Like all politicians after your vote, they promise the world. Once elected, then we see the reality.
Labour’s animal-welfare and environmental policies may be better than the Tories’ – but they contain disappointing gaps, experts say.
** In a YouGov poll last year, a third of voters said animal welfare was one of their top three issues. **
So new environment secretary Steve Reed will come under pressure from lobby groups – and in some cases, from opposing countryside and farming factions.
The party’s manifesto promised to improve animal welfare, with bans on trail hunting and the import of hunting trophies, an end to puppy smuggling and farming, and to “work towards the phasing out of animal testing”.
It pledged a Labour government would “champion British farming whilst protecting the environment”.
Alongside environmental land-management schemes, the manifesto promised steps to eradicate bovine TB to end the “ineffective” badger cull. And there was a pledge to ban snares.
Mr Reed said Labour would introduce “the biggest boost in animal welfare in a generation”.
Many of the policies have been broadly welcomed by commentators – but already others are facing controversy, including:
Badger cull
Before the election, Labour damned the badger cull as “ineffective”, holding up the prospect of ending it.
But Mr Reed confirmed last week the government would allow existing cull licences to continue until 2026, saying an immediate end to the cull would send “sudden shocks into the system”.
Meanwhile, the Badger Trust and Wild Justice, a campaign group jointly run by Chris Packham, have sent a legal warning letter over Natural England’s decision before the election to grant nine new supplementary cull licences and to authorise 17 existing licences – contrary to the advice of Natural England’s own head of science.
Wild Justice said if the response was unsatisfactory it may seek a judicial review.
Dominic Dyer, ex-head of the Badger Trust and a defeated Lib Dem election candidate, said: “Never in the history of wildlife protection has there been such a betrayal of trust. After 13 years of waiting for a Labour government to stop this cruel madness, they are now planning to kill at least 30,000 more badgers.”
Industrial farming
Labour’s manifesto has been criticised for not mentioning factory farm animal welfare.
Alick Simmons, a former government deputy chief vet, writing for Wild Justice, said: “A pledge to address puppy farming while ignoring industrial pig and poultry farming does not strike me as a balanced manifesto.”
Compassion in World Farming (CiWF) has lobbied all parties for a ban on cages, saying around 8 million farmed animals are kept in them each year in the UK. “The previous government said they’d prepared consultations on this issue, and we want to see them published,” it said.
The Liberal Democrats had pledged to ban cages for hens, while Labour did not.
The Lib Dems were praised for a promise to crack down on antibiotic misuse for farm animals, and the new government will face calls to do so.
Wildlife and nature recovery
Green Party former co-leader Caroline Lucas said she was shocked by the lack of manifesto detail on restoring the natural world.
“As the bare minimum, where’s the increased budget for arms-length bodies like Natural England and the Environment Agency?” she asked. “Or the funding to enable landowners to return land to nature? Or the pay rise to help farmers shift to nature-friendly farming and tackle our broken agriculture system which is driving biodiversity loss?”
But environmental campaigners welcomed a pledge in the party’s pre-manifesto nature policies stating: “We will help coordinate nature’s recovery with bodies responsible for public land and major landowners.”
Guy Shrubsole said in a blog: “This may sound anodyne, but in fact could be one of the most significant policies – the first inklings of a Public Nature Estate: an idea that Wildlife and Countryside Link [a coalition of 82 organisations] have been calling for.”
Forest ranger Samuel Lindsay added: “Although the talk of habitat expansion is positive, this is a very vague statement. There are no clear targets or areas identified for this to be carried out.”
The manifesto promised to plant millions of trees, create new woodlands and expand wetlands, peat bogs and forests.
Mr Simmons said: “Sure, let’s get rid of snares but what about the numerous unaccountable and untested methods of killing wildlife such as Larsen traps, mole traps, Fenn traps and poisons that are on free sale for use by anyone?”
Trail hunting
Opponents and monitors say hunts break the law by fox hunting while claiming to be trail hunting – that is, following a scent without chasing wild animals.
The claims were lent weight by a hunt chief advising others to create a “smokescreen” by laying several trails. His words, during a leaked private Zoom meeting, were interpreted as an admission that foxhunting took place.
Mr Reed said in February that a Labour government would ban trail hunting in its first term, and the manifesto included a promise to ban trail hunting – but it did not promise to close loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004, which bans hunting wild animals with dogs.
