Response To The Recent Post Regarding Possible Donkey Exports From Australia to China. 18/5/17.

Picture shows : On this China market live donkeys are being brutally slaughtered. 

SAV Comment:

The following relates to our recent post regarding donkeys possibly going to be exported from Australia to China.  Here is the link to the post, and we would suggest that it should be reviewed BEFORE reading the responses below:


We agree with many of the points raised below, especially those of points 2 and 5. We know that the Australian trade survives on transporting live animals over huge distances to terrible deaths in far off places.  We very much would argue about the statement made that donkeys would be slaughtered in licensed abattoirs in Australia, not transported live to China.  The original comment in the past response also talks of ‘humane’ slaughter in the street using sledgehammers rather than their use in slaughterhouses.  We have campaigned against, and shown posts in the past relating to the use of sledgehammers to kill animals in slaughterhouses.  Nothing is better – their use either on the street or in slaughterhouses is abhorrent and should be banned wherever.

Here is the response to the above links from one of our supporters which was sent to us by e mail.  We have reproduced in full with no edits.

We welcome comments relating to any issues covered.  Please use the ‘Contact’ tab at the top of the page if you would like to leave any feedback.  Comments are shown on the site under ‘Recent Comments’ which is located on the right hand side.



Dear friends from the “Donkey Sanctuary”,

I have a few Points about the article you send in SAV from 15/5/17.

Point 1.Whilst we cannot deny the truth of the articles linked in the Serbian Animals Voice page, many of them are several years (or even decades) old, and in the case of flesh being cut off live donkeys, we had reassurance some years ago from a reliable contact in Beijing that this was rare to start with, and now no longer happens.

Criticism: How are you so sure that new photos would not be worse than the old ones?

Which is their reliable contact in Beijing?

From whom do you know that such things no longer happen? Apart from a recognized animal protection organization in the country, I would not trust anyone else that he/she is telling the truth. Especially in China, a country where there is no animal protection, one should be very careful with such statements.


Point 2. Whilst we do not condone the roadside slaughter of donkeys by sledgehammer, although it is brutal, as long as it is performed by someone who knows what they’re doing and does it well, it can be quicker and more humane than what goes on behind closed doors in some abattoirs rather closer to home.

Criticism: If you really consider the slaughter of the donkeys with sledgehammer as a “humane” slaughter, compared to the brutal slaughterhouses, then you can suggest to those who eat meat and wear leather that they prefer both (meat and leather) from the “human” slaughtered donkey on the street. This reminds me a little of the organic meat myth in Germany (Bio Fleisch).


Picture shows : Horrifying sights of the animals bashed over the head with a sledgehammer.

Point 3 :

If you go on to read the full article

you will see that the logistics and economic viability are in fact far from straightforward or easy to justify. This article is dated 2016 and is far more realistic as the extract in the box below demonstrates:

The article may be up-to-date, but how can you believe that an unscrupulous businessman, such as Trier, says the truth, if he says, that they are not planning anything with live transports to China? Why does Trier give you the guarantee that he says the truth? He also says himself: “as soon as the dollars stack up, then one comes immediately into the business! We are talking about millions of business, don`t forget !!!


Point 4. Furthermore, the indications are that if it should happen (which currently looks unlikely), that donkeys would be slaughtered in licensed abattoirs in Australia, not transported live to China.

Criticism:  You say “the indications” but you are not sure. We aren’t either. We do not expect an email from both countries to find out that such a transport takes place. And China has never done any business with slaughtered animals. China is a country which is 100% oriented on transports of live animals. Because that is cheap!

The simple logic says that if the donkeys are previously slaughtered in “licensed abattoirs in Australia”, the business it is not worth.

Point 5.   We call for a halt to the trade in donkey skins to produce ejiao until the impact of the trade can be assessed and shown to be both humane for donkeys and sustainable for the communities that depend on them.

Criticism: You distinguish between illegal and legal action. And in addition, you demand a “halt” of trade with donkeys, which are slaughtered for the production of ejiao, not a ban. You leave a window open for Chinese medicine? Today, we know very well that the famous Chinese medicine is only a good selling myth. Just like the liquid from the bile of bears in China and Korea, which produces non detectable positive effect, but only an agonizing death for millions of animals. I think you should be much stricter in your judgments and requirements. Especially when it`s about countries like Australia, China, Romania, Turkey … etc ,,

Experience has shown us that we can never be sufficiently mistrustful and vigilant, and that is why we must act on time.






