Germany / England: We Have Started A New Site In Conjunction With SAV – ‘World Animals Voice’. Hope To See You There.

This SAV site has been going for approximately 13 years.  We have attempted to raise public awareness of the plight of stray dogs and cats in Serbia.  Over the years we have produced more than 4,080 posts and had so many great words of support from you, our site visitors.

We have been very pleased to see that many of our posts have been published on other sites also; and we thank all the people who have done this – they know who they are.

So now; what happens ?

Thanks to our SAV Facebook site  there is a great deal of action and work taken by the many recue organisations in Serbia for the benefit of Serbian animals.  And there is only one thing that can really make the changes for better animal welfare in Serbia; and that is via the Serbian people themselves; those who vote and demand change.  It will happen; but things (unfortunately) take time when you wish it to be really quick !

After throwing a few ideas around with Venus for a few months; we decided that it was really time to review the site.  We also took into consideration the fact now that we are really covering many animal rights issues around the world and not just those in relation to Serbia.  We have worked hard with Serbian campaigners for many years; and we hope our work has contributed in attempts to improve conditions for all animals in Serbia.

But as we are now covering so many global animal issues we decided that it was time to give the whole input from us a complete makeover.  And so as a result; we have now established a new site which is going to be called ‘World Animals Voice’ rather than just ‘Serbian Animals Voice’; as the word ‘World’ now reflects the fact that we are covering so many global issues now.  Serbia, and campaigning for animals there, will always remain as an important area for us; But it is a big world out there with lots of (unfortunately) abuse and suffering issues which need to be brought to visitors attention. 

We very much hope that the new site of ‘World Animals Voice’ will do this and that quite literally, the site will become a world voice for animals in need.


The new site can be visited at   

– please keep note of it on your equipment.


The reality of chicken nuggets


SAV as a site will not be deleted; as there is a lot of campaign material there compiled over many years for people to see and use.  But some time in the future we are going to stop publishing posts on SAV and instead move all new material over to World Animals Voice; including anything to do with Serbia.  We are having a new format and style layout which we hope you will enjoy.  This has been decided on in a format which (hopefully) presents the information very much like a magazine.

‘WAV’ is in its infancy; so please stick with us for a while until we get it organised a bit more.  As we say; this site, SAV, will still remain accessible for all our existing posts.

Things have to move on, and we see WAV as a great opportunity to start afresh for ourselves and at the same time, spread wings to cover many global animal welfare / rights issues.


So we hope to see you at the new site –


Regards – Venus and Mark.


Serbia; New Actions For Serbian Animals. Voices For The Voiceless !

UPDATE 20/4/18


Further to our post and the letter to the OIE below, we would like to offer our thanks to animal supporters who have supported our issue by copying and sending additional copies of the letter to the OIE and others.  This has come as a surprise to us, but we very much welcome the additional support.


Thanks go to the following campaigners for supporting us:


Chantal Buslot – Belgium


Maria Schneider, – Germany

 Anneke Andries, – Netherlands

Hennie Oosterman;  David Weisman; Susan van Ockelen; Jeanet Verweij;  Miranda van Ittersum; – Netherlands.

Jean S.;  Armand Beaufort; Lisette G.; Aurelie B.; Cheryl Minottes; – France.

Yvonne Suters; Inge Schroeder; Wolfgang Beckingen; Mireille Dautz;  – Germany.

Tina Bartels; John Summers; Henry T.; Vickey Osborn;  Teddy Miller; – United Kingdom.

Amanda Fields; Jurgen Sorens; Rita Suffolk; Mary Dalton; Joseph Pritchard; Kimberley Fields;  – USA.

Simon Sears; Beverly Woods; Anita Brewer; Daniel Russell; Petra Stafford;  – Australia.

 Andrea Sreiber – Serbia


Hi all; this is Mark;

First; there have not been many posts on the site recently, and I apologize for this.

The reason is that we have been very busy re Serbian animal campaigning – I will try to cover what we have been doing as quickly as I can; with additional attachments as necessary.


Overview – Both the Serbian government / authorities have a illegal approach to (stray) dog and cat management which is completely different to us.  We work within the law and try to promote it; they work against the law.  You can read more about Serbian animal law at which is on our site.


So; time again for another gripe in speaking out for animals in Serbia.  The OIE – or ‘World Organisation for Animal Health’ (Health ??) has a website which can be viewed at   The attitude of the OIE in the Balkans has been very much one of allowing stray dogs to be killed under the guise of ‘disease control’.  Naturally, this works perfectly for the Serbian government and regional authorities who wish to kill off as many strays as the can – and reap the financial rewards that are associated with doing this.


Our view, which is supported by Serbian law, is different.  We do not feel that healthy stray animals should be murdered just to comply with the term ‘disease control’.  As you can read in  since 2005 there have been national (Serbian) laws which should give the right of life and protection to stray animals.  Despite being ‘law’; the government and authorities have ignored our suggestions of a national sterilisation approach which would gradually reduce stray animal numbers; in favour of an attitude of killing as many strays as they can.  This works in several ways in their favour – they get a ‘head count’ financial reward for every animal which they kill (up to 500 Euros per animal); and by not sterilising as we suggest; they have a continual source of new strays on the streets to catch and kill for this financial ‘bounty’.  Some people may thus be getting very rich financially our of adopting this attitude; we have a tendency to call it ‘corruption’.


Ok; so now we need to give people the facts.  Slavica has worked brilliantly hard to draft out a letter re this issue.  We have then taken this draft and attempted to make it read better English.  Slavica’s letter defined all the legal Serbian legislation with regard to the supposed ‘protection’ of Serbian strays – ie what the Serbian law says on paper and which the courts should work to re legal issues.  We took the letter further by making suggestions of the ‘rule of law’ which is required to be shown by any member state wishing to join the EU.  Serbia is one such country; it is currently an EU ‘Candidate Country’ applying for EU membership.

The EU ‘rule of law’ issue is an important one; as it requires that any state seeking EU membership needs to show / prove that it is enforcing all of its own national laws.  If it cannot do this, then effectively EU membership should not be permitted.  As we have always shown since the foundation of SAV back around 2005; Serbia has been NON Compliant with Serbian law regarding the treatment of stray animals.  So, this new letter needed to make this clear.