A former head of the League Against Cruel Sports, Andy Knott, has cast doubt on achieving a ban through the Hunting Act.
“People have seen the images of packs of hounds getting into private back gardens, killing cats, ripping flocks apart. There’s not a majority in any part of the country that wants to see that continue,” Mr Reed told The Times before the election.
But Oliver Hughes, of governing body the British Hound Sports Association, told Horse & Hound that about 12,000 days of trail hunting took place in England and Wales each year, “with the vast majority taking place without any problems”.
Sewage scandal
Ms Lucas said: “Although Labour’s manifesto commits to tackling the sewage scandal, it fails to get to the heart of the matter – the unmitigated disaster that is our privatised water system. Water is a public good, so the Green Party would bring it back into public ownership.”
“Farming’s significant contribution to the state of our rivers seems to be a taboo subject for nearly all parties competing in this election – with the notable exception of the Green Party,” he said.
British farmers complained that deals for cheap food imports under the Conservatives undermined their standards.
A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “The government set out its plans in the manifesto to introduce the most ambitious boost in animal-welfare rights in a generation.
“This includes banning trail hunting and the importing of hunting trophies, while also ending the badger cull, puppy smuggling and farming, and the use of snare traps.”
WordPress now appears to be stopping us putting the latest post to the top of the site; and it seems that what you now see on the screen is NOT the latest we have published – there are newer posts. But to see then you have to now use the ‘Archive’ on the left and select the current month – ie. Currently July 20204.
As I write this the latest post is photos of a fox living in London.
So remember now; all the latest to be found under the relevant month in ‘Archive’.
Sorry, but beyond our control !
Images sent to me tonight by Pauline – London fox, or ‘vulpine’.
No mange; for a wild London streetwise, it looks in very good condition; love the ears !
Eurogroup for Animals, alongside other major EU NGOs, is asking the European Court of Justice to join the court case holding the European Commission (EC) to account for failing to deliver on its promise to end cage farming in Europe, as millions of animals continue to spend their lives confined in cages.
The court case, brought forward by the Citizens Committee of the End the Cage Age ECI, spearheaded by Compassion in World Farming, is holding the EC accountable for failing to bring forward the legislative proposals it promised in response to the ECI, in which 1.4 million EU citizens demanded an end to cage farming.
The EC had pledged to present proposals by the end of 2023, but it backtracked on its commitment, disregarding the comprehensive reports, consultations, and preparations that had been completed. This betrayal of trust undermines the legitimate expectations of citizens who demanded better protection of farm animals.
For the past years, Eurogroup for Animals has continuously supported the End the Cage ECI, and if accepted by the Court, it will have the opportunity to present its arguments, alongside the ECI Campaign and Animal Equality Italy, as an official intervener.
Across the EU, around 300 million pigs, hens, rabbits, ducks, quail and geesespend most of their lives in cages every year. Laying hens and rabbits are confined to barren cages about the size of an A4 sheet of paper. Sows are forced to nurse their piglets in crates so small they can’t even turn around. Ducks and geese are caged for force feeding to produce foie gras.
While the court case might take up to 18 months to complete, animal protection and democracy NGOs encourage the EC to quickly come forward with a proposed timeline, and to make the file a priority in the next legislature. This will allow concerned stakeholders to start to invest in future-proof solutions.
EU citizens have made use of the democratic tool at their disposal – they want these millions of animals out of cages. There is no argument against ending animal suffering.
Yet with the Commission’s silence on the issue, we do question the very democratic purpose of the ECI, which was specifically introduced to allow EU citizens to shape EU decision making.
Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals.
The European Commission must deliver on its legally binding commitment to ban caged animal farming. Its failure to do so not only impacts around 300 million farmed animals suffering every year in cages, it damages our environment and makes a mockery of the ECI as a democratic tool for EU citizens, especially for the 1.4 million who signed it. We will not rest until the Commission delivers on its promise and every cage is an empty cage.
Annamaria Pisapia, Head of Compassion in World Farming Italy and spokesperson for the Citizens’ Committee of the EtCA ECI.
