Happy Birthday Captain Hammarstedt!

Sea Shepherd Germany

Today we congratulate Captain Peter Hammarstedt on his 36th birthday.

He has spent almost half of his life onboard our ships. Today, as Sea Shepherd’s campaign director, he leads our missions against illegal, unregulated, and undocumented fishing. And if his time permits, he leads the BOB BARKER as captain.

We wish Peter good luck, health, and strength so that he can continue to fight so passionately for our oceans. ⚓💙

Today, leave your congratulations to Peter Hammarstedt in the comments.

We wish Captain Peter Hammarstedt many more healthy years.
And we are sure, the inhabitants of the sea too

Delfin und Co: soziale Großhirne wie wir - wissenschaft.de

Regards and good night, Venus


Reptiles smuggled from Mexico found at German airport stitched inside dolls.

Seized toys and sweets from Mexico
One of the rescued lizards

Reptiles smuggled from Mexico found at German airport stitched inside dolls

German airport customs officers have found 26 rare reptiles – 10 of them dead – smuggled inside parcels of toys and sweets from Mexico.

Some of the dead animals had suffocated as they had been stitched inside cloth dolls, a statement from Cologne Bonn airport customs said.

The endangered horned lizards, alligator lizards and box turtles were destined for private buyers in Germany.

They are among many species that the global Cites accord seeks to protect.

German officials are now trying to trace the origin of the reptiles, using DNA samples.

It is not yet clear if they came from the wild or from captive breeding programmes. They were in two packages seized on 30 October and 8 November.

The customs service is collaborating with Mexican authorities and with zoologists at the Alexander Koenig Research Museum (ZFMK) in Bonn. The smugglers could be fined, if the police can identify them.

The 16 surviving reptiles might be returned to their Mexican habitat.

ZFMK’s work with customs mostly focuses on illegal goods made from poached endangered species, such as snakeskin handbags or furs.

The 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) has been signed by 182 states and the EU, and covers about 6,000 animal species and 30,000 plant types.

Reptiles smuggled from Mexico found at German airport stitched inside dolls – BBC News

Help stop neo-colonialist and capitalist expansion into the Kavango Conservation Area.


Nature, wildlife, and scarce water supplies in a unique corner of southern Africa are being endangered by a rush to drill for oil. A Canadian company is pushing to explore for oil in the Kavango Basin, an environmentally sensitive area.

Please support the fight against a fossil fuel project that will drive the climate crisis.

Aerial View of the Okavango Delta, Botswana

“The oil needs to stay in the ground”, says Ina Shikongo.

The Fridays for Future (FFF) activist in Namibia’s capital city Windhoek is fighting a project to exploit untapped oil and gas reserves in the northeast of the country.

“The exploitation would be a catastrophe – not only for the global climate but also for wildlife, water resources and the livelihoods of local people”.

The project Ina rejects so fiercely – together with further FFF activists and a citizens’ coalition – is run by ReconAfrica, a firm based in Canada.

The company claims to have discovered an immense deep sedimentary basin. It obtained a license for oil and gas exploration in the Kavango delta, bought a second-hand oil rig in the US, and shipped it across the Atlantic.

If the drilling of the first three test boreholes – slated for December 2020 – is successful, the company plans to extract two billion barrels of oil before drilling into deeper layers of rock.

Environmentalists fear the company will use fracking despite public statements to the contrary, as its marketing materials refer to “unconventional” methodsan industry euphemism for fracking.

The ecological impacts of the projects are likely to be devastating.

It would not only threaten bodies of water in the dry savannas of Namibia, but also Botswana’s UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Okavango Delta, with its unique biodiversity and huge populations of elephants, hippos, rhinos, and birds.

Tourism, an important source of income, is in danger while other livelihood strategies of indigenous San and local people also hang in the balance.

We need to stop ReconAfrica’s project for the sake of the climate, biodiversity, water, and the livelihoods of the local people.

Please support our demands with your signature.



And I mean…the head of the farmers’ association Kavango-Ost, Adolf Muremi, says: “Recon Africa says they informed the people here – but we are not aware of anything about this.

You can already expect malformations in babies and other diseases that this type of industry leads to agriculture will be just as affected as the groundwater, it will have negative consequences for life for everyone here “

The multinational sells the project as an “exciting future” – for whom?