A formal letter was produced which has now been presented to the Serbian government.  Copies have also been provided to the EU ‘Enlargement Commission’ who are responsible for new member states.  We suggested in our review of the draft that certain contacts at the EU dealing specifically with the ‘rule of law’ be informed of this current situation of non compliance.  This has been done.


You can see a full copy of Slavica’s letter here – along with an additional copy of the letter which has been presented by the ‘No Kill Coalition’ who are based in the capital of Serbia; Belgrade.

Original EPAR letter – ENGLISH:

OIE, StrongProtest,ENG. 19.04.2018..

Original EPAR Letter – SERBIAN


NO KILL COALITION Copy Letter – Belgrade, Serbia – ENGLISH:

OIE ,strong protest 19.04.2018.

So, here we now have it.  A formal letter of the current situation for Serbian animals and the non compliances with existing Serbian laws sent to all those who should be informed of the situation; and this includes the OIE.

In an additional way, via Slavica also, we have today (19/4) been provided with a copy of the formal EU Progress report for 2018 in relation to Serbia.


A copy to this is given here if you wish to review:


EU Progress Report (2018) on Serbia:



This official report from the EU on the situation in Serbia is not especially good, and in many ways backs up what we have been saying for many years especially with regard to corruption.


On pages 20 and 21 there is a lot which shows that corruption is still prevalent within Serbia, which comes as no surprise to us.  The EU had made several suggestions to attack this; and hopefully we would like to see actions regarding animal welfare get involved with this anti corruption policy.


Now that all the evidence has been provided to both the Serbian government, and more importantly, the ‘rule of law’ enforcement personnel in the EU; we can only hope that the evidence and non compliance with national legislation will work in favour of the animals in the future.


Who knows, we may even see the day come that we have campaigned for over so many years – the day when national stray sterilisation, vaccination and microchipping takes priority over the corrupt and money making attitude of many officials who simply want to undertake a stray dog kill approach as we are currently experiencing.


Stray sterilisation is the way to control and eventually eliminate stray animals on the streets.  A policy which is better in the long term for all – strays and humans.


Whatever; our fight to be a voice for the voiceless will continue what ever happens in the towers of importance.


For the animals – Mark.





Serbia: Time To Make The Press Accountable – Your Assistance Required.


UPDATE 10/2/18


The following photos are in relation to a private dogcatcher firm named Avenija MB.

This firm has political support by leading political parties, and it works in 52 municipality cities all over Serbia.

These photos show how this leading dogcatcher firm work.


They put 20-30 dogs (sometimes as many as 49) into this trailer and transport them from locations all over Serbia.

The dogs are in-microchipped, in-vaccinated, and when put together in this trailer, there is much fighting.  Yes, 30+ dogs crammed into this trailer.


This procedure is in opposition to Serbian laws, but the political parties support this way of dealing with the street dog issue.

Sadly in Serbia, there is no independent media to really take up the fight for animal advocates.  It is a mafia type system making lots of money out of dog catching; when the money should really be put into sterilisation and the reduction of dog numbers on the streets.

As we have said before; there are some people who are making big money out of this business operation, and by ignoring the laws of the land.


Here (for example) is video footage from animal friends Vier Pfoten (Austrian AW organisation) taken back in 2008.

 The dog has been fully treated by VP – which includes being sterilised, microchipped and vaccinated against Rabies.  To show this, the dog has a Red button tag fitted to ear to clearly identify to dog catchers that it has been fully sterilised and vaccinated.

Regardless of all the treatment and a clearly visible red ear tag, the dog is still darted ready for capture and disposal by a balaclava wearing dog catcher !   – He is also clearly visible in the video:



This video above was taken 10 Years Ago !! – and nothing in Serbia has progressed for animals and their welfare.

So, dogs being sterilised and vaccinated by animal welfare organisations – something which the Serbian government should really be doing in order to reduce street dog numbers; and still the dog caching organisations (working for the authorities) ignore the red button ear tag and continue to catch the dog as part of their ‘collections’.  This dog, like all the others, has a bounty on its head; the companies and / or authorities will be paid a dividend from the taxpayers contributions to government to get this dog off the streets.  Money, time and effort wasted by VP (Austria) for sterilisation and vaccination; and yet more money rolling in to authorities and management from the Serbian government to cover the capture and killing of this dog.

As we have said so many times; the government and authorities do NOT want to adopt a stray / street dog sterilisation because over time it will reduce stray dog numbers; thus solving a long term problem for Serbia.  By not sterilising dogs, the authorities can guarantee that there will be a constant new source of street dogs for them to capture and claim back official money from the government – the head bounty.  Where does the money go ? – ask the seniors who run this style of a system.

The money being paid out by the government as ‘head count bounties’ for each dog caught and killed, would more than support the finances required for a national long term sterilisation and vaccination programme.  But the government and authorities do not want to know about this. 

Why ? – because some people are maybe living very comfortably thank you from the system the way it currently operates.


The following are videos of Avenija MB, who catch and put dogs into this unlawful trailer.

The dogs are then often transported long distances – 500 to 1,000km.  They go in all seasons, including Winter and Summer.

As you can see in the video above (dog with red ear tag), they still catch dogs that are fully identified as being sterilised and vaccinated.

The owner of this private firm is Mrs Andjelija Stevanovic; which is allegedly operated with her son Mr Nenad Stevanovic. 

We are informed that they have very close links with a politician named  Mr  Zoran Babic – who we are informed is also the Director of a National firm named Koridor  Srbije.  Mr Babic is a very close friend of the President of Serbia Mr.Aleksandar Vucic.

As we say; any wonder why there is no enthusiasm for a national sterilisation programme !!!




A campaign has now started in Serbia which is aimed at getting the Press and media to adopt a different attitude to the way they deal with the issue of stray dogs.

Their approach has always been very negative; yet they do very little, if anything, to show up the Serbian governments attitude of what they should be doing under Serbian constitutional law – providing stray dogs with care.


Below is a copy of the letter which has been submitted to the Journalists Association of Serbia.  It fully describes how people are feeling about the Serbian press / media coverage regarding stray dogs.

** ACTION ** – This is where we need your (international) supporter help with this campaign.


These are the e mail addresses to which we would like you to send mails.

You could send a copy of this post by selecting and copying the post link at the top of this article.


We need to make it very clear to the Press that they are NOT doing their job.