Pigeons are unable to remove threads or human hairs from their own feet, and tangles can easily escalate to deadly or debilitating proportions (Credit: Paul Themis)
Paul Themis also rescued an albino crow, Albi, who was being bullied – by other crows (Credit: Paul Themis)
An ongoing fight between residents and animal rights activists over whether to cull pigeons in a small German town has led to an uproar — even though a majority of the residents voted in favor of culling the birds in a referendum earlier this month.
On Thursday, officials in the central German town of Limburg were still considering whether to proceed with the referendum results.
Click on Link above for full story
—————————
Meanwhile; in London;
Shit hot London firefighters rescue pigeon in distress.
There are some brilliant animal people in London.
Firefighters rescue tangled-up pigeon
Why you may have seen crews and a big ladder on the Holly Lodge Estate this week
A CROWD gathered as firefighters climbed an aerial ladder to save a pigeon tangled-up at the top of a tall tree.
There was a round of applause as teams from Kentish Town and Soho freed the squawking bird that had become snared to a branch by string wrapped around a foot.
It had been spotted “dangling and almost lifeless” in the Holly Lodge estate, Highgate, by Sabrina Bordin of the London Pigeon String Foot and Rescue group.
The group’s co-founder Karen Heath praised the “absolutely amazing” firefighters, adding that the pigeon had been named Aerial after the ladder used to rescue it. It is being nursed back to health in a member’s home before being released close to the spot it was found in the hope it can be reunited with its one true love.
The bird has been named ‘Arial’ after the ladder used to rescue it.
Feral pigeons were made by humans.
Now we detest them. How did things go so wrong?
*This article contains details and images that some readers may find distressing.
I’m perched on the edge of a paving slab, watching as Lisa Davies produces a baby-pink manicure set from her rucksack, and opens it up on her lap. Inside is an assortment of tweezers and nail files, as well as a mysterious spoon that I’ve since learned is an ear pick. Like a surgeon arranging her instruments before an operation, she runs her hands over them, and selects a pair of nail scissors.
It’s a hot, sticky Sunday afternoon at St Anne’s churchyard, in London’s Soho district. Groups of teenagers are lounging on the grass, while shirtless men play table tennis in the background. But further into the park, a less typical summer scene is unfolding. A group of volunteers is clustered around a flock of 50 pigeons, watching their feet intently. One is limping.
The young pigeon’s feet are swollen, bound up in a tangle of long, dark human hairs and cotton threads – the detritus of city life, picked up over many months of walking alongside pedestrians. This is a classic case of “string foot”, and without human help, it will gradually cut off the blood supply to her toes and feet, until they fall off altogether. But she is one of the lucky ones. With impressive confidence and precision, Davies – a part-time student studying conservation education at the University of Chester, who has been volunteering with pigeons for the last 18 months – thrusts her arms forward and gently plucks the bird from the crowd. She secures it under her t-shirt which, fittingly, features a pigeon print, and pulls out a dinosaur-like foot. It takes around half an hour of careful tugging and snipping before the hairs have been removed, and the bird can be released in a flurry of feathers.
Many volunteers carry their pigeon de-stringing tools with them at all times, in case they happen upon a pigeon that needs help (Credit: Zaria Gorvett)
Davies is part of the London Pigeon String Foot and Rescue group, an organisation that aims to help the city’s approximately three million feral pigeons. The volunteers meet up every Sunday, all year long, to tend to the mangled feet of pigeons across the city. As I ponder this noble sacrifice, I’m snapped out of my reverie by a commotion – on the street below, a man is chasing a pigeon “for a joke”, sending a tempest of panicked birds into the air.
City pigeons are among the most detested animals on the planet. After a series of misunderstandings going back decades, they’ve become widely regarded as dirty, disease-addled and akin to “flying rats”. Horrific injuries are often accepted as a consequence of their desperate, downtrodden existence, and their penchant for life alongside humans is sometimes resented as annoying or unhygienic. But it hasn’t always been this way. For millennia, pigeons were viewed with respect and even reverence. One Mughal emperor was such a big fan, he carted around 20,000 of the birds wherever he went, while the Victorian scientist Charles Darwin – who at one point had a flock of 90 – was reportedly obsessed with them. How did our relationship with these creatures go so wrong?