Why Animal Farts Are A Dangerous Thing !



China now eats twice as much meat as the United States, which is far too much on both counts !

“It is not possible to feed everyone so much meat,” said Wen Tiejun, the dean of Renmin university’s Agriculture school a leading advocate of rural reform. “People must simply eat less (meat)”.

Over the last 30 years, the Chinese demand for meat has quadrupled, according to figures from the USDA.  China alone now eats a quarter of the world supply, approximately 71 million tons a year.


With lots more money in their pockets, the majority of Chinese citizens have turned away from their traditional diet of rice and vegetables, flavored with only a small quantity of meat.  They now embrace Western diets and have become fast food junkies. But Chinese farmers are unable to keep pace with the demand, and imports of meat, breeding stock and animal feed have risen dramatically.


Thanks to Philip at CIWF (England) –

The average Chinese still only eats half the meat that his American counterpart does. But American and European meat consumption has now started to fall, while it is still rising strongly in the developing world, of which China is considered one. Leading water scientists have also issued warnings that the world may have to switch almost completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years to avoid catastrophic shortages.

So what is China doing about it ?  –   New dietary guidelines could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 BILLION tonnes by 2030, and could lessen country’s problems with obesity and diabetes.

The Chinese government has outlined a plan to reduce its citizens’ meat consumption by 50%, in a move that climate campaigners hope will provide major change in the effort to avoid runaway global warming of the planet.

New dietary guidelines for citizens drawn up by China’s health ministry and only released once every 10 years recommend that the nation’s 1.3 billion population should consume between 40g to 75g of meat per person each day. The measures are designed to improve public health but could also provide a significant reduction to global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Chinese Communist party has released a series of new public information adverts encouraging Chinese citizens to consume less animal flesh each day to help the environment.   If the new guidelines be followed, carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from China’s livestock industry would be reduced by 1 billion tonnes by 2030, from a projected 1.8 billion tonnes in that year.

14.5% of planet-warming emissions emanate globally from the keeping and eating of cows, chickens, pigs and other meat animals – this is more than the entire global emissions from the transport sector. Livestock produce and release methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas.  Land clearing and the use of fertilizers also release large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere.

Tackling climate change involves many routes – scientific judgement, political decisions, entrepreneurial support, but in the main, it still very much relies on involvement of the general public to change their meat consuming behaviour. Every single meat eating person around the globe has to believe in the low-carbon concept and slowly adapt to it by making changes to their diet and cutting down on, or preferably eradicating, meat consumption.

Meat has gone from a rare treat to a regular staple part of daily diet for many Chinese people. In 1982, the average Chinese person each year ate just 13kg of meat, nicknamed “millionaire’s meat” due to its scarcity.  Beef consumption was almost non existent.

But the emergence of China as a world economic power has radically altered the diets of a newly wealthy population. The average Chinese citizen now eats 63kg of meat a year, with a further 30kg of meat per person expected to be added by 2030 if nothing is done to stop or amend the trend. The new guidelines set out in government guidelines would reduce this to between 14kg and 27kg a year – a reduction of more than 50%.


China currently consumes 28% of the world’s meat, including half of its entire pork capacity. Animals are reared in and spend their short lives in utterly terrible conditions – read and see much more from Phil at CIWF (England) at:

But, China still lags behind more than 12 other nations in ‘per capita’ meat consumption, with the average American or Australian consuming twice as much meat per person compared to China.


According to a new report by Wildaid – –  the predicted increase in China’s meat consumption would add an extra 233m tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere each and every year, as well as put an increased strain on the country’s water supply, which is already blighted by polluted and denuded rivers and groundwater.

The report also warns that unchecked Chinese meat consumption will degrade its arable land and much worsen the country’s problems and costs relating to obesity and diabetes. Already (2017) an estimated 100 million Chinese people have diabetes, more than any other country.