Mails to go to the following: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;


Rather that constantly attacking the dogs on the streets, the Journalists Association is in an ideal situation to both show the lack of government / regional authority compliance with Serbian law – and also to put pressure on the government and authorities that sterilisation on a mass national level is the only way that the number of strays is ever going to be reduced.

We know, and have proven so many times on this site, that there are a lot of people in important positions in government and regional government who are making a great deal of money out of the continual rounding up and killing of street dogs.  Without undertaking sterilisation there is a constant supply of street dogs to be captured and killed – and very productive bounties paid to some in authority for doing it.

People in power do NOT want a reduction in the number of street dogs; otherwise their corrupt income will reduce.  They say ‘to hell’ with the Constitutional Court (of Serbia) and what it says.  This careless and non compliance with enforcing the national law makes it look as if Serbia is in an ideal position to become an EU member state – simply because the EU Commissions do very little to enforce EU law also when it comes to animals and their welfare.  Reg 1/2005 and all that.

Here is the open letter which has been produced by Serbian campaigners and which we are asking you to support by sending a copy of this post or the letter to the e mail addresses given above.


Open Letter:

Journalists’ Association of Serbia

Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia


Open letter

Respected Sir/Madam,

We are deeply disappointed, indignant and disgusted by the media prosecution that has been occurred for years against homeless dogs.

Homeless dogs are in the media mentioned exclusively and only in a negative connotation, to widespread sensationalist news about bites of dangerous, raging dogs from horrid packs, which are always called “strays”, following  with titles like “Dread”, “Horror”,
“Dog bite a child”, “Dogs attacked a mother with a kid”, etc.

Those types of texts are accompanied with images of huge dogs with wide open jaws, taken from Internet, which are not connected at all with the text. Such texts are superficial, without any details, do not point at the source of real problem, and their target is always the homeless dog, even when they are about dogs who do have owners and make false charges of dog bites.

There are many of these false charges because of high money compensation, which is drawn from municipal budgets. The truth is always befogged.

Such manner of reporting, superficial and wrongful, leads to spreading of hate among citizens toward dogs, and have dangerous long term consequences.

Brutal behavior to dogs that has owners or homeless dogs is immense, even without spreading of hate. This kind of journalism only encourages that hate. So, inhumane society emerges, which has no compassion for the weaker beings and primitivism is promoted.

If the reason for such warmonger texts is to increase newspapers circulation, per system – sensational news sell newspapers (which certainly is not justified and sludge the role of journalist profession), why then sensational news are not also: “Kids set on fire puppies in the school yard”, “Teenagers pushed a firecracker in a mouth of homeless dog and light it”, “Man hanged dog with a belt”, “Puppy’s legs cut off”, “Dying  dog thrown into a garbage container alive”, “Hunters in Kosovska Mitrovica killed 20 homeless dogs on the streets”, “Dogs in the shelter in Vršac eat each other”, “Mass poisoning of dogs in Serbian towns”…..

Isn’t this news? Or this news is unattractive to the media? Why?

Spreading hatred towards dogs by the media has many consequences. Besides that encourage brutality towards dogs, it also encourages the hatred of citizens towards animal welfare volunteers, so people are divided on being either haters and lovers.

This leads to a conflict and create a false image that Animal Welfare Associations aims to have dogs on streets because they feed them and remove from streets, for which they need money funds.

Unfortunately, there are no texts about positive examples of their humanity, rescues, adoptions and how they invest their own money, time and work. This topic is not popular.

Homeless dogs are very often in the media when there is need to publish interviews with the director of Public Communal Company and managers of incorrectly named companies “zoo-hygiene’s” – in which they denounce crimes in their facilities, torture of dogs, stilling food and money funds for animal “humane care”, dog slaughter, and how hungry dogs eat each other in there public shelters. Like in the cases of shelters in Loznica, Požega, Vršac, Ovča etc, etc.

With this one-side reporting is encouraging corruption, which in the domain of Zoo-hygiene and “humane care” already exceeds inconceivable limits. No one is interested in the corruption or not dare to write a text on this topic. But, that corruption is the cause and essence of everything what is happening.

Homeless dogs are the golden cocks and collateral damage of our society; the media proclaimed them as the number one enemy of our nation, fear and hatred is growing among the citizens, the public is mislead how dogs creates enormous costs for the state – all this is excuse to steal money from municipal budgets for their fake “humane care”.

Money, of course, goes into human private pockets and these poor hated beings are not important at all.

Why this is not an article topic? Is research journalism gone?

Why is not a topic over 3000 dog kennels and that only 3 are registered in APR?

This is the reason why many dogs end up in streets and increase the number of homeless animals, sadly this problem doesn’t bother the Veterinary Directorate, which is in charge to control the welfare of dogs in kennels.

Would it not be a sensational story about rackets and people who have jobs but don’t have to pay taxes?

Isn’t it sensational news how dog-catchers attack an animal welfare activist and civilians, as well how Avenija MB insults the citizens, how the municipal authorities, who have with Avenija MB a suspicious contract about purchases, insult animal welfare activists, there revanchism, threats??????

These apparently are not topics about which citizens – who finance municipal budgets and their thievery in the name of “humane care of homeless dogs”, as well by local authorities and Public Communal Company “Zoo-hygiene” – should read and know.

For them stories are about bites, spreading hatred and calling to lynch homeless dogs, who are not guilty because people abandon them, throw them onto the street, because “Zoo-hygiene’s” don’t do their job honestly, with love and respect the Animal Welfare Law, and because they are born in the society in which offenders who do not respect laws are unpunished.

This is also a topic to be talked about in the media, concerning these “dangerous strays”.

If a role of the media is to inform us truthfully, to educate and ennoble, then on this subject, for now, they fail.

We sincerely hope there is will for change and that media coverage about homeless dogs, instead of perpetual talking about “strays”, will stop repetition of same many-decade-old mantra – Dog bites, Horror – while municipality budget funds for solving the problem of homeless dogs are being devoured and their number is growing, and nothing is done to find the solution.

The role of the media to solve the problem of homeless dogs in the streets of Serbia is extremely important, but it seems that the media are not interested to personally take some responsibility. We hope that will be changes on this topic.
Otherwise, the vicious cycle of nonsense and inhumanity will continue.

These are some of the titles…


Best regards,
With hope that many things will change.



