultation on the use of wild
animals in circuses. See link below.

It is vital that we get the maximum number of submissions in favour of a

It is of concern that the government are not consulting on just a ban
which shows how much influence the animal circus lobby have in Defra and
government circles.

Earlier this year Bolivia banned the use of all animals in circuses with
support from the very top of its progressive and compassionate minded
government. Other countries have also banned wild animals in circuses or
are in process of doing so. That Britain (a country that is supposed to
be ahead of the game on animal welfare) still allows it is truly

Even now with the way this consultation is worded we see that
there is a lack of moral and political leadership on this issue.

It is also just a few months before a general election and the consultation is
being launched just days before Christmas, after the government have
dragged their feet for months and months.This can be seen as  Defra
manipulating the process to ensure the launch is not picked up on widely
in the media or by the public and that time could run out to implement
any action before the election.

You can submit your submission online at link below.

Please go carefully with the questions as some are geared towards self or statutory
regulation rather than a total ban.
Here are some answers to those types of questions:
#9: NO. As with any sort of social progress, (eg: the end of slavery), adjustments will need to be made and those profiting from the exploitation of animals, will need to seek other means to supplement their greedy profiteering at the expense of other sentient beings. There must be a total ban!
#13: There is no appropriate answer to this question as it is contrary to the position that wild animals should be banned from traveling circuses because of the inherent cruelty in: forcing animals to perform; in confining animals to cages, crates, trucks, boxcars, chains; the inherent cruelty in removing them from their natural habitats and family groups; in depriving them of everything that is natural to their lives, when lived as the Creator intended. There must be a total ban!
#14: This question is objectionable as it departs from a self-serving premise that animals can/should  be allowed in travelling circuses!  That is unacceptable! There must be a total ban!
#16: Absolutely! Restrictions should constitute a ban at all times on the use of all animals in circuses. The hours and environment are not those that should be decided by organizations; these animals should be left in the wild or placed in sanctuaries where they can live out their days in as close to a natural setting as possible. There must be a total ban!

Also, please keep a record of when you put your submission in. 


 Letters to local and regional press informing people of the consultation
are also helpful.


‘if not you…. then who?’
South East Animal Rights

Japan: Scientist Reveals Study Showing That Taiji Residents have 10 Times Higher Mercury Levels Than Average Japanese Citizens.


Breaking News: Japanese Scientist Reveals Study Showing That Taiji Residents have 10 Times Higher Mercury Levels Than Average Japanese Citizens.

University of Hokkaido Professor Tetsuya Endo expresses alarm at the high levels of contamination among residents of Taiji, site of the killing of dolphins featured in The Cove.  Dr. Endo is calling for “efforts to curb consumption of whale meat which is highly contaminated with mercury.”

Message From Ric O’Barry
Campaign Director
Save Japan Dolphins

Photo – Ric O’Barry with dolphin meat in a Taiji market. Dolphin meat is poisoned with mercury. Photography by Boyd Harnell

The dirty secret of the largest slaughter of dolphins on Earth is that the dolphin meat being sold to an unsuspecting public in Japan is poisoned by mercury contamination.

We have brought this to public attention since we began our campaign four years ago.  More recently our testing of dolphin meat and the mercury contamination issue (including the Japan government’s cover-up with a compliant media) is receiving global attention in the award-winning documentary The Cove.

In Taiji, Japan, the little town that slaughters a thousand dolphins a year and sells the meat in markets around Japan, one brave town council member, Mr. Yamashita, objected to the inclusion of mercury-laden dolphin meat in the town’s school lunch program, a PR gimmick by the dolphin-killers to get another young generation hooked on poisoned dolphin meat.  Taiji dropped the school lunches, but unfortunately Mr. Yamashita has been shunned and left Taiji.

However, one of his legacies was a decision by the town council to test the mercury levels in Japanese citizens in Taiji.  The results have been held up for months, but now enterprising reporters in Japan are bringing out the story.

The Japan-wide news service, Kyodo News, just published this story, picked up here by The Japan Times, which has been bravely printing the story of the dolphin slaughter and our Coalition work for several years.

The story states that Taiji residents, who eat dolphin meat, are showing mercury levels ten times higher than average Japanese.

The Japan media is finally getting out the story of mercury contamination in dolphin meat.  As more stories appear, more reporters and editors will feel safe in investigating further.

Mercury-laden dolphin meat is a crisis that should bring an end to the dolphin slaughter in Japan, and not just in Taiji, but all across Japan.

We still have a long way to go to get this story out to the Japanese public and help organize the protest to their government to end the cover-up and the sale of dolphin meat.

I believe we are getting closer!  And we will not stop until the dolphin slaughter ends, period.