1) Oil and gas extraction is a menace to wildlife. Loud noises, human movement, and vehicle traffic from drilling operations can disrupt avian species’ communication, breeding, and nesting.

2) The ecosystem will be destroyed by a criminal Canadian Company that harvests 90% of the profits. The state of Namibia is only entitled to ten percent – a hunger share.

3) The construction of roads, facilities, and drilling sites known as well pads requires the use of heavy equipment and can destroy big chunks of pristine wilderness.

4) The underground water will not only be polluted but also depleted. How can the inhabitants giving an overseas company unbridled access to their most precious resource?

There will only be damages to humans and animals, and this harm is irreversible.

Please sign the Petition: https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1231/keep-the-oil-industry-out-of-africas-natural-treasures

My best regards to all, Venus

Brazil: The GPA company goes Cage-Free

Animal Equality, November 30, 2020

After four years of campaigning and negotiations, South America’s biggest grocery chain has finally committed to going 100% cage-free in Brazil by 2028.

The company, called GPA, also committed to ban gestation crates for pigs by 2028 and to improve conditions for chicken and cows raised for meat sold in the stores.

MILLIONS OF CHICKENS IMPACTED: GPA is the second-largest retailer in Brazil, so this new policy is a great step in the right direction for farmed animals.

We estimate with 5.7 million hens will be impacted by this policy, which was achieved in part by a variety of tactics, including mobile billboards and grassroots actions at 45 different GPA store locations.

“This commitment is the result of a lot of work by animal protection organizations, but it is also the result of the mobilization of consumers who joined us to demand more responsible behavior from Grupo Pão de Açúcar.”, Says Carla Lettieri, new Executive Director of Animal Equality Brazil.

“We hope that GPA’s attitude will inspire other companies because there are still millions of chickens suffering in cages around the world.”

Image: Animal Equality

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: Chickens are sensitive animals who are able to feel emotions and pain, but unfortunately many of them still live confined and crowded into tiny wire cages where they spend their whole lives without ever stepping on the floor or being able to open their wings.

For more…at https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/12/04/brazil-the-gpa-company-goes-cage-free/


And I mean…It’s a huge industry!
Brazil ranks second among the largest poultry producing countries behind the USA and is the most important force in the international poultry trade.

In 2016, 5.86 billion chickens were slaughtered there. Brazil exports meat to over 160 countries.

And another number: eleven percent of water consumption in Brazil is accounted for by animal breeding.

For the European Union, Brazil is the most important country of origin of imported chicken.

Brazilian chickens make up about 60 percent of imports, of which 76.2 percent are processed and salted poultry. The majority of deliveries in the EU go to Belgium, Germany, and Great Britain.

However, these European countries are not necessarily the countries where chicken meat is ultimately sold and consumed.

The Brazilian poultry industry is dominated locally by two multinational corporations: BRF and JBS.
BRF is the largest poultry company in the country, with 105,000 employees, and is largely owned by a mutual fund.
JBS is a Brazilian public company, the largest company in the country, but also the largest meat producer in the world.

In March 2017 there was the so-called rotten meat scandal: the Brazilian federal police uncovered hygiene violations in 21 industrial plants for the slaughter of cattle, pigs, and chickens.

According to the police, the investigation found that corrupt health officials and inspectors from the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture covered the sale of rotten meat in some slaughterhouses.
The largest poultry exporting companies BRF and JBS were also involved in the scandal.

However, just a few weeks after the allegations became known, most of the major import markets – including the European Union – had resumed trading with the Brazilian poultry industry.

When you consider these meat production conditions in the country, it is really a big step that GPA abolishes the cages.
Even in 7 years, better later than never.

My best regards to all, Venus

‘Vegan 2019’ – The Film. Watch It Here.

UK: Farm animals antibiotics data raises post-Brexit trade fears. US and Canada farm antibiotic use is about five (5) times the level in the UK.


Farm animals antibiotics data raises post-Brexit trade fears

Use of antibiotics on farms in US and Canada about five times the UK level, says report

The overuse of antibiotics on farm animals is rife in some of the key countries with which the UK is hoping to strike a post-Brexit trade deal, a new report shows, raising fears that future deals will jeopardise public health and British farming.