Research released by the think tank Chatham House in 2014 predicted that China alone is expected to eat 20 million tonnes more of meat and dairy a year by 2020 and warned that “dietary change is essential” if global warming is to not exceed the 2C limit eventually imposed at the Paris climate accord recently.

Scientists at the Oxford Martin School found that the widespread adoption of vegetarianism around the world could bring down greenhouse gas emissions by nearly two-thirds .

China’s potential move to cut meat consumption in half would not only have a huge positive impact on its public health, it would also be a massive step towards drastically reducing carbon emissions and reaching the global goals set out in the Paris agreementAnimal agriculture emits more than all transportation combined. Reducing demand for animal-based foods is essential if we are to limit global warming to 2C as agreed at COP21.

Despite the Chinese government’s commitment to reducing meat consumption by 50% or more, it may be very difficult to convince the country’s big spending, rising middle classes to cut down on their meat intake. There are strong cultural traditions attached to the eating of many animals, especially pigs, which will be difficult to change.

Recently, Chinese companies have been buying farms in the United States and Australia to provide feed for their country’s dairy and beef industries. In late 2013 a Chinese company, (Shenghui), purchased the largest US pork producer, named ‘Smithfield Foods’, to help keep up with demand.

China’s demand for meat could potentially continue to grow and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US meat industry.  Sounds good for the USA; but also think; from a climate perspective, the methane produced by the animals will still continue to be created, but it will be shifted to the United States rather than remain in ChinaWe wonder what President Trump would have to say about this if he cared – but then does he not think climate change is a non-reality invented by the Chinese ?

Maybe he should think again, if he is capable.

– By Mark

– compiled from various sources.


In honor of the animal Mother’s Day.

In honor of the animal Mother’s Day

(By Venus – Germany)


Every year on this day, I think of the animals who have never seen their mothers.

To the new-born calves who brutally snatched from their mother while the mother is still bleeding on her chains with the function to satisfy our pathological greed for luxury, sadism, and power. I think of all the mothers, who are legally tortured as swine-mothers against their will  in the individual cells of modern animal barracks.

I think of the cow mothers who never see their children and only hear them screaming from far, because the second hand murderers of our society have ordered this crime.

I am thinking of the pain of the monkey mothers in the forest, whose children are snatched from her and end up in the labs, so that some criminal idiots can tear their bodies piece by piece and use them to secure their careers.  I think of all mothers who cannot defend their children when they lie helpless around them and watch them die a slow death.

Every year, on May 14, we have the Mother’s Day. So we, the rulers, have set it up, and exchange gifts and thanksgiving among us;

Because the ruling species always remains unified and strong, and uses a Mother’s Day as a monopoly of love and gratitude only for human animals with the help of the well-known advertising industry, which sentimentalize and instrumentalist this with the purpose of selling them best.

And so, I trust on this day also to a society, which by the monopolization of freedom and the right to life on its own, has long since reached the moral bankruptcy of the human species.



I did not go to the demonstration.

On May 1, this year I did not go to the demonstration.

Every year I was there, along with many other politically progressive people, to commemorate the workers’ movement.

The reason is that today my evaluation of the victims of the system has radically changed.

The working class 100 years ago, was the victim of capitalism, at that time it was the proletarians who had nothing to lose but their chains.

Today, it is the pigs who have nothing to lose but their 0.75 square meters of single cells.

Meanwhile, today’s proletarians and then victims of capitalism have a bit more than just losing their chains through the new order of the world.

In contrast to the pigs and all the animals of this world who still live in slavery, exploitation and the destruction of a consumer society, and every day fall victim to the fascism of all classes.

And these sacrifices are silent because they cannot complain, because they cannot make a 1. May revolution.


“The ruling morality is the morality of the ruling class,” had said comrade Marx.

Related to our fellow-citizens, this is already true.

Because the means of production are still in the hands of the ruling class, the oligarchy.

This does not apply to animals.

For the animals: “The ruling morality is the morality of the ruling species”.


I think we need a Marx for the animals!




Venus has supplied the following – have a look and enjoy !



England: From The Dog’s Mouth – Where Are We Going ? – Are We Somewhere ?