A parallel existence
Along the rocky coastline in the Outer Hebrides, perched on top of cliffs and abandoned buildings, are familiar faces: grey heads with large orange eyes, peeking down at passersby. They belong to rock doves, Columba livia. But though these birds look almost identical to the feral pigeons found in cities, they are not the same. This remote Scottish outpost has one of the wildest populations of rock doves on the planet – it’s one of the last places where they have clung onto a substantial proportion of their original, ancestral genetics.
Feral pigeons, on the other hand, are an entirely different case. They belong to the subspecies Columba livia domestica, and are almost exclusively descended from domesticated birds, which have provided a steady trickle of escapees to hang around human settlements over the last 4,000 years. There are subtle variations in the ancestry of populations from one region to another, depending on the specific breeds traditionally kept in that part of the world – but at some point, the family tree of the vast majority of feral pigeons would lead back to birds bred by humans.
As a result of this lineage, feral pigeons are extraordinarily trusting of humans, and drawn to environments with a high density of people.
Paul Themis, known among the wildlife rescue community as Paul Leous Pigeon, is a pigeon rehabilitator from London. He has been helping pigeons in the city for the last 17 years, and co-founded the London Pigeon String Foot and Rescue group five years ago. So far he estimates that he has rescued more than 1,000 pigeons, and he now lives with at least 20 former patients – he won’t tell me exactly how many – who roam free around his house.
Feral pigeons can be extremely affectionate towards humans, and form strong bonds with the people that care for them (Credit: Paul Themis)
Themis has rehabilitated both wild and feral pigeons over the years, and explains that there’s striking difference in their behaviour. Take the common wood pigeon – a large, handsome bird with white and iridescent green splodges on its neck, which inhabits parks, gardens and woodland edges in the UK. The species is distinct from feral pigeons, but they are close cousins – and they show how truly wild pigeons view people.
“When you catch them, they can almost have a heart attack, they’re so scared,” says Themis. “They’re just like every other wild bird.” On the other hand, “feral pigeons are so used to humans, some of them are not even bothered if you pick them up.”
Feral pigeons even have different biology. Just like chickens, these domesticated birds breed more frequently than their wild counterparts and produce more eggs per clutch.
In fact, the lives of feral pigeons are intimately linked to those of people. They walk along human streets – they prefer to travel on foot – take shelter in the cosy nooks created by human architecture and eat scraps of human food. One study found that they tend to be drawn to man-made structures and places with human activity, while habitats more traditionally associated with wildlife, such as patches of dense forest, actively deter them.
As seed-eaters eking out a living in an urban world of concrete and steel, it can be challenging for feral pigeons to find enough food, says Themis. After a series of bans on pigeon feeding in London’s Trafalgar Square, beginning in 2007, government agency scientists confirmed to the Evening Standard newspaper that several birds had starved to death.
The feral pigeons that waddle and head-bob around the streets of London, New York, Singapore, Cape Town, and other major global cities were made by humans. They are utterly dependent on us. And yet, we have rejected them.
As my Sunday afternoon with the London Pigeon String Foot and Rescue group progresses, their activities receive reactions from onlookers that range from bemused curiosity – “err, what are you doing with that pigeon?” – to outright hostility. The volunteers are constantly on alert for the next torrent of verbal abuse, particularly when feeding pigeons, which many people object to.
Meanwhile, examples of indifference or even cruelty abound. Human pedestrians walk into pigeons as though they aren’t there, forcing whole flocks to fly out of the way. Children chase them, creating feathery panics that some adults seem to view as an acceptable sport.
Themis, who also co-founded the animal welfare organisation London Wildlife Protection in 2011, explains that given the widespread prejudice against pigeons, rescuers are extremely careful who they ask for help. Many vets will euthanise poorly or injured pigeons as a matter of course, he says, though the birds are remarkably resilient; it’s common to see healthy pigeons that have lost both feet entirely. And while the fire service often agrees to lend a hand where birds are trapped in netting, Themis explains that getting permission from building owners to extract the victims can be a diplomatic minefield.
A social mistake
Back in 2016, the irrational hatred that many people have for pigeons got Verónica Sevillano thinking. Today Sevillano works as an assistant professor of social and environmental psychology at Autónoma University of Madrid. But at the time she was working with Susan Fiske, a psychology professor at Princeton University, in New Jersey, who studies how people form prejudices against certain social groups. The researchers wondered: just as we have a clear, and usually flawed, image of the typical characteristics of, say, English or American people, could we have similar preconceptions about certain species of animals?