The US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all allow farmers to feed antibiotics routinely to livestock to make them grow faster, and in the US and Canada farm antibiotic use is about five times the level in the UK, data compiled by the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics shows.

Meat produced in this way is cheaper, because the animals grow faster and can be kept in overcrowded conditions. But the meat is soon to be banned in the EU, for safety and public health reasons.

Antibiotic use in cattle in the US is about seven times that in the UK, and in pigs twice as high, according to the report. In Australia, the use of antibiotics in poultry is more than 16 times higher than in the UK, and use in pigs about three times higher.

Farm antibiotic use has risen in the US, Canada and New Zealand in recent years, and in Australia was rising in 2010, the latest year for which full data was available. Some of the drugs used are also problematic: the growth promoter bacitracin is used in the US, despite scientific evidence that it increases resistance to an antibiotic of last resort called colistin, used to treat life-threatening infections in people.

Cóilín Nunan, scientific adviser to the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, said: “Antibiotic resistance is a global problem, and we need to raise standards around the world to prevent it increasing. These free-trade agreements need to take that into account.”

Overusing antibiotics on farm animals gives rise to resistant forms of bacteria, known as superbugs, which can have devastating consequences for human health. Meat infected with resistant bacteria can directly cause infections in people, and can also contribute to a more general rise in people’s resistance to antibiotic treatments.

British farmers also face the prospect of being undercut by imports of cheaply produced antibiotic-treated meat, which could reduce welfare standards in the UK, as farmers will be forced to stock their animals more densely to cut costs and compete with floods of cheap imports.

“UK producers will be forced to compete by reducing costs, which means larger numbers of animals in worse conditions, which means an increase in the use of antibiotics,” said Nunan. “Any new trade deals must not undermine British standards and threaten public health by allowing cheap meat and dairy produced with antibiotic growth promoters into the UK.”

Medical experts are increasingly worried about the rapid rise of antibiotic resistance around the world, which could leave us defenceless against common diseases, and make routine operations such as caesarean sections or hip replacements potentially fatal. Antibiotics are used far more on animals than on people around the world, but moves to curb their use have been rejected by the powerful farming lobbies in many countries.

Antibiotic use is more tightly controlled in the EU than elsewhere, and the use of the drugs as a growth promoter has been banned since 2006. In the UK, the use of antibiotics in farming has been broadly falling in the last half decade, to about half the levels of 2014, though there was a slight uptick last year.

In just over a year’s time, from January 2022, stricter EU rules will ban the import of meat treated routinely with antibiotics as a growth promoter, and ban all preventive antibiotic mass medication of livestock. The UK is unlikely to sign up to this ban.

The government has repeatedly said that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef would continue to be banned from the UK after Brexit, after widespread concern about food standards in future trade deals. However, food and farming experts have pointed out that this still leaves the door open to hundreds of other forms of food and agricultural products that are currently restricted under EU safety rules, and under current processes many of these could be quietly signed into legal acceptance without public scrutiny.

Nunan called the forthcoming EU regulations “a huge step forward” and called on ministers to adopt them in the UK. “The UK government should commit to implementing the same ban [on preventive mass medication], as relying on voluntary action is not a sustainable approach for the long term. It should also ensure that trade deals set high standards for imports to protect human health and avoid undercutting British standards.”

A government spokesperson said: “This government has been clear that we will not compromise on our world-leading environmental protections, animal welfare and food standards.

“The UK already prohibits the use of artificial growth hormones in both domestic production and imported products – and this will continue after the transition period. We will also continue to operate robust controls on the medicines that can be used for all animals, including food-producing ones, to protect animal and human health and the environment.”



England: Government Consultation To Stop Live Animal Exports. Open to All; Please Take Part.

Sorry – it’s long but ……………

Defra (consultation) wording:



The current rules aimed at protecting animal welfare in transport are derived from directly applicable EU law, Council Regulation No 1/2005. The Regulation sets out the requirements that anyone transporting animals in connection with an economic activity must comply with. There are growing concerns that the current requirements for the transport of animals do not reflect the latest scientific evidence on how best to protect animal welfare during transport.

We are consulting in England and Wales on ending live animal exports for slaughter and fattening that begin in or transit through England or Wales, and further improvements to animal welfare in transport.

