Serbia: Loznica City Pound – 3 Million Dinars for What ? – Certainly Not For Animal Welfare ! – Politicians Maybe ? – SAMPLE LETTER Included.

Serbian activists have informed by letter that the Shinters of Loznica city have been given, and spent, more than 3 million dinars for the construction of a new animal shelter.

Here are the pictures of this shelter at Loznica city.  Hardly a facility which costs 3 million plus !!

Cages are tiny, like transportation cages, nothing more.

Activists have brought criminal charges about this facility, but as always with the Serbian legal system, they are completely ignored.  The ‘charge does not exist’ they are informed.

Activists inform that nobody cares about legislation for animals, or for the rights of humans who make these charges.  Together they suffer.

The only difference is that humans are not killed directly, but the animals are !

Below is a sample letter relating to this case and the non enforcement of Serbian national legislation for strays since 2005.  Legislation which the government are now attempting to overturn in order that they can legally continue to kill strays, even though they have been committing illegal activities by doing this since 2005.  You can copy this sample letter and send to the Serbian government, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, and also to the OIE for World animal health, who are based in Paris.  Full contact listings are given in the details (sample letter) below.

SAMPLE LETTER **  SAMPLE LETTER ** 

To  Serbian Government ;

predsednikvladesrbije@gov.rs,

kabinet.zpv@gov.rs,

kabinet.potpredsednika@gov.rs

CC :

office@minpolj.gov.rs

generalni.inspektorat@minpolj.gov.rs

info@ekoplan.gov.rs

goran.milosev@minpolj.gov.rs

zoran.marinkovic@minpolj.gov.rs

zoran.micovic@minpolj.gov.rs

Media :

redakcija@blic.co.rs

redakcija@politika.co.rs

redakcija@kurir-info.co.rs

redakcija@glas-javnosti.co.rs

redakcija@novosti.rs

antigona.andonov@b92.net

Commissioner Rehn – EU:

cab-rehn-web-feedback@ec.europa.eu

OIE Paris:

oie@oie.int

Block Listing of above:

predsednikvladesrbije@gov.rs,  kabinet.zpv@gov.rskabinet.potpredsednika@gov.rsoffice@minpolj.gov.rsgeneralni.inspektorat@minpolj.gov.rsinfo@ekoplan.gov.rsgoran.milosev@minpolj.gov.rszoran.marinkovic@minpolj.gov.rszoran.micovic@minpolj.gov.rscab-rehn-web-feedback@ec.europa.euoie@oie.int

 ——————————

LETTER to copy and send – 

 

To whom it may concern;

I am writing to express my complete and utter disgust at the situation I have seen at Loznica city pound.

Firstly, I understand that it is a regular occurrence that dogs which are attempting to survive in such squalid conditions at this so-called ‘animal shelter’ are regularly being used as living targets by local hunters.  I have seen the photographic evidence of one small female dog which has been shot through the body with a hunters arrow.

Secondly, the conditions for animals at Loznica ‘shelter’ are a disgrace, especially when you are allegedly providing millions of dinars to make the place more suitable for animals.  One has to ask where exactly this money is really going – maybe into the pockets of Serbian politicians rather than animal welfare.

Members of the Serbian parliament who represent Loznica always speak against stray dogs whenever they have the opportunity.  They never speak out about the irresponsible animal owners of Loznica; those people who care nothing about their animals, who  turn them out on the street every day, to mate with other animals, the same owners who make no attempt to get their animal(s) sterilised; something which would very rapidly reduce the numbers of strays on the streets if only this were to happen.  Progress in reducing stray animal numbers needs to be obtained through education and a sterilisation programme, and responsible pet ownership.  Serbia does not appear to be moving in any direction with any of these programmes at the moment – apart that is, from its endless and pointless stray killing attitude, which will never significantly reduce stray animal numbers in the long term.

The Serbian media continue to use a language of nothing but hate against stray animals.  But the media does very little to analyse what has been continuously stated by animal welfare organisations regarding a national sterilisation, vaccination and identification programme to reduce stray numbers long term.  Where the money which is currently being used for rounding up and killing a small percentage of strays, it could and should be diverted to instead be used to sterilise, vaccinate and identify treated strays on the streets; strays which are identified as having been sterilised and which are of no ‘threat’ to increasing stray animal populations.

Shinters (dog catchers) need to be educated to ignore animals which are identified as being sterilised, rather than simply going on their killer mindset frenzy of wiping out every animal which they come across.

Where exactly is all the money for the shelters and for animal control programmes actually going ? – could it instead be being siphoned off into the pockets of politicians ? – food for thought and certainly the views of Serbian animal campaigners who see very little progress in the standards of personnel (shinters) and the conditions of animal shelters across Serbia.