Together Sevillano and Fiske found that this was indeed the case. Like our views on different demographics of people, how animal species are perceived is based on two traits: how competent they seem (i.e. what their abilities are), and how warm they thought to be (i.e. how favourable we deem their intentions towards us). In essence, we apply the same rules of social judgement to pigeons that we do to people.
Unfortunately for pigeons, they tend to be seen as extremely low in both. “We don’t mind killing or persecuting these animals because the dimensions of warmth and competence in this case are pretty, pretty negative,” says Sevillano.
Sevillano explains that it’s important we are aware these underlying beliefs are being applied automatically and contributing to our feelings of contempt. This is especially true because, like the negative stereotypes about other marginalised groups, the common perception of pigeons is not based on reality.
As Themis explains, nearly every unfavourable assumption we hold about pigeons is a myth.
Take the idea that feral pigeons are stupid. This is particularly easy to refute, because they have been used extensively in behavioural studies, which have uncovered some remarkable abilities. For a start, pigeons have good memories: they can identify individual humans by their facial features, and are able to recall the directions for a particular journey for years after they have returned home.
Pigeons have complex inner lives and experiments have revealed that they are even able to get their heads around concepts such as space and time – a surprising feat given that they don’t have a cerebral cortex, the wrinkly outermost layer of the brain that humans use to grasp such abstract ideas. More recently, scientists discovered that domesticated pigeons solve certain problems in a similar way to artificial intelligence algorithms, using trial and error to learn to recognise patterns and predict the best solution to a given problem.
However, if these lofty intellectual pursuits make pigeons seem intimidating or unrelatable, we can rest assured that they do have some flaws. One study found that the birds gamble in a similar way to humans, falling into the familiar psychological trap of investing in winning big, rather than winning more overall.
Themis says pigeons often remind him of dogs – they are intelligent, sociable, and can be highly affectionate to people. In 2020, the animal rights nonprofit Peta launched a campaign to rebrand pigeons as “sky puppies”, since they “poop in public, beg for food, and recognise people who are nice to them“.
Perhaps the most damaging accusation against pigeons is that they are riddled with disease – but even here, the evidence does not stack up. For one thing, they are highly resistant to bird flu. They rarely catch the virus, and when they do, they tend to have low amounts in their bodies.
Pigeons can carry some diseases with the potential to spread to humans, though infections are relatively rare. One study found that, between 1941 and 2004, there were just 207 reports of pathogens transmitted from pigeons to humans – anywhere in the world. In all, there were 13 recorded deaths. The true number may be higher, but it would have to be off by several orders of magnitude to compete with the scale of infections from other domesticated animals – particularly some of those with more favourable reputations.
According to the World Health Organization, there are around 59,000 cases of rabies in humans every year, 99% of which are transmitted via dogs – and 100% of which are fatal. Even in countries without the virus, it’s thought that many other pathogens can be acquired from dogs and cats, including the superbug MRSA. Given these comparisons, Themis believes our squeamishness about pigeons is misplaced.
An unexpected twist
One of the strangest things about the current tendency to villainise pigeons is that it’s relatively new.
Nadira Faber, a professor of psychology at the University of Bremen and researcher in philosophy at the University of Oxford, explains how unfavourable attitudes towards pigeons could be interpreted as speciesism – a form of discrimination based on the idea that some species are morally superior to others. This psychological bias is usually linked to the categories we sort different animals into, such as “pet”, “food”, or “pest”. However, Faber suggests that pigeons are an interesting case.
Pigeons have long been associated with love, fertility, and heavenly beauty, by cultures ranging from the Babylonians to the ancient Greeks. In the 16th Century, the Mughal emperor Akbar the Great took pigeon fancying to the next level, with a vast population that was taught elaborate flying tricks such as somersaults and dramatic arcs. In Victorian Britain, the creatures again gained prominence, and pigeon clubs sprung up across the country – places where proud hobbyists could exhibit strange, “fancy” breeds, such as the English short-faced tumbler, with its squashed face and look of constant surprise.
During World War Two, pigeons garnered yet more public appreciation. In the UK, 32 of the most valiant pigeon-officers were awarded the Dickin Medal, an animal analogue of the Victoria Cross. An American pigeon, GI Joe, became famous across the world for his dramatic rescue of an entire village. Even today, white doves are symbols of peace and love the world over – while their close cousins are viewed as vermin. “It is fascinating that the very same species can, depending on the point in time and the culture we look at, be seen as belonging to different categories,” says Faber.
As my afternoon with the London pigeon rescue group winds down, we turn onto a side street where people experiencing homelessness are queueing for a meal from a charitable van. By now, the pigeon volunteers have helped at least 11 birds, including one whose blackened toe came off as it was being examined – leading to some confusion about what should be done with this macabre artefact. (In the end, someone claimed it for their collection).
We sit down on the kerb while a pigeon who was shuffling around with both feet tied together is painstakingly untangled. The sun is beating down, everyone is tired, and the job looks like it will take at least an hour. But here the pigeons – and the rescue group – receive their best reaction all day, from people who live in close proximity to them, on London’s streets. “You’re angels,” one homeless man beams at us, while another shares his dinner with a gathering crowd of cooing birds.
Pig producers across the EU should deliver higher welfare standards than the EU Pig Directive currently requires, say activists who are now calling for better practices and additional measures to ensure pig welfare.
“The legislation that exists right now, the EU Pig Directive, is seriously out of date, and it really needs to be brought up to date with current understandings of animal welfare science,” says Jo Swabe Senior Director of Public Affairs at Humane Society International Europe (HSI/Europe).
As the ‘End the Cage Age’ row rages, removing cages within pig husbandry is a significant part of the issue. “Pigs can still be isolated in an individual crate for up to 28 days of the gestation period,” said Swabe, adding that preventing the mutilation of piglets, through castration, tail docking and earmarking is also a top priority.
Over 1000 candidate MEPs have committed to work towards better animal welfare in the EU, should they be elected in the current European Elections.
The Vote for Animals campaign, run by Eurogroup for Animals and its members, asks candidates to take a pledge committing to do more for better protection of all animals at EU level.
Candidates spanning the entire political spectrum across 27 Member States have made the commitment. Spain, Italy, Finland and France have the largest number of candidates supporting the pledge.
The Vote for Animals pledge calls for:
New species-specific legislation for all farmed species, and a transition to non-cage systems within five years, as promised in response to the End the Cage Age ECI.
An end to the suffering of animals during live transport, moving away from live animals towards transporting meat products.
Higher standards for aquatic species, both farmed and wild, in farming, transport and slaughter; and a ban on the introduction of octopus farming.
A Common Agricultural Policy that supports a sustainable food system, and a transition to higher animal welfare, and a shift towards plant-based diets.
Trade requirements that respect the same standards as those established by revised EU legislation.
Raised efforts and resources to accelerate the transition to non-animal methods in research, and support the scientific community to shift towards animal-free testing.
Better legislation for wild animals, including a positive list of animal species allowed to be kept as pets, strengthened EU legislation for zoos, action against wildlife trafficking, and humane methods in wildlife management.
A ban, without delay, of fur farms and fur products on the EU market, as per the demands of the Fur Free Europe ECI.
Full traceability, improved breeding practices, stricter controls on sales and transportation, and better treatment of companion animals.
An EU commissioner responsible for animal welfare, to ensure consistent attention and action in this area.
The feedback to our Vote for Animals campaign is reflective of the demands of EU citizens for better protection for animals. It is now time to go and vote, to help shape an EU that will place animal welfare at the forefront, and ensure revised and better legislation that is fit for a progressive Europe
Responding to a major outcry against cruel hunting of seals, the EU adopted a groundbreaking legislation restricting imports of seal products in 2009. This legislation is one of the key factors in the recovery of seal populations in Canada. After a decade, the European Commission is assessing whether the legislation remains fit for purpose.
Tell the EU that seals should remain protected by taking part in the public consultation.
To help you with your feedback, we’ve put together some of the top arguments why we need to uphold this landmark legislation:
The EU seal regime meets its objective of protecting animal welfare
The aim of the EU seal regime is to prevent animal welfare harm to address concerns of EU citizens. EU citizens’ desire for better animal welfare has continued to increase (as demonstrated by the latest Eurobarometer). Citizens remain strongly against cruel and unnecessary culling of seals, which is evident in typical killing methods that involve firearms, netting, trapping and the use of hakapik.
Seals provide important socio-economic and ecosystem services
We must coexist with seals. As apex predators, they play a crucial role in the trophic cascade helping maintain healthy fish populations. For instance, seals act as pest control for invasive species which have a negative impact on commercial fish stocks and ecosystems. They also bring in significant revenue for the tourism industry through wildlife observation.
Potential impact of seals on the fishing industry can be tackled with non-lethal methods
The EU seal regime does not prevent the management of seals where necessary, but non-lethal methods are available and should be used to keep seals away from aquaculture basins or fishing nets and grounds, such as acoustic deterrents. Non-lethal management methods, such as fertility control, could be further explored. The availability of alternative methods to protect fish stocks and fishing equipment makes the commercial hunt of seal irrelevant and disproportionate. It is also essential to recall that the Regulation is not intended to protect fisheries and aquaculture.
Trade in seal products is not sustainable and threatens fragile populations
Seal populations have significantly increased since the implementation of the EU seal regime, demonstrating the devastating impact of commercial hunting on the species. Deregulating trade in seal products would dangerously jeopardise current successful conservation efforts and undermine the protection of animal welfare.
It is important to consider the multiple threats they are facing. Climate change and overfishing are having a major impact on seals and other marine mammals, reducing prey availability and increasing food competition. Water pollution and zoonotic diseases are other factors affecting the viability of these populations. Commercial hunting would exert additional pressure on their survival. The trade of seal products is therefore not in line with sustainability requirements, contrary to the claims of the industry.
The EU seal regime is not a ban, allowing sufficient flexibility
Regulation 1007/2009 is often referred to as the seal ban. However, the EU Regulation is not a ban on the imports of all seal products, it simply restricts it to products derived from traditional hunts, contributing to the livelihood of indigenous communities and with due consideration to animal welfare. In this context, the EU market remains open to indigenous communities who depend on seals for their subsistence. It is also important to note that the import of seal products for processing, and re-export of the processed goods, is not prohibited by the Regulation, allowing further flexibility.
The EU must uphold its leadership on animal welfare at the World Trade Organisation
The EU Seal Regime brought groundbreaking discussions at the World Trade Organization (WTO). For the first time ever, the WTO found that a legislation restricting trade based on animal welfare grounds falls within the exceptions allowed under the WTO rules, as it was deemed necessary to protect ethical concerns of citizens.
The EU seal regime had a significant impact on the welfare of seals. Following its announcement, international demand for seal products declined sharply. Reversing the regime would undermine its objectives and impact the EU’s credibility at the WTO, at a time when the EU is introducing a proposal to restrict imports of cats and dogs based on breeding conditions and contemplating more import requirements on farm animal welfare, all of which would also be justified based on ethical concerns of EU citizens.
Tell the EU that seals should remain protected by responding to the public consultation by 7 August 2024.
The conditions of animals in factory farms will be put under the spotlight in a mobile exhibition set to tour in 15 European cities in the coming months. The mobile truck, which will make its way across Europe, transforms into an interactive exhibition place, offering a unique experience to visitors.
The initiative For the Animals, by Project 1882, will allow citizens to witness first-hand the mistreatment endured by animals in factory farms around Europe and emphasise the urgent need for stronger EU legislation to protect them.
The mobile exhibition will offer visitors informative, knowledge-building and engaging activities that will help to inform them about current animal welfare issues, as well as opportunities for change. It also seeks to urge policymakers to prioritise animal welfare at the EU level, particularly by pushing for the long-awaited animal welfare legislation, which is yet to be published.
The unique mobile event acts as a meeting place in large European cities, where both the public and elected officials have the opportunity to meet and share information.
How we treat animals is one of the great existential questions of our time. With our tour across Europe, Project 1882 will shed light on the systematic suffering endured by animals in factory farms every day. The European Commission has failed to deliver on its promises. Proposals for new animal welfare legislation exist, but they are not being presented, which is a betrayal of both citizens and animals.
Benny Anderson, CEO, Project 1882
Since its establishment in 1882, Project 1882 has been working to improve the lives of animals who are widely exploited and suffer most. The For the Animals tour marks the organisation’s latest effort to elevate animal rights issues on the Commission’s agenda.
