Posted on September 9, 2019 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
At least 17 people were injured at a religious procession in Kotte, Sri Lanka when two elephants ran amok, according to local reports.
Footage captured by a local news outlet showed one of the elephants running down a street. More than a dozen festival-goers were injured after an elephant taking part in a Buddhist pageant in Sri Lanka went on a rampage.
The procession in Kotte, near the country’s capital, began with a government minister placing a sacred relic on a decorated casket atop an elephant adorned with shiny red clothing. But it quickly turned disastrous when the elephant surged forward, sending some of the terrified worshipers straight into another one which then ran amok.
Shocking footage showed a man riding on the elephant’s back narrowly avoid being trampled after he was shaken off as the huge animal heads straight into a crowd.
Officials from two hospitals said 18 injured people were brought in following the stampede, including women and at least two children, and 16 have been discharged.
It remains unknown what actually triggered the elephant (!!!)
It is another elephant-related controversy for Sri Lanka after photos emerged last month showing a starving 70-year-old female forced to don a colourful costume hiding her emaciated body. According to the Save Elephant Foundation, Tikiri was one of 60 elephants forced to work for 10 nights in a row at the Esala Perahera Buddhist festival in Kandy.
The organisation’s founder, Lek Chailert, said in a heartfelt post on World Elephant Day: ‘No one sees her bony body or her weakened condition, because of her costume. ‘No one sees the tears in her eyes, injured by the bright lights that decorate her mask, no one sees her difficulty to step as her legs are short shackled while she walks.’
WAV Comment – we have argued for years that a complete lack of decent biosecurity controls are one of the main reasons behind Bovine TB.
What is biosecurity?
Biosecurity is the measures taken to protect against or prevent the transmission of infectious disease, defined by Defra as “designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious disease” in its Guidance to Natural England4. Biosecurity can include measures that prevent infected cattle from entering a herd; measures that protect against the risk from neighbouring herds by the use of double-fencing, cleaning and disinfecting shared equipment or vehicles, wearing protective clothing, using disinfectant foot dips and taking precautions when spreading slurry and manure; and measures that minimise the risk of infection between cattle and wildlife (badgers, deer, wild boar, etc), such as preventing badger access to feed stores, fencing off setts and latrines, using mains water for cattle, and raising troughs and regularly cleaning and disinfecting them.
Cattle are bought and sold to new farms all over the country. As a result, they have to be transported to new ‘homes’. If they are carrying BTB, is it then not possible that these cattle can take the disease to their new location; and infect herds which up until this time, may be BTB free ?
We know from all or work with live animals transport over the years, that transporters are not always cleaned out and disinfected to the standards expected of them. If you don’t clean and disinfect trucks fully, is there not a chance that disease which may be in waste from the animals and lying in the transporter; may not remain, and the disease be passed on to new animals carried in the same transporter ?
Up to 9,000 of badgers are likely to have suffered “immense pain” in culls to control cattle TB, according to a former government adviser.
Prof Ranald Munro is the ex-Chair of an independent expert group appointed by the government to assess its trials.
He has written to Natural England to say that the policy is causing “huge suffering”.
He adds that the culls are not reducing TB in cattle and in one area the incidence of the disease has gone up.
The culls began in 2012 following appeals from cattle farmers whose livelihoods are continuing to be damaged by the spread of TB.
Prof Munro’s independent expert group found that up 23% of badgers took more than five minutes to die after they were shot. These figures prompted the group to conclude that the culls were inhumane in its assessment report to government. This document’s publication was delayed but its contents were revealed by BBC News in 2014.
The expert group was disbanded by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) ministers, who said that its work had been completed – though this was against the wishes of many of the experts involved, with one claiming that ministers were “wilfully” ignoring scientific advice.
Speaking ahead of the expected announcement of new culling areas for 2019 later this week, Prof Munro estimates that 40,000 badgers have been culled so far which according to the expert group’s figures equates to thousands of them dying slowly.