Ric O’Barry
Campaign Director
Save Japan Dolphins Coalition

Save Japan Dolphins Coalition: Earth Island Institute, Animal Welfare Institute, Elsa Nature Conservancy of Japan, In Defense of Animals, Campaign Whale of the UK, and OceanCare of Switzerland

Canada: Petition – Stop Deaths by Gas Chambers








please sign the petition below to out-law the horrendous gas chambers in Quebec and throughout Canada. Distribute this important message everywhere you can and post to your web sites.

Gas chambers are one of the most cruel and barbaric methods to kill animals. In order to save money, the animals are not given any sedative before they are thrown into the gas box. It takes 15 to 25 minutes before these helpless and innocent creatures die in this chamber. The dogs are thrown into these gas boxes with the aid of a pole, a tight, strangling chain around their necks. The cats are put into portable animal carriers, so that they cannot escape. They are subjected to intolerable suffering, their lungs literally burned and destroyed by carbon monoxide. To reduce waste matter, the employees of these high-kill pounds are instructed to stop feeding the animals for three (3) days prior to gassing them. They are only allowed to drink a little water. Euthanasia by injection of barbituates would be a distinct preferable resolution. It would not be more expensive and would diminish the suffering to these animals.

In the name of all animals, those who are without neither voice nor choice, we thank you.

Together, we can give these innocent animals a second chance for a better life, a life they so deserve?

Carol Waterman

Volunteer for Animal Welfare in Quebec and Canada


The No Kill Declaration!


This year, some four million dogs and cats will be killed in shelters. The vast majority can and should be placed into loving homes or should never enter shelters in the first place. But there is hope.

No Kill sheltering models, based on innovative, non-lethal programs and services, have already saved the lives of tens of thousands of animals. But instead of embracing No Kill, many shelters?and their national agency allies?cling to their failed models of the past, models that result in the killing of millions of dogs and cats in U.S. shelters every year.

No Kill is a revolution. And behind every revolution is a declaration?a statement of grievances, and a listing of rights and principles that underscore our great hope for the future. We assert that a No Kill nation is within our reach?that the killing can and should be brought to an end. Join us in endorsing The Declaration of the No Kill Movement in the United States.

It is open to every individual, every group, and every agency that wants to bring about an end to the killing by implementing the programs and services that will establish a No Kill nation. Programs like ensuring public access to affordable spay/neuter services, allowing rescue groups to save animals on death row, and communitywide Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) for feral cats. These are not radical concepts, but in the current sheltering world, one can be ostracized for daring to proclaim the simple truths that population control killing is not an act of kindness and that feral cats have a right to live.

Join us in speaking for those who can?t. In the length of time it will take you to read the Declaration, nearly one hundred dogs and cats will be needlessly killed.
I. Preamble

One hundred and fifty years ago, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and other humane organizations were founded to establish standards for humane treatment of animals, to promote their rights, and to protect them from harm. This marked the formal beginning of the humane movement in the United States.

The scope and influence of these early humane organizations were testament to the public?s concern for animals. It did not take long for them to set their sights on the abuse of homeless animals and cruel methods of killing by public pounds. It was common practice at the time for city and town dogcatchers to beat, drown, or shoot homeless animals.

Many humane agencies responded by entering into animal control contracts with towns and cities to ensure that the killing was done more humanely. But in taking on municipal animal control duties, these agencies abandoned their lifesaving and life-enhancing platforms when those beliefs conflicted with their contractual responsibilities. In the current era, where laws require killing by even more ?humane? methods, these contradictions have become starker.

Increasingly, the practices of both humane societies and municipal animal control agencies are out of step with public sentiment. Today, most Americans hold the humane treatment of animals as a personal value, which is reflected in our laws, cultural practices, the proliferation of organizations founded for animal protection, increased per capita spending on animal care, and great advancements in veterinary medicine. But the agencies that the public expects to protect animals are instead killing more than five million animals annually.

Lifesaving alternatives to the mass killing of animals in shelters have existed for decades. These lifesaving methods are based on innovative, humane, nonlethal programs and services that have proven that the killing can be brought to an end. Too many of these agencies, however, remain mired in the kill philosophies of the past, unwilling to or hampered from exploring and adopting methods that save lives. This is a breach of their public trust, a gross deviation from their responsibility to protect animals, and a point of view that we, as caring people and a humane community, can no longer accept or tolerate.

We assert that a No Kill nation is within our reach?that the killing can and must be brought to an end. It is up to each of us working individually and together to implement sheltering models that have already saved tens of thousands of animals in progressive communities. If we work together?with certainty of purpose, assured of our own success, with the commitment that ?what must be done, will be done??the attainment of our goals will not be far off.