The tour will start in Helsinki on 6 June, followed by visits to cities such as Berlin, Madrid, and Lisbon, before finally reaching the EU headquarters in Brussels in the fall.
The list of tour stops will be regularly updated here.
This English Village Might Soon Be Overrun With a Megafarm
In a troubling move, the food producer Cranswick is proposing an aggressive expansion of its operations in Norfolk, England, aiming to build one of the UK’s largest industrial farms. The plan includes adding millions of chickens and tens of thousands of pigs on a site formerly known for its serene landscapes and vibrant wildlife. Local residents are understandably deeply concerned about the increased traffic, pollution, and the inhumane treatment of animals that such a massive scale of operations would entail. It’s simple: We cannot let this project continue.
Sign the petition to urge West Norfolk Council to reject this mega-farm proposal and protect our community and natural environment!
This massive farm expansion threatens to disrupt the local ecosystem, diminish residents’ quality of life, and could potentially create a hotspot for diseases due to the high concentration of animals. Industrial-scale farming practices like this one not only undermine animal welfare but also pose significant risks to public health and our environment.
Also, the impact on local infrastructure and the natural beauty that attracts tourists to Norfolk could be devastating. With increased traffic and foul odors emanating from animal waste, the character of this beloved village is at risk.
Sign this petition to demand that West Norfolk Council prioritize the welfare of our communities, the protection of wildlife, and the integrity of our environment over the interests of big business.
I am passionate about helping Badgers. Half an hour ago I had the pleasure of watching a badger feeding out on my own back garden – – with tasty food I had specifically put out for him to enjoy.
Following photos – Mark (WAV).
The following is copied directly from The Badger Trust; who are asking supporters to be a voice for badgers at the UK General Election which is only about 5 weeks away now. If you want to write directly to your own MP; then a template letter is provided at the end for you to use.
Regards Mark
Copied from, and helping badgers with the Badger Trust:
We outline our asks as we seek clarity from the main political parties on their visions for badgers and their natural habitats.
The General Election has been called for 4 July 2024, and we look forward to clarity from the main political parties on their visions for badgers and their natural habitats.
In particular, we want to know their plans for the future of the badger cull. It’s an ineffective, costly and unethical policy of mass killing badgers to control bovine TB.
It’s not a cull, it’s a slaughter.
What we’re asking
End the badger cull now and protect the remaining wild badger population before it’s too late.
Deliver the rapid development and roll-out of a compulsory cattle vaccine and an improved cattle test to stamp out bTB infection in the cattle herd and protect both farmed cows and wildlife.
Be honest about the true levels of bTB hidden in the English cattle herd, with compulsory nationwide use of more sensitive (reliable) testing and giving enhanced compensation to farmers.
Commit to a ‘One Health and One Welfare’ approach to UK ecosystems by supporting farmers to integrate effective cattle-based bTB control measures into their animal welfare and environmental sustainability practices.
Make badger persecution notifiable and extend the maximum sentence for convictions under the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) from six months to five years, in line with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021.
Make space for badgers and other wildlife and prevent further habitat loss by ensuring new development protects and enhances our natural environment.
Restore Nature Now and address the UK’s nature crisis by protecting badgers and their habitats.
Save badgers. Save nature. Protection not extinction.
The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Badger Trust proudly supports Restore Nature Now, a campaign to address this nature crisis.
Killing 230,000 native badgers—half the estimated population—is at the very heart of this unnecessary attack on nature. Badgers also face threats from high rates of wildlife crime and the rapid rise of property and road development. As ecosystem engineers, badgers provide many benefits to other species. Threats to badgers and their spaces are threats to the balance of our natural environment.
That’s why, on Saturday, 22 June, we will be marching peacefully with thousands of fellow nature and wildlife supporters to make all politicians sit up and take notice ahead of the election that we want them to act to Restore Nature Now—please join us.
What we’re doing
We have written to all the major political parties with a list of questions about ending the badger cull and their positions and vision on associated issues that affect badgers and their habitats*.
As a registered charity, Badger Trust is politically neutral and does not endorse any party—we only support badgers!
We will continue to do all that we can to promote and enhance the welfare, conservation and protection of badgers, their setts and their habitats. We will work with all people who share those aims and want to see nature protected, not driven to extinction levels.
What you can do
Five ways for you to get involved and show your support for badgers.
World Animals Voice 