Animal Welfare and Nature Protection Associations


PRIJATELJ  Ub, zastupnik Suzana Gojković

SOLIDARNO ZA ŽIVOTINJE I PRIRODU Beograd, zastupnik Aleksandra Dudić

BELKA Majdanpek, zastupnik Igor Janković

SPASKE Kraljevo, zastupnik Danijela Jović

ORPAK Kruševac, zastupnik Lela Bucek

BORSKE ŠAPE Bor, zastupnik Nikola Nedeljković

TERA Zemun

BORBA ZA ŽIVOT Vranje, zastupnik Tanja Lakičević

PROTEKTA Vlasotince, zastupnik Borka Mitić

BOBI  Gornji Milanovac


KOALICIJA ZA ŽIVOT NO KILL COALITION Beograd, zastupnik Mirjana Raščanin

KOALICIJA ZA ŽIVOT NO KILL COALITION ogranak Dimitrovgrad, zastupnik Melita Stavrev.

EPAR-OIPA SRBIJA, Subotica, zastupnik Prim. mr. sci. dr. med. Slavica Mazak Bešlić



You can find out a great deal more on the cruelty inflicted by the Serbian government and regional authorities – the money making dog killers who seem to be ignored by the press in their coverage, by visiting  the following

– in our opinion the press would have a lot to cover if they wished; but are they also being told to keep quiet about it all and only to cover stories on those terrible street dogs ?

How far does this go ? – right to the very top we would suggest !


The following is about 20% of the data we have on our campaign work in Serbia over the last 12 years or more.

Mr Press – we hope that with the following you would have been able to throw a story or 100 together about how corrupt the Serbian animal welfare system is regarding street dog catching and killing by the authorities. 

But you seem incapable of telling the truth.  Who we ask, is stopping you ?

Browse through the following links; if you are REAL Press people then maybe you can do some follow ups on these.  If you don’t, then we know exactly who pulls your strings !


And so we need to let the world  know, as we do –

A few (Say 20%) of our past posts:–-a-move-to-improvements-in-serbian-zoo-animals-living-conditions-using-the-eu-commission/



England: And What Did You Do Today ?



Mark has just completed giving responses to a UK government consultation on the first draft of a new Animal Welfare Act.   This is a unique opportunity to speak out and be a voice for the voiceless for all animals and support stronger legal protections for them in the UK.

So, an opportunity that cannot be missed.

Included in his response; Mark had called for, and justified the need for:


·         More definition in the term ‘Sentience’ when applied to all animals and their situations

·         Often, in places such as factory farms, animals do not ‘live’; they merely ‘survive’

·         The term ‘Animal’ needs much more definition; lab rats, broiler chickens, circus tigers are all ‘animals’ but their protection requirements vary greatly – hence you cannot define everything as an ‘animal’ only – more specific definition is required

·         The ‘welfare needs of animals’ should be defined explicitly in written legislation

·         UK sheep exported live in Summer in temperatures above documented maximums given as example

·         There is no ‘welfare’ for animals that travel constantly with the circus

·         Maximum sentences for animal cruelty. Definitely not strict enough.  The legal profession to have much more specific legislation as part of statute; which defines the protections which are to be given to any specific animal species which is in any specific environment.  In the UK, many judges have recently spoken out that the are only allowed to impose certain maximum sentences for animal abuse; when they would individually (and legally) be allowed to give much harsher sentences.

·         For example, if slaughterhouse workers are shown to abuse animals with UK slaughterhouse cctv legislation; then the worker to be dismissed from his job in the industry for life.

·         Much heavier financial fines to be given for animal abuse

·         A call for the ‘law enforcers’ to actually enforce the law at places such as hunt meets; where legislation is often overlooked

·         Examples of the failings of EU legislation; especially that which is supposed to ‘protect’ animals in transport (EU Regulation 1/2005) has been cited as a typical case of ‘paper’ legislation which is actually hardly ever enforced by the authorities.  You have seen our many battles with the EU authorities on live (EU) animals being exported to Turkey, for example.


Submission for the consultation finishes on 31/1/18; and so very soon now the government will start undertaking a full review of submissions.  We are currently unsure when the first new draft ‘Animal Welfare Act’ will be produced; as we appreciate there is a lot of submissions and opinions (from many different viewpoints) to be considered.

We know that this new Act will become UK legislation in the not too distant future.  And knowing the feel of the British and animal welfare, we hope that many of our viewpoints will be included in the new Act. 

We are not legal specialists by any means; but there are a couple of near future very important issues to consider:


·         The UK will be leaving the EU within the next few years – Brexit negotiations with the EU are well under way

·         When it leaves the EU, the UK will be free to establish worldwide trade agreements.


And so, if a new up to date ‘Animal Welfare Act’ is part of UK law / legislation; this will form part of a good negotiating basis for future deals around the world.  It is hoped that UK standards can be used in agreements set up with, for example, China; and that Chinese animals welfare will greatly improve as a result.  This is just one example and one hope.

The same can be said for trade deals with (current) EU member nations.  The UK will be establishing new trade deals with current EU partner states; and as such, UK animal welfare standards will be used as a ‘tool’ during future negotiations.

Who knows, this new Acorn of the Animal Welfare Act could grow into a big tree which then spreads its animal welfare branches (through new trade deals) into nations who currently do not put animal welfare much onto their list of priorities.  If they want a good deal with the UK, then hopefully they will have to change that will be the view from the UK.


Existing UK animal welfare legislation – there is already lots – check it out:

Remember that under Brexit negotiations; all existing EU animal law will become new UK (independent) law post Brexit.



The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to implement laws protecting animals. In 1822 an Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle was passed by Parliament.  The UK government has publicly stated that animals are sentient beings, not merely commodities, and has confirmed its commitment to the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

The first general animal protection law, called the Protection of Animals Act, was introduced in 1911 and updated several times since.



Finally; a few things which we keep planted somewhere in the head !!













Germany / Luxembourg: Excellent News – Luxembourg Extends Hunting Ban On Foxes – A Scenario For Europe To Follow ? – Scientific Evidence !

Dear Mark,
I am sending you good news concerning the further ban on fox hunting in Luxembourg.
I got this just today by mail, from the “Wild Animal Protection Society of Germany”.