II. No Kill Resolution

Whereas, the right to live is every animal?s most basic and fundamental right;

Whereas, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and other humane organizations were founded to establish standards for humane treatment of animals, to promote their rights, and to protect them from harm;

Whereas, traditional sheltering practices allow the mass killing of sheltered animals;

Whereas, every year shelters in the United States are killing millions of healthy and treatable animals who could be placed in homes, and are also killing millions of feral cats who do not belong in shelters;

Whereas, life always takes precedence over expediency;

Whereas, the No Kill movement in the United States has successfully implemented new and innovative programs that provide alternatives to mass killing;

Whereas, lifesaving change will come about only if No Kill programs are embraced and further developed;

Whereas, failure to implement No Kill programs constitutes a breach of the public?s trust in the sheltering community;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that No Kill policies and procedures are the only legitimate foundation for animal sheltering; and,

It is incumbent upon all shelters and animal groups to embrace the philosophy of No Kill, to immediately begin implementing programs and services that will end the mass killing of sheltered animals, and to reject the failed kill-oriented practices of the past.

III. Statement of Rights

We acknowledge the following:

  • Sheltered animals have a right to live;


  • Feral cats have a right to their lives and their habitats;


  • Animals, rescuers, and the public have a right to expect animal protection organizations and animal shelters to do everything in their power to promote, protect, and advocate for the lives of animals;


  • Animal protection groups, rescue groups, and No Kill shelters have a right to take into their custody animals who would otherwise be killed by animal shelters;


  • Taxpayers and community members have a right to have their government spend tax monies on programs and services whose purpose is to save and enhance the lives of all animals;


  • Taxpayers and community members have a right to full and complete disclosure about how animal shelters operate.


IV. Guiding Principles

No Kill is achieved only by guaranteeing the following:

  • Life to all healthy animals, and to all sick, injured, or vicious animals where medical or behavioral intervention would alter a poor or grave prognosis;


  • The right of feral cats to live in their habitats.


  • These conditions can be achieved only through adherence to the following:


  • Shelters and humane groups end the killing of healthy and treatable animals, including feral cats;


  • Every animal in a shelter receives individual consideration, regardless of how many animals a shelter takes in, or whether such animals are healthy, underaged, elderly, sick, injured, traumatized, or feral;


  • Shelters and humane organizations discontinue the use of language that misleads the public and glosses over the nature of their actions, such as ?euthanasia,? ?unadoptable,? ?fractious,? ?putting them to sleep,? and other euphemisms that downplay the gravity of ending life and make the task of killing easier;


  • Shelters are open to the public during hours that permit working people to reclaim or adopt animals during nonworking hours;


  • Shelters and other government agencies promote spay/neuter programs and mandate that animals be spayed or neutered before adoption;


  • Public shelters work with humane animal adoption organizations to the fullest extent to promote the adoption of animals and to reduce the rate of killing;


  • Shelters provide care and treatment for all animals in shelters to the extent necessary, including prompt veterinary care, adequate nutrition, shelter, exercise, and socialization;


  • Shelters are held accountable for and make information publicly available about all the animals in their care.


V. No Kill Standards

The implementation of these lifesaving procedures, policies, and programs must be the immediate goal of every shelter, and animal control and animal welfare agency:

  • Formal, active commitment by shelter directors, management, and staff to lifesaving programs and policies, and dedication to promptly ending mass killing of shelter animals;


  • Immediate implementation of the following programs by all publicly funded or subsidized animal shelters:


+ High-volume, low- and no-cost spay/neuter services;
 + A foster care network for under-aged, traumatized, sick, injured, or other animals needing refuge before any sheltered animal is killed, unless the prognosis for rehabilitation of that individual animal is poor or grave;
+ Comprehensive adoption programs that operate during weekend and evening hours and include offsite adoption venues;
 + Medical and behavioral rehabilitation programs;
+ Pet retention programs to solve medical, environmental, or behavioral problems and keep animals with their caring and responsible caregivers;
 + Trap-Neuter-Return or Release (TNR) programs;
+ Rescue group access to shelter animals;
+ Volunteer programs to socialize animals, promote adoptions, and help in the operations of the shelter;
+ Documentation before any animal is killed that all efforts to save the animal have been considered, including medical and behavioral rehabilitation, foster care, rescue groups, neuter and release, and adoption.

  • An end to the policy of accepting trapped feral cats to be destroyed as unadoptable, and implementation of TNR as the accepted method of feral cat control by educating the public about TNR and offering TNR program services;


  • An end to the use of temperament testing that results in killing animals who are not truly vicious (e.g., shy/timid cats and frightened dogs) but who can be placed in homes, or are feral cats who can be returned or released;


  • Abolishment of trapping, lending traps to the public to capture animals, and support of trapping by shelters, governments, and pest control companies for the purposes of removing animals to be killed;


  • An end to owner-requested killing of animals unless the shelter has made an independent determination that the animal is irremediably suffering or cannot be rehabilitated;


  • The repeal of unenforceable and counter-productive animal control ordinances such as cat licensing and leash laws, pet limit laws, bans on feeding stray animals, and bans on specific breeds.