“The numbers are huge, they really are. If you look at the likelihood of not dying within five minutes of being shot, you are looking at 3,000 badgers having suffered immense pain at a minimum. It could be as high as 9,000. There is a huge issue of suffering in these badgers.”
Prof Munro’s remarks come as he and 19 other vets, scientists and animal welfare campaigners wrote to Natural England, the body that oversees the culls.
A freedom of information request by the group has shown that as the number of cull areas has increased over the years, the environment watchdog’s monitoring staff have been spread ever thinner.
In 2014, 20% of culls were supervised by Natural England staff. In 2018, it was able to monitor only 0.4%.
“The terms of the roll-out of the culling have not been adhered to,” Prof Munro said.
“They are saying ‘oh yes, we are observing’; but they are observing at a level which is of no value whatsoever in determining the humanness of culling and whether badgers are being injured or how long they are taking to die.”
Weight of science
The FOI request also revealed that in the very first cull area, in Gloucestershire, which could be among the first to see benefits if there are any from the policy, the number of new herds confirmed to have TB increased from 10 in 2017 to 23 in 2018.
This single increase in one year in one area is not sufficient to show that the culls are not working. More data and expert analysis will be needed to determine their effectiveness one way or another.
But the experts and campaigners write in their letter: “We are unconvinced that the culling of large numbers continues to be justified in the view of recent data showing zero disease control benefits after six years of culling of badgers in Gloucestershire.”
A Natural England spokesperson said: “We help to implement the badger culling policy under the direction of Defra and in line with decisions taken by ministers. We are in the process of reviewing the badger cull applications for 2019 made under that policy and will communicate decisions in due course.
“One of our roles is to independently consider licence applications to cull or vaccinate badgers, and we take policy advice from Defra when deciding if the activity will deliver effective disease control. Licensing is not done lightly and those involved in the cull – farmers, contractors and Natural England staff – take the welfare of badgers very seriously.”
Debate Guide: Guide to Justifications for Harming and Exploiting Animals
65 ridiculous justifications people use to harm and exploit animals followed by responses.