There may be some changes to this site in the near future.  We are currently consulting with a few contacts as to a way forward for the site.  With the situation regarding a new President in the USA, who gives the green light to all animal and environmental destruction; we are looking possibly at focussing our attention more to positives in the Far East, and their associated campaigns, rather than the utterly negative attitude that has been brought around by the Trump administration.  We cover one aspect of this a little further into this post. 

Here is what Jamie Rappaport Clark, President of (USA) Defenders of Wildlife has to say today, 3/5/17:

Dear Mark,

I don’t know what to say. The first 100 days of the Trump administration were nothing short of a disaster for wildlife.

In just over three months in office, the Trump administration and anti-conservation forces in Congress have laid waste to our collective and widely popular protections for preserving our nation’s wildlife, wild lands and waters.

With every new Executive Order or bill in Congress, I have been shocked by what is undeniably the most anti-wildlife, anti-environment administration I’ve seen in my lifetime. Not only does it defy my understanding, but these attacks and actions overtly and unabashedly defy science, facts and reason.

The first 100 days of the Trump administration have included:

  • President Trump’s approval of Congress’ action rescinding the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Rule, potentially allowing for extreme killing methods like shooting mother bears with cubs and killing wolves with pups during denning season on national wildlife refuges in Alaska;

  • An Executive Order undermining the Antiquities Act and opening more than a billion acres of protected national monuments up for review in the interest of allowing oil and gas industries and other special interests broader access to public lands;

  • An Executive Order calling for construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall that could jeopardize the existence of at least 89 endangered or threatened species and 108 migratory bird species;

  • An Executive Order to “review and reconsider” the Clean Water Rule and putting our national health at risk; and

  • An Executive Order instructing the Department of the Interior to “review” offshore drilling restrictions in the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

And these are only a FEW examples of the many terrifying actions we’ve seen by this administration.

Back to me;

The US Presidency has very sadly become a family type business run for the benefit of the Trump family and not for American citizens – certainly not the common man.  He spouts off during campaigns about ‘making America great again’, whilst at the same time daughter Ivanka (behind the scenes) is importing 53.5 tonnes of clothes for her own clothing label into the US – from China ! – see for yourself below.  Where did he get the words ‘Buy American and Hire American’ from – part of his campaign slogan ???

Information shows that more than 1,200 shipments of Trump-branded products have flowed into the US from China and Hong Kong over the past decade. Nordstrum stores decided to drop the Ivanka Trump label; but Presidential ‘spokesperson’ Sean Spicer declared the action was a ‘direct attack’ on the Presidents policy of buy and hire American.  Strange that, eh ? – what’s ‘hire American’ when you import goods from China ?


What is next ? – a sell off of US national monuments which it is claimed will return the land to the people.  Possibly though this will enable certain Republican led States to sell off public land for industry such as mining and water.  And who we ask will benefit from handing over public areas of outstanding natural beauty to the mining industry ? – lets think and hazard a guess – Mr Trumps friends and business partners ?

If ‘buy and hire American’ actually means importing products and services from China, then maybe we need to adopt a similar policy at SAV.  We are not in business of any kind; but maybe we should now address the positives happening in the Far East rather than the negatives in America of what has happened since the Trump inauguration and the huge negatives with US animal welfare issues.  America elected Trump; now America has to respond to the actions.  Why should people such as us in the UK contribute (as we have done many times in the past) into ‘fighting funds’ enacted by groups in the US to fight various negative actions on nature, animals and environmental destruction ? – I have had many brilliant times visiting and enjoying places of natural beauty in the USA in the past; and the thought that a businessman cum President will now hand these wonderful lands over to mining companies etc to exploit for nothing but profit and financial gain fills me with dread.   I am not prepared to financially support campaigns to act against Trump policy – there are loads of issues in the UK and EU that I can put my money into.  America voted him in, now let America take the actions necessary to change things.  Also I ask; for example, what exactly, or who exactly, will benefit from little bear cubs now being allowed to be slaughtered in their hibernation dens in accordance with new legislation ? – what exactly is the purpose of this and more importantly; the question that America should really ask; who exactly will benefit from this new action by Trump ?