Sterilised animals do not produce offspring; but neither the Serbian government or the Serbian media appear to understand this basic fact of nature.  Money needs to be put into a sterilisation programme, not a continual killing programme which kills some strays but allows other non-sterilised animals to reproduce and effectively, continue replacing the numbers of animals which have recently been caught and killed by an archaic and very uneducated regime.

Serbian animal activists have much proof of animal abuses and have asked for the intervention of the Serbian government in agreement with the obligation (of the government) which is defined in Article 192 of the Serbian Constitution, and also Article 8 of the Law of Government.  Despite their requests to the Serbian government, these citizens of Serbia are being ignored.  So what can be said about the rights of Serbian citizens when they are ignored by their own government, despite there being legal obligations which the government should adhere to ?

I am sending a copy of this letter to the EU Enlargement Commissioner, Mr. Olli Rehn; to inform him that in no way is Serbia currently in a position to be accepted into the EU.  It is clear from the situations at Loznica alone, regardless of any other Serbian cities and their approach to stray animal control procedures, that you as a government are not enforcing your own rule of law, a fundamental requirement for membership of the EU.  An additional copy of this letter is being forwarded to the OIE, Paris, to inform them of the animal abuses and non-compliance with the existing animal protection legislation in Serbia.  Legislation which the government would appear to be ignoring and dismissing.

Instead, you continue to allow local authorities to work using the old, outdated and illegal legislation of Pravilnik 29/94; legislation which has since 2005 been overwritten by Article 168, the Serbian Veterinary Law of 02/10/2005.

Local authorities across Serbia are using Pravilnik 29/94 to continue killing animals held in pounds after 3-7 days when in fact they should now, and from late 2005, have been using the new Veterinary Law Article 168 which demands the care of animals, not the killing.

This has recently been verified to Serbian animal campaigners by the Constitutional Court of Serbia.  Proof of this can be provided if requested, either by the Serbian government, the EU Enlargement commission, or the OIE for animal health in Paris.

You, as the Serbian government, are not enforcing the current veterinary law to proterct animals.  Instead, you are continuing to use old and now illegal legislation for the killing of animals.  This is not acceptable and the EU Commissioner is now going to be informed that the Serbian government cannot enforce ‘the rule of law’ as required to be shown for EU membership.

Although as a government you should be fully aware of national legislation, but obviously you are not, I will have to make it clear to you:

Pravilnik 29/94 became nonexistent on 02/10/2005 when it was replaced by the new veterinary law Article 168 which demands the care of animals, not the killing.

Also, I now understand that authorities have started discussions at a meeting in Negotin; where these authorities have plans to introduce a new version of the old and illegal Pravilnik 29/94, which returns back to allowing animal killings after 30 days of being held in a shelter.

There would be not law for the care of animals under this new regime, simply a policy of kill, kill, kill.

I guess the reason for this new kill policy is because shinters, veterinarians and many politicians all take money from the public purse by being involved with an animal killing strategy.  You obviously wish to keep these advocates of animal killing funded from the public purse, so you are possibly going to introduce new legislation (the new Pravilnik 29/94) to ensure that this continues to happen.  Public money for continued killing with no real long term programme to reduce animal numbers by other methods – this is what the Negotin discussions are aimed at.

This discussion has started in the city of Bor; the city where over 1,000 bodies of illegally killed animals have been left on the city dump, and also where live animals are left on the dump wrapped in plastic bags to suffer a long and terrible death.

Again, we have the evidence and can provide photographs to any parties who request them.

Conclusion:

The Serbian government is not enforcing new (2005) national legislation to protect animals,

The Serbian government are not enforcing the law of the Serbian government,

the law for public competition,

The Serbian government are not enforcing the Criminal Code,

The Serbian government are not enforcing the verdict of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, or enforcing the Serbian Constitution,

In summary, there is no enforcement of the Serbian ‘rule of law’ and as such, I consider that you as a nation are not elegible for membership of the EU until you show positive changes with regard each and every one of these areas.

Both Commissioner Rehn at the EU and the OIE Paris will be provided with a copy of this mail.

Yours,

Your Name: 

Your Nationality:

 ——————————————————————————————————

Lebanon: Excellent News – First National Workshop on Animal Welfare !

Experts from across the European Union will join stakeholders in Lebanon for the first national workshop on animal welfare on May 18th and 19th.

Held under the patronage of the Lebanese Minister of Agriculture, HE Dr. Hussein Hajj Hassan, this two day workshop is a major initiative to enact national animal welfare legislation.

The European Commission offers training and assistance to countries surrounding the European Union through its Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (TAIEX) program. Animals Lebanon was invited to a regional TAIEX workshop held in Jordan in 2009 and after seeing the potential benefits worked to have a similar workshop take place in Lebanon. “The Ministry of Agriculture has accepted that animal welfare is an issue important to the public and has to be addressed,” said Lana El-Khalil, President of Animals Lebanon. “We are pleased they agreed to work with Animals Lebanon and allowed us to organize this important workshop.”