1 It doesn’t harm animals to kill them
2 It doesn’t harm animals to take their eggs
3 It doesn’t harm animals to take their milk
4 But cows need to be milked right?
5 It doesn’t harm animals to take their wool
6 It doesn’t harm animals to take their silk
7 It doesn’t harm animals to take their honey
8 I just like the taste
9 It’s my personal choice
10 Morality is subjective, you can’t prove it’s wrong for me
11 It’s just a matter of opinion like religion
12 It’s just a matter of culture
13 Our ancestors did it
14 We’ve got canine teeth
15 Lions do it
16 Circle of life
16b It’s natural
17 God put animals here for us to kill, bible says so
18 It’s been happening for hundreds of years
19 We have to eat animal products to survive
20 They’re bred to be killed so it’s fine
21 They wouldn’t have been born without farmers, we did them a favour
22 What about tribes who have to hunt to survive
23 What if you were on a deserted island
24 If you get bitten by a snake you’d take antivenom
25 Animals aren’t as intelligent as us
26 You’re humanizing animals, they’re not the same as us
27 Some animals are to be killed some aren’t
28 Humane slaughter
29 Grass-fed, organic, free-range etc
30 Killing animals for no reason is wrong, but if you have a reason it’s fine
31 The whole world will never be 100% vegan
32 One person can’t make a difference
33 You can’t be 100% vegan in modern society so why bother
34 If everyone went vegan, livestock would overpopulate
35 If everyone went vegan, livestock would go extinct
36 Those animals would just be killed in the wild anyway
37 You’re putting people out of jobs because of the effect on the industry
38 Vegans have no effect on anything
39 It’s unsustainable
40 It’s unhealthy
41 Protein
42 Iron
43 Calcium
44 B12
45 It’s expensive
46 Vegan food is all disgusting
47 Animals are killed in crop harvesting so vegans kill more animals
48 In Australia, grass-fed beef is more ethical than eating wheat
49 Plants have feelings
50 Don’t force your opinions on others
51 Stop judging me
52 A vegan was rude to me once
53 Vegans are closed-minded
54 I read about this couple who were vegan and they killed their baby
55 Hitler was vegetarian
56 You get your companion animals euthanized, that’s the same
57 We have to test on animals to make sure cosmetics are safe
58 We have to test on animals to make medical advances
59 But would you use medicine to save your life?
60 I’m a nihilist. I don’t care about anything apart from myself
61 Yeah but what do you feed your pets? I win
62 There are wars going on / people starving in the world
63 Yeah but sweat shops and slave labour
64 Vegan Sidekick’s comics are inaccurate / offensive
65 Yeah but there are other ways to promote veganism, this is ineffective
RESPONSES
Click on the following link to see sensible and informational responses to all the ‘justifications’ above. Some, if not all of them, may help you as an activist with a response when you are questioned on something.
Posted on September 9, 2019 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
The treaty with Mercosur does not provide for sanctions when a country like Brazil illegally destroys forest. That’s what the European Commission acknowledged.
The agreement reached at the end of June with the Mercosur Group from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay is intended to give the EU access to a hitherto highly isolated market with 260 million citizens.
Most tariffs on EU imports such as cars should be abolished, which would save the economy € 4 billion a year. In return, the EU wants to lower its import taxes on industrial products from the Mercosur states and further open its market for agricultural products.
In the agreement, both sides also undertake to implement the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, to fight illegal clearing and to protect workers’ rights.
In view of the current illegal forest fires in Brazil, there are increasing calls to ratify the Mercosur Treaty.
President Jair Bolsonaro even advocates grubbing up, critics say. Because of the agreement, more meat from Brazil will come to the EU, so that more forests in the South American country would be cleared for agriculture.
Image: osgemeos
However, the German government does not want to stop the treaty because it has “an ambitious sustainability chapter with binding regulations on climate protection” (!!!)
My comment: Clearing, burning, fattening, growing! this is the business model of the meat mafia.
Usually it runs in the Amazon, but not only there, from time to time following the same pattern: First, valuable tree trunks are taken from the natural forests, then the rest burned down.
This is followed by pastures for the cattle and after a few years the pastures are broken, mostly to grow soybeans. The rainforest ecosystem regenerates itself, but the pastures are no more productive.
After deforestation, a stable balance is destroyed. The soils do not produce more – neither for grasses nor for crops. The proportion of beef imported from Brazil into the EU is growing steadily – by nine percent in last year alone.
In addition, genocide happens simultaneously!
Not “only” animals and plants, but also a whole range of human peoples lose their habitat through the illegal fires in Amazon.
These are mass murderers who commit their crimes to everything that is alive and useful to this planet, and for these criminals, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Kostarican San José is responsible.
So we should ask ourselves: what do we import with our meat consumption? First, this biblical destruction of the rainforest, the destruction of thousand animal species;
At the same time, we are importing a gross violation of human rights because the indigenous peoples are brutally expelled, removed from their habitat by force and murder.
We feed the cattle barons of Brazil, and Amazon is also burning because of us.
Posted on September 9, 2019 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Hunt for woman who stubbed cigarette out in puppy’s eye
Sickening footage shows a woman stubbing out a cigarette in the eye of a defenceless puppy.
The dog’s mouth appears to be taped shut, stiffing its yelps as the culprit repeatedly burns the dog’s face. She calmly smokes with one hand while holding the puppy by the neck and snaps its paws after she is finished.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Singapore was alerted last month to the sadistic video. The animal welfare group is now appealing for help to identify the woman after initial claims she was filmed in Singapore or another country in the region.
Members believe the video was made by ‘syndicates that profit from animal torture films, including some that are produced for sexual fetish.’
Serbian Animals Voice (SAV) 