Day: January 19, 2021

Fox hunting : organized animal cruelty

As a leisure activity, hunters across Germany kill up to half a million foxes in the cruelest way every year – many of the animals are “only” shot or downright crushed and mutilated in traps.

Foxes are a living target for hunters; there is no reason for the massive hunting of predators, neither from a wildlife biological nor from a health point of view. Politics must finally act and put an end to the senseless killing of useful animals.

Pain and suffering – what hunting means to wild animals. Shot … and dead!

Fox with stomach injuries-Image: pelli

In many cases, this is not the case. Studies in Great Britain have shown this, among other things. The accuracy is poor, every second fox is only wounded by a gunshot wound but not dead. Two-thirds of wild boars were shot dead after a driven hunt: in the back, in the stomach, or in the legs. Approx. 60% of the female animals in the deer were shot in the stomach.

According to the Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare, up to 70 percent of wild animals do not die immediately, especially during driven hunts, but rather suffer excruciating jaw, stomach, and barrel shots.

Lower jaw shot away: This young wild boar starved and died of thirst

Most foxes are hunted during the winter months. The snow makes hunting easier and the otherwise vigilant animals are careless because now is the mating season for foxes. For many fox pups who see the light of day from March, this means that they will grow up without the fox father. But it has a very important function in their rearing due to the procurement of food.

As a result, the young foxes are often physically weakened, their ability to survive is much lower than that of fox pups that were raised with a provider.

Little is known to the public that trapping is still allowed in Germany.
Both manslaughter traps and live traps can cause extreme animal suffering.
Most of the animals try to get the bait out with their paws. Then the safety stirrup slams shut and the leg is crushed.
Many foxes and cats will pull at it until they can escape with limbs half severed.
Fox mothers, who know their young are hungry in the burrow, even bite off their paws to escape.

Numerous studies now show that fox hunting does not “regulate” the fox population, nor does it contain wild diseases (e.g. distemper, mange, fox tapeworm), or makes a meaningful, sustainable contribution to the preservation of threatened species. Fox populations regulate themselves based on social fabric, food availability, and disease.

Fox hunting is prohibited in Luxembourg and other countries and regions – there are no problems with overpopulation there.

Please sign the Petition: https://www.peta.de/kampagnen/fuchsjagd-stoppen/

And I mean…Every year in January and February foxes are hunted even more intensely and ruthlessly in Germany than they already are.

The so-called “fox weeks” are held right in the middle of the mating season – now even a whole fox month, preferably during the full moon weeks in January and February.

During a defined period of time, as many hunters as possible take part, often across territories, to shot on the fox. As a result, the “loden jackets” enjoy (!) a few dozen dead foxes.

In almost every place cross-territory fox hunts are organized, to which territorial hunters and young hunters are invited in order to kill as many foxes as possible. After the hunt, the animals are lined up in a line and the killings are celebrated by the hunters.

According to Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Act, it is forbidden to kill or harm an animal without good cause.
Nothing else happens when hunting foxes.
Animal protection has been anchored in the Basic Law since 2002 and is to be regarded as a binding asset with constitutional status.
The state protection goal of “animal protection” has the status of a fundamental right – but not hunting.

Thus the hunting law is subordinate to animal welfare.

Unfortunately, the hunter’s lobby is well networked in government circles and politics. In Luxembourg, on the other hand, the government was not impressed by the lies and slogans of the hunters and in April 2015 enforced a fox hunting ban that continues to this day.

The result: “No major problems”. The Luxembourg hunting association “Fédération Saint-Hubert” nevertheless tried to take legal action against the hunting ban – without success.

In 2016, the administrative court upheld the ban on fox hunting and the hunters’ flimsy arguments were clearly dismissed by the judge.

Hunting in Germany is an unlawful area.
According to their own statements, 380,000 hunters kill around 5 million wild animals in Germany every year.

The truth probably looks even worse: Wildtierschutz Deutschland e.V. estimates that a total of over 9 million animals are killed by hunting in Germany every year.

The hunters carry out these executions with legal government assistance.
“Hunters and the state go hand-to-hand in the forest”, where the murderers, heavily armed to the teeth, kill defenseless animals

A civilized country is not understood as such if it brutally massacres 500,000 foxes annually and proudly presents itself in the media as a potent -execution- gang.

A civilized country is understood as such when it feels and practices respect, compassion, and protection for every species of animal.

And it is therefore a shame for our society, by silence and passivity to give a minority of 0.45% the right to decide about life and death to defenseless animals.

My best regards to all, Venus

Australian seafood consumers urged to stop buying flake to protect sharks.

Seafood being sold at the Sydney Fish Market
photo of the Sydney Fish Market. The Australian Marine Conservation Society aims to make people more aware of the need for shark conservation. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP

Australian seafood consumers urged to stop buying flake to protect sharks | Australia news | The Guardian

Australian seafood consumers urged to stop buying flake to protect sharks

A new campaign highlights there is no legal obligation to label flake – a common term for shark meat – by species or where it’s from

Australian consumers will be encouraged not to purchase flake when they shop for seafood and to instead try sustainable alternatives in a new campaign that aims to put a spotlight on laws that permit the harvest of endangered sharks.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) is asking consumers to “give flake a break” because there is no legal obligation in Australia for retailers to label flake – a common term used for shark meat – by its species or where it’s from.