Best regards to you and all



Luxembourg extends hunting ban on foxes

The Luxembourg Government Council has just renewed for another year the prohibition on fox hunting introduced in 2015. The protection of foxes is a successful model: the fox populations are stable; the predicted “stock explosion” by hunters in the run-up to the hunting ban has failed to materialize. A study now shows that the protection of the fox also reduces the risk for humans to contract the fox tapeworm.

“Action alliance Fox”, an initiative of more than 40 German animal and nature conservation organizations, to which “Wild animal Protection Germany” also belongs, calls on the Federal Government to follow the example of Luxembourg.

The Luxembourg Ministry of the Environment banned fox hunting in 2015 because there was no reason to kill several thousand foxes a year. Hunting associations had repeatedly warned against sprawling fox populations by the hunting ban. In addition, they repeatedly tried to exploit the fear of the fox tapeworm in order to overturn the regulations.


Hunting increases the risk of infection by the fox tapeworm

However, there are no signs of higher fox numbers to this day. In addition, a study published in France in November 2017 shows that hunting increases the risk of infection from fox tapeworm.

While the foxes’ infection rate increased from 40 percent to 55 to 75 percent as a result of heavy hunting, it remained constant in a hunting-free control area. Franck Boué, one of the authors of the highly regarded study, presents the results in a lecture on 29.1.2018 in Luxembourg City.


Fox stands need no “regulation” by humans

Again and again, both studies and practical experience in various fields show that foxes need no “regulation”. Hunting losses, for example, increase birth rates and increase immigration from neighboring areas, quickly compensating for losses.

On the other hand, experience from hunting-free areas shows that fewer fox pups are born there and that there is no mass propagation. “Birth control instead of mass misery,” commented the biologist Erik Zimen.


Ban on fox hunting: pointing the way for the whole of Europe

The ban on fox hunting in Luxembourg sets the trend for the whole of Europe: the right decision has been made against the massive pressure of an influential lobby on the basis of verifiable scientific facts. “It is high time that even political decision-makers in Germany stop bowing to the interests of the hunting lobby,” says Lovis Kauertz, co-founder of the “Action Alliance Fox”. “The example of Luxembourg shows that prohibiting fox hunting not only prevents the often painful deaths of thousands of foxes, but is also a model of success for citizens, animal and nature conservation.”



Past SAV posts relating to fox hunting in Germany – many graphic pictures show the reality of this barbarism:


UK: Animal Welfare – UK Politics Stance.


Above – The Animals In War Memorial – London.

SAV Comment

The following is taken from the UK Politics site.  As such, there are no petitions or actions required – it is for a read only.  We do not necessarily agree with everything said, but it is quite a good source of past info – dates of welfare campaign groups creation, why they were formed etc.  SAV.



The British Angle – What is Animal Welfare?

Animal welfare relates to the general health and well-being of animals and covers a wide range of issues, from the care of family pets to concerns about exploitation and abuse.

Animal rights are hotly debated. Proponents stress the helplessness and vulnerability of animals and campaign for their protection, particularly in areas such as medical research and factory farming. Others take a more pragmatic approach, insisting that the ever-increasing demand for better medicines and more food should take priority over the rights of animals.

However, few in Britain today would argue against the need to protect animals from suffering and there are many organisations which continue to campaign vigorously for animal rights.


Britain could claim to be something of a world leader in animal welfare, having been responsible for the first ever animal welfare legislation and the first animal welfare charity.

In 1822 the ‘Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle’ was steered through the House of Commons by Irish MP Richard Martin – known as ‘Humanity Dick’ because of his campaigning for both animal and human rights.

The act stated that if any person or persons “shall wantonly and cruelly beat, abuse, or ill-treat any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep, or other cattle” they would be fined a sum “not exceeding five pounds, not less than ten shillings”; failure to pay the fine would result in a prison sentence of up to three months.

Not everyone appeared to take the new law seriously, however, and there were concerns that the legislation was not being properly implemented. Consequently, in order to provide greater protection for animals, Richard Martin, together with the Reverend Arthur Broome and fellow MP and slave trade abolitionist William Wilberforce, founded the world’s first animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), in a London coffee shop in 1824.

The charity subsequently attracted the patronage of Queen Victoria and went on to become the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), well-known today as one of the world’s leading animal welfare organisations.

Other animal charities began to be established towards the end of the 19th century and some, like the RSPCA, are still going strong today.

The Mayhew Animal Home, for example, founded in 1886 to protect “the lost and starving dogs and cats of London“, is still rescuing and providing shelter for thousands of animals every year; and the National Canine Defence League (NCDL) set up in 1891 to protect dogs from torture and mistreatment of any kind, today operates as the Dogs Trust and has become the UK’s largest dog welfare charity.

Animal experimentation also became a major issue around that time. Although live animals had been used in research for many years, it was not until the late 19th century that anti-vivisection societies began to organise concerted opposition to the practice.

Five of the societies merged in 1898 to form the British Union, which later became the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Support for the movement grew rapidly and today the BUAV and many other national and international groups are continuing to campaign for an end to all animal experimentation.

The work of the various charities was supported by the introduction of further legislation which was gradually expanded to cover domestic and other animals.

The 1911 Protection of Animals Act was introduced to “consolidate, amend, and extend certain enactments relating to Animals and to Knackers”.

The Act made it an offence of cruelty to “cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal” or permit an animal to be so used; to “convey or carry, or permit to be conveyed or carried, any animal in such manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering”; to “cause or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal”; to “administer, or cause administration of, any poisonous or injurious drug or substance to any animal; and to “cause or permit any animal to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity”.

Any person found guilty of such an offence of cruelty would be liable to a fine “not exceeding twenty-five pounds”; and/or be imprisoned, “with or without hard labour,” for a term “not exceeding six months”.

Further Acts were passed throughout the 20th century. These included the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925; the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended 1983); the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963; the Riding Establishments Act 1964 and 1970; and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which amended and extended the provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991.

In 2006 the most significant piece of animal welfare legislation was passed. The Animal Welfare Act (in force April 2007) largely repealed and replaced the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, strengthened and updated the provisions of that Act, and consolidated and updated several other pieces of animal welfare legislation.

In addition, the Act introduced a new offence of failing to ensure the welfare of an animal. Any person responsible for an animal must ensure that five specific needs of the animal are met:

(a) its need for a suitable environment,
(b) its need for a suitable diet,
(c) its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d) any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e) its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

The Act also made it an offence to dock the whole or any part of a dog’s tail, unless that dog is a certified working dog of not more than five days old.

Anyone found guilty of offences under the Act could be banned from owning animals, fined up to £20,000 and/or given a prison sentence.

The Animal Welfare Act also provides for secondary legislation and codes of practice to be introduced to further promote the welfare of animals. The Government has already introduced codes of practice for the welfare of dogs, cats, horses and primates and is continuing to review other areas where similar updates could be made.

European animal welfare legislation is based on the recognition that all animals, from pets to farm animals, are sentient beings – i.e. they have powers of perception and feeling. A legally binding protocol attached to the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam recognised animals as “sentient beings” and this recognition was strengthened in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 which included animal sentience as an Article in the main body of the Treaty.

The 1998 EU Council Directive 98/58 on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes set out minimum common standards of protection for animals of all species, including fish, reptiles, or amphibians, kept for the production of food, wool, skin, fur, or for other farming purposes.

The Directive was transposed into UK law via the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (amended 2007). Although the Community legislation lays down only minimum standards, the EC has said that national governments “may adopt more stringent rules provided they are compatible with the provisions of the Treaty.” Specific rules continue to apply to laying hens, calves, pigs and broilers.

In 2006 the European Commission presented its first Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals which mapped out the Commission’s planned animal welfare initiatives for 2006-2010. 

The EU subsequently published a new Animal Welfare strategy for 2012-2015, which lays the foundation for improving welfare standards during that period and aims to ensure the same high standards are applied and enforced in all EU countries.

According to the EU, the new strategy has “important implications” in that it seeks to improve how Europe’s 2 billion chickens, egg-laying hens and turkeys, and 300 million cows, pigs, goats and sheep, are housed, fed, transported and slaughtered. In addition, it covers animals used for experimentation (about 12 million per year) and animals living in zoos.

However, several animal welfare organisations and individuals remain concerned that animals in other parts of the world do not have the same kind of legislative protection and are supporting a campaign, organised by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), to secure a commitment at the United Nations for a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW).

The UDAW would be an international agreement that animals are sentient beings, that animal welfare needs must be respected and that animal cruelty must end. The campaign is reported to have over two million supporters worldwide and the WSPA believes that securing such a commitment at the UN would create the required pressure for governments to put in place firm laws and enforcement for animal welfare.


Animal welfare and animal rights seem to attract more controversy than almost any other issues, one of the most obvious examples being the antithetical views of vegans and livestock farmers.

Vegans believe that animals are intelligent creatures capable of feeling pain and are “not ours to eat”. They oppose the use of all animal products and claim that vegan or vegetarian diets are more healthy and nutritious. They also believe that rearing animals for food is bad for the environment and inefficient and suggest that world food shortages could be solved by farming crops rather than animals.

However, vegans and vegetarians are still in a minority in the UK and the demand for meat and dairy products shows little sign of diminishing. Nevertheless there is a growing interest in the way food is produced and the treatment of animals in that process.

This has been largely a response to disturbing reports about the cruel treatment of animals in ‘factory farming’ – one of the most controversial and emotive issues – where the maximum number of animals are crammed into the minimum amount of space, unable to move freely, denied any kind of normal life and reduced to nothing more than products on a factory production line.

Horrific reports of hens trapped in tiny wire cages piled one on top of another forced unnaturally to lay the maximum amount of eggs; thousands of chickens crammed into one small shed, fattened up quickly to obtain the maximum amount of chicken meat; breeding pigs kept in small metal crates etc., have all resulted in more consumers calling for ethically-sourced products, a cause taken up by celebrity chefs such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver.

Relentless campaigning by animal welfare organisations has had some success. The entire European Union is phasing out battery cages by 2012 and several Directives have been issued for adoption by member states in relation to improving the welfare of calves, chickens and pigs, with provision for further measures to be introduced in the future.

Proposals for large-scale dairy farms are also opposed. Following a year of intense campaigning by groups and individuals, a plan for a 3,770 cow ‘mega dairy’ in Nocton, Lincolnshire was finally withdrawn in February 2011 after objections were raised by the Environment Agency.

Farmers, however, are adamant that animal welfare is a priority for them. The National Farmers Union has said that factory farming “is not normal” in the UK and suggests that the Red Tractor assurance scheme, launched in 2000 to raise standards right across the food chain, is “a proven indicator of good animal welfare compliance.”

The Red Tractor kitemark now appears on billions of packs of meat, poultry and dairy products and is intended to reassure consumers that these products have been produced to the highest standards of animal welfare and environmental protection.

Another highly emotive and controversial issue is animal experimentation, whether that involves testing cosmetics and household products on animals, or using animals in medical research. Opponents believe that it is ethically unacceptable for animals to suffer physical or psychological pain during these tests.

They also argue that because of the differences between humans and other animal species, test results can be misleading. The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research claims that “in some instances, reliance on inaccurate animal ‘models’ of human disease have undoubtedly delayed medical progress.”

Proponents, however, insist that animal research has played, and is continuing to play, a vital role in treating and preventing many illnesses and diseases once thought incurable. Nevertheless, research is continuing into finding new ways to further promote the 3Rs scheme – to “reduce, refine and replace” the use of animals in research.


The fur trade is another cause of concern for animal welfare supporters. Although fur farming is banned in the UK, fur products can still be sold here. However, fur coats are no longer the must-have fashion item they once were following an intensive anti-fur campaign by animal welfare groups. Many high-profile celebrities and fashion designers have rejected fur and several stores now refuse to stock fur products.

Nevertheless the fur trade appears to be thriving, with several international designers still featuring fur in their collections. The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) believes that “wild or farmed, fur is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource that is kind to the environment and respectful of animals’ welfare.” The BFTA is a member of the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) which claims to “promote strict codes of practice that meet or exceed established and accepted animal welfare standards for wild and farmed fur.” Both the BFTA and IFTF “strongly condemn cruelty to animals and do not trade in endangered species.”

But Animal Defenders International claims that animals raised on fur farms or trapped in the wild are subject to “very cruel methods”. According to ADI, “what is of paramount concern to the fur farmers is not the welfare of the animals, but the preservation of their fur and through these methods, although incredibly painful for the animals, the fur is kept intact.”

And despite the BFTA and IFTF insisting that they “strongly condemn trade in endangered species”, the ADI remains concerned that threatened species are being illegally poached and traded for their skins, contributing to the extinction of species such as tigers, leopards and ocelots.