For two full days, some of the top experts in the field of animal welfare will participate in the workshop, speaking about European Union minimum standards and how they can be applied in and benefit Lebanon.

The two main topics that will be discussed are zoos and CITES, the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species, two areas where Lebanon lags far behind other countries in the region. The Minister of Agriculture has committed to having Lebanon join CITES by 2011, and expressed his intentions at the recent CITES conference in Qatar. Despite this, the smuggling of endangered wildlife continues and lions, grey parrots, chimpanzees and other animals are smuggled through or into Lebanon. Nearly all countries have joined CITES, and those which haven’t are often used as hubs for smuggling. Since 2005 three new zoos have opened in Lebanon, and many others have existed for years. There is no legislation to license or regulate zoos in Lebanon, and no zoo is part of the World Zoo Association or the European Association of Zoo and Aquaria.

In zoos throughout the country there is little or no conservation or education value and animals suffer in horribly inadequate conditions. In an effort to improve compliance with and join CITES, experts will explain about such as issues as how to deal with confiscated animals, transport conditions of CITES listed animals, and animal welfare at border posts. Presentations on authorization and inspection of zoos, registration of animals, and animal welfare in zoos will illustrate how zoos in Lebanon must improve and the necessity of national legislation regulation zoos.

“The value of the workshop can be measured by what the 70 participants put into it,” Lana explained. “We need a room full of stakeholders who are actively engaged, and realize that they are each in a position to help make a major difference. This is a good first beginning to enacting national animal welfare laws and now is the time for everyone to prove this is an issue that is being taken seriously.”

The process of enacting national animal welfare legislation will be long and difficult. Animals Lebanon is committed to bringing about the time when laws are enacted and enforced. Donate now to support the campaign to enact animal welfare legislation in Lebanon.

China: Peking University Using Street Cats for Laboratory Testing ?

South China Morning Post
http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=5446e6232a288210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=China&s=News

by Yu Aitong

May 11, 2010

Peking University Health Science Centre has been accused of using street
cats for laboratory testing
, and the university has confirmed the cats were
purchased but were not bought from local sellers.

The Beijing News reported on Monday that the university was using cats in
its laboratory research by students.

The newspaper sent a reporter, who pretended to be an auditor for a
pharmacology testing class. Before the test started, a white cat weighing
less than three kilograms was hidden in a bag outside the laboratory,
waiting to be dissected.

Later it was brought in a wooden box specially designed for anaesthetising
without the cat scratching the laboratory staff. The staff injected 3 per
cent of a narcotic through holes on the top and side.

Once anaesthetised, the cat was placed on an operating table with its four
legs tied by ropes, its jaws were opened and a metal ring inserted.

Two and a half hours later, the test was finished and a student injected a
chemical into one of the cat’s legs to kill it. A cleaner packed the body
into a plastic bag to be incinerated with that of another cat, which had
died during the same class.

The report said some students had asked their teachers where the cats came
from because they were curious why the laboratory cats smelled badly and
appeared dirty. The teacher told them they were wild cats from the suburbs
,
and a laboratory employee explained that “a private cat seller will send
cats to the school whenever we call”.

The newspaper quoted an unidentified animal protection association as saying
Beijing had wild animals in the suburbs, and most cats the sellers caught
were street cats
. According to a survey conducted by the Capital Animal
Welfare Association, the Beijing suburbs had at least 200,000 street cats
from 2004 to 2007.

The Regulations for the Administration of Affairs Concerning Experimental
Animals, approved by the State Council in 1988, state that all experimental
animals must have known backgrounds or be artificially fed and bred under
strictly controlled conditions. Animals for experiments can be classified as
quality animals, clean animals, animals carrying no specific pathogens and
animals carrying no bacteria.

The Health Science Centre denied the statements by its teacher and
laboratory staff.

Jiang Hui , chief of the Peking University propaganda department, told the
South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) : “The university
does use cats to do experiments, but those cats were not bought from private
cat sellers. We buy them from professional animal farms. I have the formal
purchase invoice,” but he refused to give the farms’ names or any further
information.

“We have not violated the country’s regulations,” Jiang said.

Professor Zheng Zhenhui , chief of the school’s experimental animal science
department, said: “The test the newspaper witnessed was a classic animal
test that has used cats for more than 30 years in China, and cats are the
most suitable animal for it. The country has a specific regulation to manage
`experimental animals’, but experimental animals are only one type of all
animals used for experiments. The university has fed animals we are licensed
to use, but for the other animals we need during the teaching process [and
cats are one of them], we have to purchase from the market.”

He said there was a difference between “experimental animals”, which are
covered by state regulations, and other animals used by laboratories, which
are not regulated, and cats are among the latter.

The Peking University Health Science Centre, the first university on the
mainland to teach Western medicine, has more than 28,000 students.