Why we are consulting

The Government is committed to the welfare of all animals and to making further improvements to animal welfare in transport and has a manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening. Now that the UK has left the EU, the Government can explore alternative options to better protect animal welfare during transport. As part of changing the current regulatory regime that sets the standards for animals in transport, it is right that we should gather the views of all interested parties.

The Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC, now known as the Animal Welfare Committee) have reported to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the welfare of animals during transport. This report took into account the responses to the 2018 Call for Evidence on controlling live exports for slaughter and improving animal welfare during transport, and the scientific systematic review conducted by the Scotland’s Rural College and the University of Edinburgh on the welfare of animals during transport and at markets.

The Government has reviewed the FAWC report and is now consulting to seek views on ending the export of livestock and horses (this will not apply to poultry) for slaughter and fattening in England and Wales, where the journeys begin in or transit through either country, in addition to introducing further improvements to animal welfare in transport more generally.

WAV Comment:

Take part in the online consultation by clicking on the following link:

Note – we are currently unsure if (only) UK residents can undertake this; but we encourage folk outside of the UK, who are anti live export, to try ! – apologies if you are unable; as we say; may be UK residents only.


These are the consultation questions which you will need to respond to.  Hopefully; this advanced insight will give you a feeling of what (the questions asked) is required.

IMPORTANT – We (WAV) do not expect everyone to provide answers to every question. 

Some questions are really directed at transport operators – livestock hauliers etc – Questions 19 – 19 for example.  You do not have to respond to anything like this – only the questions for which you can do a response.  Your input to the consultation will still be considered even if you doo not answer everything.   The main point to remember is that you are on the animals side and want to get live exports stopped regardless of the animal species.  This is what needs to be reflected (included) in your responses when you do them.  This is the real point – we need to make it clear that we want this sordid trade stopped from the UK.

Best wishes with your responses; the fact that you are taking part is a big bonus.

And remember – you have until the end of January 2021 to respond.  Note that you can complete part of the consultation; save; and then return at a later date.  It does not all have to be done in one session.  Please see the consultation pages to enable you to save and return later.

Personally; this is a big thing for me and many other campaigners – brilliant Jane; brilliant Liza, wonderful Trudi; and all the others who a too many to mention – just brill !.  I personally have done live export campaigns and investigations from the UK for the last 30 years.  Been there, seen it; heard it and smelled it you could say; horses, pigs, calves, sheep and more.  They do not deserve to be treated as they currently are during transport – it is time for it to stop.

I did a big investigation report (5 undercover trails) with several other EU investigation groups on the trade back in 2010; presented to the EU and UK parliament, (with regard the EU) who threw it back in our faces and basically trashed the whole 120 page thing.  You can read one of the 5 undercover trail reports by going to About Us. | Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)   and scrolling down to all the livestock transporter / calf pictures are where you will find a link to the report.  Alternatively, go direct to Microsoft Word – JH.04.03.2010_REPORT on NON-COMPLIANCE with RESTING TIMES in relation to CONTROL POST at F-HEAUVILLE.doc (wordpress.com) to read just one of the five investigations into live calves being shipped from Ireland to France. It makes bad reading. The failures to comply with rest times etc (as defined in EU ‘legislation’ !) for example justifies why we need to get this disgusting trade stopped asap.  Your involvement in the consultation can help this.

Well that’s it from me;

Do what you can; for those in transport;

Regards Mark (WAV)

Kent; England.

The following is the basic outline of all the questions which are asked in the consultation.

Name and e mail.

Organisation if you represent one.  Note – individual citizens can also take part – you DO NOT have to represent an organisation.

Live Animal Exports

4. Do you agree that livestock and horse export journeys for slaughter and fattening are unnecessary? Please explain your views.

5. Do you agree that in order to prohibit livestock and horse export journeys for fattening where the animal will be slaughtered soon after arrival, these export journeys where animals are slaughtered within 6 months of arrival should be prohibited? Please explain your views.

6. Do you agree that the only exceptions to prohibiting live export journeys should be for poultry live exports, and animals going for breeding or production that will not be slaughtered within 6 months of arrival? Please explain your views.

7. What would be the financial impact to your business or organisation of no longer being able to export livestock or horses for slaughter or fattening? Please explain any impacts provided.

8. What alternatives would your business or organisation explore if it was not able to export livestock or horses for slaughter or fattening?

Maximum Journey Times

9. Do you agree with the proposed maximum journey times as outlined in Table 1? Please explain your views and highlight any potential regional impacts that your business or organisation might experience.

10. Do you see a need for any exceptions to the maximum journey times and, if so, why? Please provide evidence.

11. In the case of such exceptions, what requirements should be put in place to ensure animal welfare is protected?

12. What would be the financial impact to your business or organisation due to new maximum journey times being implemented? Please explain any impacts provided.

13. Including loading, unloading and stops, how long is your average journey for the livestock, poultry or horses that your business or organisation manage?

14. Do you agree that a new journey should not start until a minimum of 48 hours have elapsed after the previous journey? Please explain your views.

15. Do you agree that there should be a minimum 7-day rest period for cattle? Please explain your views.

Thermal Conditions and Ventilation

16. Do you agree that we should prohibit both short and long poultry journeys when the external temperature is outside of a temperature range of 5-25oC, unless the vehicle is able to regulate the internal temperature within this range for the duration of the journey by means of a thermo-regulation system, and that this temperature range should be 5-25oC? Please explain your views.

17. What would be the financial impact to your business or organisation of prohibiting both short and long poultry journeys when the external temperature range is outside of 5-25oC? Please explain any impacts provided.

18. Do you agree that we should prohibit both short and long livestock and horse journeys when the external temperature is outside of a temperature range of 5-30oC, unless the vehicle is able to regulate the internal temperature within this range for the duration of the journey by means of a thermo-regulation system, and that this temperature range should be 5-30oC? Please explain your views.

19. What would be the financial impact to your business or organisation of prohibiting both short and long livestock and horse journeys when the external temperature range is outside of 5-30oC? Please explain any impacts provided.

20. Do you think that there are other species that should be considered as vulnerable and have a smaller external temperature range applied, outside of which journeys cannot take place? Please provide evidence.

21. What proportion of your current transportation vehicles have the facility to regulate temperature and provide ventilation?

22. For your vehicles which do not have the facility to regulate temperature and provide ventilation, what would be the cost of retrofitting to enable them to regulate temperature and provide ventilation?

23. Are there any other steps that can be taken to ensure animal welfare can be maintained in extreme weather? Please provide evidence.

Space Allowances

24. Do you agree that we should use allometric principles as a basis for future space allowance calculations? Please explain your views.

25. Do you think that reforms to space allowances based on allometric principles should apply to both short and long journeys? Please explain your views.

Headroom Allowances

26. Do you agree with the proposed species-specific headroom requirements?

27. Do you think that the proposed species-specific headroom requirements should apply to both short and long journeys? Please explain your views.

28. What would be the financial impact to your business or organisation of the proposed headroom requirements for both short and long journeys? Please explain any impacts provided.

Sea Transport

29. Do you agree that we should prevent animals from being transported in rough weather at sea and that animals should not be transported during Beaufort Wind Force 6 or above? Please explain your views.

30. What would be the financial impact to your business or organisation of prohibiting transport during Beaufort Wind Force of 6 or above


31. Do you think that there should be any exceptions to the previously mentioned proposals alongside the specific exceptions already outlined, excluding the proposal to prohibit live exports for slaughter and fattening? Please provide evidence.

32. What conditions should be met in order to ensure animal welfare is protected in the case of other exceptions?

33. Do you think that it should be possible to obtain permission to use an exception on an ongoing basis to avoid the need for transporters to apply before every applicable journey? 

This completes the consultation.  Submit your answers in accordance with the site.


·         Dear all;  this is going to multiple contacts;

Here is the link to the government consultation re the stopping of live exports.

This is the most important one to be involved with.


It has only started today (3/12) and runs until 28 January next year (2021).

Please access the link and give your views.  I have not yet done it but it looks like it may be ticking points re a series of questions.  Cannot confirm this.

Also, additional – you can add your name to the list in support of the CIWF consultation response.  The more signatures the more impact from the CIEWF side.

To add your name – Go here and follow the link – https://www.ciwf.org.uk/

Think that’s it for now.  Will send anything more through later if necessary;

Regards Mark