Also; who exactly will benefit from ‘Ag Gag’; I guess that it is industry and financial lobbyists who wish to keep their abuses of animals on factory farms and in slaughterhouses under wraps.  The public must not see this; or the undercover journalists and investigators trying to expose bad issues to the public will pay for their work and exposure of such by being handed down prison sentences, whilst the abuses and the abusers can continue with their work without worry.  Sad, worrying and very ‘big brother’; I say no more.

Fortunately, the Far East now shows quite a lot of positive signs that it is moving forward with regard to better animal welfare legislation.  Hopefully the new elections in South Korea on 9/5 will greatly improve this even more and set a positive precedent for the dog meat trade in the Far East.  As for the USA, what can you say about the election of Trump ? – apart from basically negative for almost everything except business and status that involves his personal family.  He gives not a damn about anything but his status and making money – to hell with the rest.

Maybe now SAV will look for and report more on the hopes and positives in the Far East rather than all the negative and damaging environmental / animal welfare news that we witness each and every day in the USA.  Will the Trump actions make America great again ? – I think we know the answer to this already, but we wait and see – time and responses will tell.

The election of President Trump in the USA now causes many of us in the welfare movement to question exactly what his intentions are in relation to certain actions that we have already seen being scrapped and scrubbed by the stoke of his pen, whilst proudly displaying the executive orders across tv screens like some child waiting for praise from a parent and having a copy stuck on the fridge door.

Within the first two weeks of his administration, many thousands of documents detailing animal welfare violations nationwide across the USA have been removed from the website of the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, which has been posting such violations publicly for many decades. In doing such, and by hiding online records of animal welfare violations, the USDA national agency robs investigators, journalists, and the public of information— whilst at the same time taking pressure off of animal abusers. The records which have now been removed from view have revealed the many cases of abuse and mistreatment of animals, national incidents that, if the reports had not been publicly posted, would likely have remained hidden – thus allowing animal suffering and the cruelties associated with it to remain hidden. Ag Gag for sure !  Many good people and organisations have now been plunged into the dark about animal welfare issues at facilities across the country thanks to the sweeping pen of Mr. Trump.

Countless cases of animal cruelty have been removed, and what would appear to be the actions and identities of abusive companies have been hidden. It should be the case with the national government that US citizens deserve more transparency and accountability, not less as is being shown under the Trump administration.

Reasoning has to be questioned.  The USDA has long redacted sensitive information from these records; so it is not as if something new has now been eradicated from service.  Mr. Dan Ashe, head of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and also the former director of the (US) Fish and Wildlife Service; says the USDA’s removal of records is “not in the interest of credible, legitimate animal care facilities. What this action does is it erodes public confidence, because when people see something like that, they’re inclined, rightfully, to think that the government is trying to shield something from their view.”

What is President Trump trying to shield from public view by his actions ?; one has to ask.  What is the true reasoning behind such actions ? – one has to think that money comes into the equation somewhere; scratch back favours for industry, political party donors and the rest who want it played and kept ‘their way’.

Mr Adam Roberts, Chief Exec of Born Free USA, associated with the Born Free Foundation originally created here in the UK, is “shocked” by the purge. He declares correctly that the documents originally shone a light on cruelty in “substandard roadside zoos, shameful animal circuses, puppy breeding factories and more.” He says “the government’s (Trump) decision to make it harder to access this information still further protects animal exploiters in the shroud of secrecy on which their nefarious activities thrive.” – Worrying !

From now on the documents will only be accessible via official requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOI. FOI requests can take months to process; and also, many citizens will not be bothered to undertake FOI requests for information that used to be available to them at the strike of a computer button.

Mr. Roberts says that whenever Born Free receives welfare complaints from concerned citizens, the organization always checked USDA records to see if any complaints had already been made involving the facility or animal(s) in question. Waiting months now for a FOI report for information that previously could be obtained with the click of a button “may mean prolonged suffering for an animal or animals in need,” he declares.  We at SAV support his views 100%.

In response to the Trump actions, animal-rights groups have since launched a counter attack. On February 6, the Humane Society of the United States initiated legal action against the USDA, arguing that the removal of records violates a 2009 settlement between the two parties. Other groups, including PETA, the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine, as well as Born Free USA, have filed a joint lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that by removing this data, the department is in violation of FOI and that the action hinders the groups’ ability to identify violations of the Animal Welfare Act. As far as we are currently aware, the USDA has yet to respond to either legal action.