Guardian Australia reported last year that a loophole in Australia’s national environmental laws allows for the continued commercial harvest of endangered sharks such as the school shark or hammerhead, meaning their meat can be routinely sold in shops, restaurants or exported overseas.

Leonardo Guida, a shark scientist with the AMCS, said the organisation was launching its campaign to try to make consumers more aware of the need for shark conservation.

He said sustainable alternatives to flake included King George whiting, farmed barramundi, mullet, wild caught Australian salmon and luderick.

Research by the AMCS found there was an average $2 difference between these options and the cost of flake. In some cases the sustainable alternatives were cheaper.

“Australia legally permits the harvest of endangered sharks, which can end up on people’s plates and they wouldn’t even know it because it’s often called flake,” Guida said.

“There’s no legal requirement to call a shark for what it is.”

Guida said the system was broken “somewhere between the boat and the plate” because fishers routinely recorded what species they caught but by the time the meat ended up with a consumer that information could be lost or difficult to obtain.

Guida surveyed 10 fish and chips shops in each state and territory and found less than a third of the shark meat on sale referred to a specific species.

He said promisingly, however, at least 40% of retailers offered a sustainable alternative.

Consumers can use GoodFish, a website and app developed by AMCS, to research sustainable seafood options, or ask their fishmonger or retailer.

The loophole in Australia’s environment laws applies to certain marine species that are given a special status known as “conservation dependent” that allows for their continued commercial harvest.

Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, marine species that are listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered are classified as “no take” species, meaning they cannot be sold or exported.

But the eight marine species listed as conservation dependent – including the blue warehou, eastern gemfish, the scalloped hammerhead and the school shark – do not receive this protection.

Marine conservationists have long argued for the removal of this category from Australia’s national environment laws where it applies to threatened species but its existence continues to fly beneath the radar of most seafood consumers.

During last year’s review of the EPBC Act, led by the former competition watchdog head Graeme Samuel, the AMCS called for the species listed as conservation dependent to be given the threatened status they were eligible for.

The Humane Society International is the main organisation in Australia that nominates species for a listing under national environmental laws. It put forward several of the marine animals that were ultimately listed as conservation dependent.

One of those was the scalloped hammerhead, which qualified for an endangered listing but was given a conservation dependent status in 2018 after a six-year effort by the HSI to have it listed for protection.

“What we ask is that species be put in their rightful category because species that are endangered or critically endangered should be listed as that and protected from commercial utilisation,” said Nicola Beynon, the HSI’s Australian head of campaigns.

Samuel’s interim report, handed down last July, found Australia’s environment was in unsustainable decline. The report made several recommendations, but none in relation to the conservation dependent category.

He delivered his final report to the Morrison government at the end of October last year but it has not yet been released. The government is required to release the report sometime in February.

A spokesperson for the environment minister, Sussan Ley, would not say when the government planned to release the report but it would be within the statutory timeframe.

The spokesman said sharks were listed as conservation dependent based on advice from the threatened species scientific committee.

“Species listed as conservation dependent are subject to a scientifically determined and annually reviewed rebuilding strategy,” the spokesperson said.

In a submission to the Samuel review last year, the scientific committee said the conservation dependent category needed urgent reform and this was partly because it masked the actual conservation status of species.

Austrian public broadcaster sheds light on live transport at prime time.

WAV Comment:

Please watch the video given in this post – you dont need to understand the language; the pictures say it all !

“Animal transports – cheap meat at any price?”

Austrian public broadcaster sheds light on live transport at prime time

18 January 2021

Four Paws

Cattle crammed into trucks, brutally loaded onto ships, slaughtered while fully conscious – disturbing images of animals being transported to the Middle East, including those of Austrian cattle in Lebanon, as well as interviews with Eurogroup for Animals’ members Four Paws and Animals International are featured in a new documentary which was broadcasted at prime time on Austrian television.

The documentary feature called “Animal transports – cheap meat at any price?” took a critical look at this much-discussed topic last Wednesday, 13 January 2021. The documentary looks at the crucial questions of how and why these animals from Austria are transported thousands of kilometres, also addressing the crux of why domestic calves are exported at all, while most of the veal for Austrian gastronomy is imported. In the past, these questions have triggered not only a public but also a political debate in Austria.

Every year about 45,000 calves are exported from Austria to countries such as Italy or Spain, while about 100,000 animals are imported to Austria to end up on the plates of local restaurants.

In Vienna, 60 per cent of the Wiener Schnitzel consists of imported veal. Most of it comes from the Netherlands and is produced under conditions that would not be permitted in Austria. This, however, is not comprehensible to the consumer as most menus are not transparent. A schnitzel from Austrian veal would cost 50 cents more, and 20 cents more for pork.

Read more at source

Der Standard