These concerns are shared by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the charity believes that the internet has created new challenges in the fight against trade in endangered species. The IFWA is calling for “robust domestic legislation” and an international action plan to tackle illegal wildlife trade on the internet.

Several organisations are also campaigning for a complete ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, arguing that the conditions in which the animals are kept, the training techniques to which they are subjected, and the tricks they are forced to perform, are demeaning, cruel and inappropriate for animals of this kind.

Following a public consultation exercise in 2010 with animal welfare organisations and the circus industry, the Government decided against a ban, and instead published a “tough new licensing scheme” in May 2011, which Defra said would ensure that any circuses in England wishing to show wild animals “will need to demonstrate that they meet high animal welfare standards” before they are granted a licence to keep those animals.

However, this failed to satisfy campaigners and in June 2011 a backbench business debate tabled by a Conservative MP, which had cross-party support, resulted in a unanimous vote in favour of a ban. Consequently MPs and campaigners are now pressing the Government to reconsider its decision in light of the vote and introduce a ban some time next year.

Animal welfare organisations are equally concerned about domestic wild animals which are often regarded as pests or predators by farmers and land owners. Badger culling to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis is one of the main controversies. Bovine TB is a major problem for farmers, but a recent long-term review has concluded that culling is ineffective and suggests vaccination is a better long-term solution. This view is supported by the Badger Trust which believes that the way forward is an injectable and/or an oral vaccine for badgers and also ideally a vaccine for cattle.

Deer stalking, fox snaring and the trapping of wild birds and mammals are all equally controversial and fiercely opposed by animal welfare organisations. But the British Association for Shooting and Conservation argues that pest and predator control is a necessary and integral part of conservation and wildlife management. However, the BASC also stresses that “it is the responsibility of all those involved in pest and predator control to ensure their methods are legal, humane and carried out with sensitivity and respect for other countryside users.”

Domestic pets, in particular dogs, are often the subject of controversy, the most recent being ‘handbag dogs’ and ‘status dogs’.

The current fashion started by ‘celebrities’ for carrying bichon frise, chihuahuas, shih tzus and other tiny dogs in handbags has been strongly criticised by animal charities who warn that the dogs’ ability to behave normally is being restricted, which can in turn lead to behavioural problems. According to The Blue Cross, the number of miniature dogs given up or abandoned has more than tripled in the past five years.

So-called ‘status dogs’ such as Rottweillers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are bought to give their owners a tougher image; they are also used for dog fighting and to intimidate other people. In addition to concerns about human safety, the RSPCA reports that these ‘status dogs’ often suffer violence at the hands of their owners and are forced to take part in fights which result in the dogs sustaining serious injuries.

The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) and Lord Redesdale criticised the Government for what they saw as its part in the ongoing problem of ‘status dogs’ by making them appeal to those wishing to intimidate others and rebel against the existing law.

Lord Redesdale said: “Banning the Pit Bull Terrier in 1991 was a huge mistake. Creating a picture to the general public that certain breeds of dog are dangerous and others not is hugely irresponsible.” 

Reproduced from


So there it is in short – and why the British view on animal welfare goes back a long time.

We fight on, trying to improve generally good legislation when we can.

One thing is for sure, when the UK formally leaves the EU, animal welfare legislation will improve even more.

The UK will take back control of the UK; and as a result, UK animal welfare groups will campaign even harder for even better welfare legislation.

You  could say that for the UK, the animal welfare future is looking good. SAV.



Morocco / England: A Progressive Moment For All Animals In Africa ?


Report of new work – 21/12/17.

Today we have been working with our good friend Amal in Morocco and also with our good friends at CIWF in London here in England.


Amal is associated with S/G Rapad Maroc (Morocco) and is the Anaw & Paawa Representative for the North Africa Region.

There are lots of important things going on in Morocco at the moment regarding food production and animal welfare.

Amal goes to an important meeting in Rabat on the 27th of December, in order to work with Moroccan national partners and ONSSA (National Office for Sanitary Safety of Food Products), on the elaboration of a steering committee. It is certain that this is the first time such discussion will take place in Morocco.

Amal says:

‘According to our approach and in view of the changes taking place within the AU, with the return of Morocco, our country becomes a reference of economic development with regard to the Francophone African countries. Outside the model Plan Maroc Vert (Plan Green Morocco), is already exported in some African countries, with the so-called 3A strategy (Africa Adaptation Agriculture). If we improve this strategy and implement it in Morocco, other African countries will certainly follow.

We must lobby, those who will be future lobbyists, the state’.

So, with this in mind we immediately contacted CIWF (London) to ask if they could become involved with us and give support to Amal.  As CIWF is so very experienced with all issues relating to farm animal welfare and food production this is an ideal chance to make a difference from the start.

Dr Nick (Head of Policy)  from CIWF has immediately offered help and support to Amal – especially as he was at the UNEP conference in Nairobi only last month.

Nick says to Amal:

‘We entirely understand that many developing countries face similar issues of encouraging agricultural development that does not simply duplicate the intensive farming model and more and more meat consumption which some developed countries have used and instead looks at sustainable models based on moderate meat consumption and a varied diet. It’s encouraging to see the interest in a well-considered development model, taking into account both human and animal welfare and preserving the natural resources of the Mahgreb’..

We then undertook a translation from French to English for Amal regarding better public policy on the safety in foodstuffs.  Good animal welfare is obviously a major factor in this.


The report can be read here:




(Scoping Note V1)



Human nutrition is of particular importance because it is a source of life for all human beings, regardless of their gender or age, in all regions of the world. To play its full role, it must be part of the sustainability of natural resources, especially animal and plant biodiversity, terrestrial and marine; it must also be quantitative and of a qualitative nature.

To this end, the international community, under the supervision of the specialized organs of the United Nations, has taken many steps in the form of multilateral agreements and conventions or strategy proposals. It is not without interest to emphasize that the cultural aspect of food has not escaped the international community since UNESCO is fully involved.

Morocco, as part of this global approach, has also made many provisions, which can be highlighted in particular the Framework Law and the National Strategy for Sustainable Development as well as the plan for agricultural development Plan Green Morocco, including several sectors including the of breeding. The same goes for the industrial acceleration plan and the Public Health Plan.


It should be noted that in the context of its activities, Morocco attaches great importance to cooperation with the African continent, with which it proposes to share its agricultural experience, particularly through the 3A program (Adaptation Agriculture Africa).

It is in this global context that Moroccan NGOs, especially the Rapad Morocco and the Ribat Al Fath Association for Sustainable Development, aware of their role prescribed in the Participatory Democracy clause enshrined in the 2011 constitution, have taken the initiative to launch a national debate aimed at contributing to the development of an advocacy platform for a better public policy on safe and healthy food for all.



Four observations, observable both in the world and in Morocco, are at the origin of the genesis of the project:

i / The first relates to the agricultural production modes marked by the degradation and the exhaustion of all the natural resources: Biodiversity, land, water etc …

ii / The second is the threat to food security, which has become increasingly important because of population growth and consumption patterns marked by both quality requirements and waste;

iii / The third is the worsening of the threat to food security, especially in poor countries, for a number of reasons, including only climate change,

iv / The fourth and final finding is the complexity the issue of food security involving many stakeholders and several variables.


These findings dictated the basic principles and pillars on which the objectives of the proposed project will be based:

Objective 1: As the problem is rather complex, the project will follow a progressive approach. If the development of a global platform, encompassing plants and all terrestrial and marine animal species, remains the long-term goal, the first step of this project will focus on domestic animals only. breeding in Morocco (cattle, sheep, goats, camels, chickens). On the other hand, the project will cover the entire sector, starting from production and arriving at consumption.

Objective 2: At the level of production, the project will focus on the living conditions of animals ensuring their well-being as defined at the international and national levels (food, shelter, care, etc ..) and allowing them to ensure the optimization of the economic profitability of the company. Particular attention will be given to the impact of climate change on the livestock sector so that it can adapt as well as possible and contribute the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions. 

-3rd Objective: At the processing level, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that animals suffer as little as possible during transport and slaughter. Special attention is required to ensure that all animals pass through approved slaughterhouses, that regulatory hygiene conditions are ensured and that slaughterhouses operate in a circular economy mode.

Objective 4: We know that the consumption of meat is a pillar of the food habits of Moroccan food consumption and even a sign of wealth. It seems that some people consume too much and others not enough. It is high time that specialists (Doctors, nutritionists, sociologists, etc.) look into this issue to come out with a diagnosis, a strategy and a scientifically established action plan. It should be stressed that the fight against waste must, at this level, be of great importance.


-The institutions: While the action of the Ministerial Department for Agriculture remains predominant, it is clear that the actors remain marginalized while they can bring a great added value to the sector. In particular, the territorial communities, the NGOs, the promoters of the SMEs, etc … The improvement of the governance of the sector and its performance imperatively require the establishment of mechanisms of deconcentration, decentralization and concerted and inclusive participation. of all the actors concerned. -The economic and financial instruments: The farmers certainly benefit from subsidies granted by the Ministry of Agriculture; but much remains to be done so that small farmers can benefit, that the constraints they meet in terms of financing are lifted and that they derive the maximum benefit from the conditions of sale of their products.

-Technology: It is obvious that technology is the basis of the success of any project in order to achieve the economic objectives set. The margin of progress is still quite important in Morocco in the field of breeding and production of all products of animal origin, the proposed project sets as a priority to focus on the aspects of scientific research, training and popularization of all successful techniques and all successful experiences. Demonstrative pilot projects can be set up.

Legislation and regulation: As mentioned above, nutrition is of great importance in terms of quality. An effort has been made in the area of ​​legislation and regulation to monitor product quality at both the production and consumption levels. This legislative and regulatory arsenal needs to be completed or updated, but above all it needs to be put in place in good conditions. The project will work in this direction.


-Technology: It is obvious that technology is the basis of the success of any project in order to achieve the economic objectives set. The margin of progress is still quite important in Morocco in the field of breeding and production of all products of animal origin, the proposed project sets as a priority to focus on the aspects of scientific research, training and popularization of all successful techniques and all successful experiences. Demonstrative pilot projects can be set up.

Legislation and regulation: As mentioned above, nutrition is of great importance in terms of quality. An effort has been made in the area of ​​legislation and regulation to monitor product quality at both the production and consumption levels. This legislative and regulatory arsenal needs to be completed or updated, but above all it needs to be put in place in good conditions. The project will work in this direction.



A hard core of project leaders already exists, it consists mainly of Rapad Morocco and Ribat AlFath. -Several other actors, at the national and international levels, have already shown their support. -A meeting will soon be organized to refine the project and complete it by the staff to ensure its implementation, by the division of tasks between its members and by the establishment of a timeline and a monitoring mechanism / Evaluation. -Once the project is finalized, it will be submitted for enrichment and validation during an international symposium in which the African partners will participate.                A.Bennis

The 23/11/2017


Being animal welfare organisations; both us and CIWF are committed to improving the welfare of all animals at all times – their life on the farm; a reduction to a minimum the time they undergo live transport; and also ensuring that if and when they are slaughtered; this is done in the most stress free and best conditions for the animal that is possible.  We are very aware that ritual type slaughter is undertaken in many parts of Africa at present; but we hope that by setting new and up to date standards within Morocco; this approach and policy will then spread to other nations on the African continent.

Our friends, headed by Lesley at ‘Eyes on Animals’ (EoA) –   in the Netherlands have very recently undertaken investigations into animal slaughter in Ghana, Africa.  EoA have for the first time supplied captive bolt pistols to slaughterhouses in Ghana to ensure that animals are fully stunned prior to the slaughter process rather than having their throats cut whilst still fully conscious.

Here is a link to the EoA Press Release on this particular issue:

The situation will be very new for Morocco, so care needs to be taken at meetings in Morocco not to be too pushy to block any negotiations. Diplomacy is paramount.

At the moment it is impossible to discuss veganism and vegetarianism, and the authorities there do not really have any regard for the welfare of animals, let alone meat free diets.  A step by step; gradual movement, is the correct way to approach this subject.  We have to keep the thought in our heads that generally in Morocco, the population look at the prices of meat most importantly rather than the welfare of the animals that it (the meat) comes from.

Currently, this view is stronger than our attitudes; but over time and with careful diplomacy; some of our views and methods associated with animal farming, transport and slaughter  may get accepted as the norm; and importantly, then spread to other areas of Africa.  This is also the view of Amal; and can only be good news for animals with regard future practices.