As legal battles over access to information gather momentum, the impact on professional journalism, and consequently the public’s awareness of any national animal suffering, will be keenly felt. Mr Doug Haddix, Executive Director of Investigative Reporters and Editors, based in Columbia, Missouri; declares that the added burden of animal requests could slow FOIAs down even more. 

By doing this, there is a clear destruction of belief and trust in a government service; instead it could be said that public trust in a US service intended for use by the US public has been destroyed in the swipe of a pen by a new president named Trump – the person who preached that he would make America great again.  These actions do nothing for the ‘great again’; far from it.  Many questions about policy are now being asked right across the EU and the rest of the world.  Access to public data and documents should not be for the privileged few; and anyone concerned about both responsible and transparent government in the United States should be alarmed by the actions of Trump and the USDA; and what is now happening in the USA as a whole.






Tax This !


Dear Mark, I send you my thoughts on the results of popular vote in Turkey. My central idea is: when a people decides for its dictatorship, the whole world is stirring up, but the people do it voluntarily. If we decide for the dictatorship of the animals every day, nobody cares.

Best regards Venus


When the folk decides… Actually I am not active for human rights. I would even say: I left that to other people, they do it better, and I have full respect for them. I do not write about the result in the popular vote in Turkey because I want to comment on it politically.

I see this only as a just tighten for a people that abolish their own rights, as always have done with the animal rights. But this result has sparked great joy for me also for another reason: Turkey is finally out as an EU candidate.

A country with the worst illegality in the transport of animals in Europe, a country of brutal slaughterhouses, remains permanently out of the EU. I do not want to say that if Turkey got soaked, it would have improved. Many countries, however, with similar crimes in animal transport are nevertheless in the EU. But at least the country will not receive any subsidies from the EU.

Strangely, the new dictatorship was chosen according to the will of the people. The same thing we recently had with the democratically elected Trump. By this I will say: a people can vote for (example Turkey) or against (example UK vote) its dictatorship.

These results in Turkey have raised the following question for me: what would be the result of a popular vote in Germany for meat tax. Because mass animal farms produce so much CO2, every meat consumer has to pay tax for the environment and animals.

I guess, and I’m even betting, that about 80% of the interviewees would be against taxation, and they would practically decide further for the dictatorship of the meat barons and the misery of the animals. The animals experience a dictatorship every day according to popular decision: we have decided to torment them, kill, to slaughter, eat, bear, enslave them.

I am therefore against popular decisions, which serve as safeguards of the ruling class. And I am now glad that this people and not only the animals will experience a dictatorship. Although still with a difference: the people has decided for this, the animals have not.





UK: First Initial Signs That (Post Brexit) The UK Will Stop Live Animals Exports..

SAV Comment – As we said a long time ago; if the EU is not going to do anything positive about the long distance transport of animals despite all the evidence presented to them, then the UK leaves the EU and acts independently for a ban.  Here is the current response from the UK government – and although nothing can be done until we officially leave the EU, be assured that UK groups will fight tooth and nail to have a live transport ban in place on the day the UK formally leaves the EU.  The EU may continue as ‘heads in the sand’, complete with their weasel words about better enforcement etc, but the UK will take positive, direct action for better animal welfare and go for the ban.  UK welfare groups will ensure this will be the final outcome.


Dear Mark Johnson,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “As soon as the UK exits the EU legislate to end the export of live farm animals.”.

Government responded:

The Government would prefer animals to be slaughtered close to the point of production. Once the UK has left the EU, there will be the possibility to consider further measures in this area.

The Government is committed to improving the welfare of animals. The Government share British farmers and the public’s high regard for animal welfare. We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.

The Government’s position is that we would prefer animals to be slaughtered as close as practicable to their point of production. A trade in meat and meat products is preferable to the long distance transport of animals to slaughter.

Once the UK has left the European Union (EU), there will be the possibility to consider further measures in this area.

Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the EU and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.

We have made clear in Brussels that we support improvements being made to enforcement across the EU of existing rules on the long distance transport of livestock.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Click this link to view the response online:

The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee:

The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament