Cats die in silence, unseen, hungry, suffer a slow death, dehydrated and many times ′ ′ poisoned ′ ′ by miserable people.
If there are kittens near your home, offer them food and clean water …
If it’s in your hands, sterilize a homeless kitten, that’s the only way to break that long chain of suffering.
If you don’t like them, don’t mistreat them or look at them like they have the plague.
Adopt with the heart and save a life.🐾🐾❤️
Text: Anna Pennino
Animals don’t need our pity.
They need our help.
And it doesn’t cost much to help a needy animal
China ‘modified’ the weather to create clear skies for political celebration – study
Researchers say Beijing used cloud-seeding to create artificial rain and lower pollution in July, in latest example of ‘blueskying’ efforts
Chinese weather authorities successfully controlled the weather ahead of a major political celebration earlier this year, according to a Beijing university study.
On 1 July the Chinese Communist party marked its centenary with major celebrations including tens of thousands of people at a ceremony in Tiananmen Square, and a research paper from Tsinghua University has said an extensive cloud-seeding operation in the hours prior ensured clear skies and low air pollution.
The Chinese government has been an enthusiastic proponent of cloud-seeding technology, spending billions of dollars on efforts to manipulate the weather to protect agricultural regions or improve significant events including the 2008 Olympics.
Cloud-seeding is a weather modification technique, which sees the adding of chemicals like small particles of silver iodide, to clouds, causing water droplets to cluster around them and increasing the chance of precipitation.
The Tsinghua study’s reported findings add to a small but growing body of scientific evidence around the success of the technology. Other countries have also invested in cloud seeding technology, but China has invested billions despite questions over the degree of its effectiveness, and debate about whether manipulating the weather in one area could disrupt weather systems elsewhere.
On Monday the South China Morning Post reported a recent research paper which found definitive signs that a cloud-seeding operation on the eve of the centenary had produced a marked drop in air pollution.
The centenary celebration faced what the paper reportedly termed unprecedented challenges, including an unexpected increase in air pollutants and an overcast sky during one of the wettest summers on record. Factories and other polluting activities had been halted in the days ahead of the event but low airflow meant the pollution hadn’t dissipated, it said.
The paper, published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Science journal and led by environmental science professor, Wang Can, said a two-hour cloud-seeding operation was launched on the eve of the ceremony, and residents in nearby mountain regions reported seeing rockets shot into the sky on 30 June. The paper said the rockets were carrying silver iodine into the sky to stimulate rainfall.
The researchers said the resulting artificial rain reduced the level of PM2.5 air pollutants by more than two-thirds, and shifted the air quality index reading, based on World Health Organization standards, from “moderate” to “good”.
The team said the artificial rain “was the only disruptive event in this period”, so it was unlikely the drop in pollution had a natural cause.
Last year Beijing announced plans to expand its experimental weather modification program to an area 1.5 times the size of India – 5.5 million square kilometres – covered by artificial rain or snow. The State Council has said it aims to have a developed weather modification system by 2025, including another half a million square kilometres hosting hail suppression technologies.
In the five years to 2017 state media claimed China had spent more than US$1.3bn on the technology and induced about 233.5bn cubic meters of additional rain. In 2019 officials said weather modification practices, usually the firing of iodine-packed shells to disrupt unfavourable weather fronts, had helped to reduce 70% of hail damage annually in agricultural regions of Xinjiang.
However it has also been used for political and other significant events, including the 2008 Olympics, the 2014 APEC summit, as well as National Day parades and annual Two Sessions meetings.
The weather manipulation activities, also known as “blueskying”, are usually implemented in conjunction with social changes in the lead up to events, including the shutdown of factories, construction and other polluting industries, and encouraging people to stay off the streets or leave the region, said Dr Shiuh-Shen Chien, of National Taiwan University’s department of geography, in a 2019 essay for Society+Space.
Dr Chien said China’s weather authorities had “institutionalised” climate controls for decades, with technological attempts dating back to the 1980s, but was unique in using it not just for commercial or agricultural reasons but also for “propaganda purposes”.
When you receive a call about your vehicle’s extended warranty, you likely hang up without paying a dime—you know it’s a trick.
However, shoppers often don’t apply the same kind of thought when at the grocery store.
Unfortunately, much like a suspicious call offering a deal that’s too good to be true, “humane” and “sustainable” labels on animal-derived foods are deceptive.
Instead of selling delicious vegan foods that are truly humane, many companies simply slap misleading labels touting compassion on the same types of cruelly sourced products that they’ve sold for decades.
This is known as “humane-washing,” and it’s a marketing ploy that makes consumers believe that they’re making kind choices when they’re actually not.
Here, we’ll break down what these deceptive labels really mean.
‘Grass-Fed’ Cows
The U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn’t verify the accuracy of producers’ claims, so it’s nearly impossible to know what the cows really ate. “Grass-fed” cows are still subjected to mutilations without painkillers—hot irons are pressed into their skin, and their sensitive horns are burned off.
Farmers and ranchers may clear vast acres of land filled with natural plant life in order to graze cows, which kills wildlife and causes erosion.
’Cage-Free’ Chickens and Eggs
-Hens used in the egg industry live in dark, severely crowded warehouses.
-The tips of chicks’ beaks are commonly burned off.
-Up to 86% of hens used in cage-free egg production have broken bones.
-All male chicks are killed—often ground up or thrown into the trash to suffocate—because they’re considered useless by the egg industry.
What if Animals Raised With ‘No Antibiotics’ Get Sick?
Producers can use this label as long as they provide “sufficient evidence” that the animals were raised without antibiotics.
More animals can suffer and die because farmers don’t treat them when they get infections, in order to keep the deceptive label.
Which Animals on Farms Are Raised With ‘No Hormones’?
This label applies only to the flesh and milk of cows. It’s illegal to give hormones to chickens, pigs, and turkeys, so any company advertising hormone-free products from these animals isn’t doing any extra work.
If you look closely, you should find a stamp reading, “Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones.”
Essentially, this is the equivalent of marketing zero-calorie water but with cruelty to animals thrown into the mix.
A family-run cattle ranch in Acre, within the proposed Amacro sustainable development area. Critics of the plan claim that intensifying agriculture will lead to increased deforestation. Photograph: Luisa Dörr/Fern
Brazil’s Amazon beef plan will ‘legalise deforestation’ say critics
The beef industry hopes a planned deforestation-free farming zone will tempt buyers back but many fear it will drive up illegal tree felling
For many, the overriding image of agriculture in the Amazon is one of environmental destruction. About 80% of deforestation in the region has been attributed to cattle ranching, tainting beef exports.
Brazil’s beef industry hopes to tempt buyers back to the Amazon region, which covers about 40% of the country’s total area, with a new deforestation-free pledge. But critics are concerned it could effectively legalise deforestation in the region.
In May, government officials began fleshing out the details of the so-called Amacro sustainable development zone, which it is hoped will lead to a massive intensification of agriculture in the Amazon. The Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, is expected to greenlight the project later this year.
The Amacro zone – an acronym taken from the states it covers: Amazonas, Acre and Rondônia – is a vast 465,800 sq km (180,000 sq mile) region in north-west Brazil. It encompasses the Mapinguari national park, Brazil’s fifth largest protected area, and the Kaxarari indigenous territory, where the tribe has struggled to defend its land against loggers. Greenpeace has identified the northern portion of the zone as an emerging deforestation hotspot.
Previous agricultural development projects have led to the loss of vast tracts of native vegetation in other parts of Brazil, but Amacro’s proponents promise it is being designed to prevent illegal deforestation. Edivan Maciel, the former agriculture secretary in the state of Acre, says the aim is to produce more beef on land that has already been cleared. It is about “optimising what we already have without having to advance over the forest”, says Maciel, a Bolsonaro-allied appointee.
But Humberto de Aguiar, a federal prosecutor in Acre who handles environmental crimes, told the Guardian that the effect of the plan is such as “to legalise the deforestation already being done”.
It’s very difficult to stay legal. If I had another means of survival, I would leave
Gabriel Santos*, small-time rancher
Amacro is the brainchild of Assuero Doca Veronez, a powerful figure in Amazonian agribusiness, who told a Brazilian news site last year that “deforestation for us is synonymous with progress”. Veronez, a ranch owner and president of Acre’s Federation of Agriculture and Livestock, was fined for illegal deforestation in 2006. He denied any wrongdoing and said he sold the property in 2002.
Veronez says more intensive cattle ranching will enable more beef to be produced on less land and protect against deforestation. He claims to produce about 2.5 times the state average for beef. “Amacro can contribute to the preservation of these areas,” he says.
The idea that a shift to intensive ranching could cut deforestation in the Amazon is disputed by some researchers. It may be a flawed approach, concluded a University of California report in 2017, which noted, “the opposite could be true”.
Judson Valentim, a researcher at Brazil’s agriculture research agency, says intensification is unlikely to change the system responsible for the breakneck pace of deforestation. Veronez, like most large ranchers, relies on a network of smaller producers, most of whom, according to Valentim, lack the technical and financial resources to invest in more efficient grazing practices.
While ranchers like Veronez may avoid deforestation, their suppliers may not have the luxury to do so, says Valentim.
Growing demand for Amazonian beef has tempted more local people to raise cattle as a viable livelihood for feeding their families, leading to a sharp increase in illegal deforestation.
Gabriel Santos*, a small-time rancher from the Amacro zone, has been fined more than $130,000 (£96,000) for illegally clearing land in the reserve for grazing. But he says converting the forest to pasture is his only viable economic option.
Because Santos’ farm has been blacklisted by regulators, he cannot sell cattle directly to slaughterhouses. So he sells to a middleman, who sells on to the big ranchers.
If big ranchers become more productive, even if they do so without cutting the forest, it pressures the forest-razing cattle producers beneath them to grow their operations as well, says Valentim.
Veronez says he has nothing to do with other people’s environmental issues: “I’m absolutely against this kind of control.”
Although Brazilian law restricts most Amazonian landowners from clearing more than 20% of their property, lack of regulatory oversight helps to explain why 94% of deforestation may be undertaken illegally.
“It is very difficult to stay legal,” says Santos, who has racked up half a dozen eviction orders because of unpaid fines. He says with an annual income of $10,000, he cannot pay. He hides when government agents come to his property and fears he will eventually be hauled to jail. He attributes a recent heart attack to the stress.
“How am I going to support my family?” he pleads. “If I had another means of survival, I would leave. I only stay here because I have nowhere to go.”
“From an early age we are presented with an idealised view of what farms are like and how animals live on them.”
World Animal Protection hopes to change that with their Factory Farm Playset. Or ‘the worst toy in the world’, as they have labelled it.
Unlike ordinary farmyard toys, the playset has been designed to show the unnatural living conditions forced upon cows, pigs and chickens on intensive farms. It even has a warning on the packaging highlighting the methane and CO2 emissions from farming that contribute to climate change.
“While 5 or 6-year-olds may not have a grasp on politics, diplomacy and global issues, they have a clear sense of right and wrong and the need to make changes,” says Lindsay Duncan, UK Campaigns Manager for Farming at World Animal Protection.
The charity hopes the 1/32 scale model will allow children “to reimagine the traditional farmyard narrative we are taught while we are young.”
What is factory farming?
It is estimated that at least 50 billion animals are reared on factory farms every year. This means they are deprived of natural light, outdoor space and sustainable feed.
Designed to maximise production and minimise costs, agribusinesses keep livestock like cattle, poultry and fish at high stocking densities on large-scale production plants.
Weight-gain drugs administered through feed cause chickens to reach slaughter weight after only 35 days. This process would take over 90 days under natural conditions.
How does intensive farming impact the environment?
The Factory Farm Playset not only highlights the ethical dilemmas of intensive farming, it also underlines its correlation with climate change.
“Animal agriculture is responsible for producing the equivalent of 7.1 giga-tonnes of CO2 per year – that’s 14.5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions,” continues Duncan.
If left unchecked, agriculture is projected to produce 52 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades – 70 per cent of which will come from meat and dairy alone.
“We have to have a reduction in meat eating and an end to factory farming to help avoid further damage to the climate. Eating less meat and growing crops for human beings instead of animals uses significantly less land and resources, drastically reducing emissions and taking the pressure off wild animals and their habits.”
And while the Factory Farm Playset is designed for children, World Animal Protection hopes adults will come to the same conclusion.
“We can all learn something from it to help protect the planet for future generations. We, the ‘grown-ups’, have to change our ways, and quickly.”
In July 2021, in a special issue of the Global Trade and Customs Journal on sustainable trade, Eurogroup for Animals reacted to the publication of the EU Trade Policy Review, and to the omission of animal welfare in the text, arguing that countries need to better address the impact of trade policies on animal welfare in order to promote resilient and sustainable economies.
The new trade strategy published in February 2021 has been described by EU authorities as the greenest ever. The text underlines that EU trade policy will have to “unequivocally support the Green Deal in all its dimensions”. Yet, the document does not offer new proposals on making trade policy more sustainable. It also omits to address animal welfare, and how the impact of trade policy on animals has fuelled several of the challenges the planet is facing, such as the surge in antimicrobial resistance, the spread of zoonoses or the biodiversity and climate crises.
The Opinion Piece describes the state of play for animal welfare in EU trade policy and considers tools to improve the situation. To better address animal welfare in trade policy, the EU could pursue two strategies. Firstly, it could increasingly rely on market access tools, either applying more standards at the border or using conditional liberalisation in its trade agreements. Secondly, at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) it should promote the need to be allowed to differentiate, and thus discriminate, products based on methods of production that are invisible in final products, such as animal welfare standards. You can read more here.
If the EU wants to address the root causes of the costly crises the planet is facing, it will have to consider how to ensure that its trade policy does not stimulate unsustainable production systems. Achieving such a goal will require the adoption of measures bolder than the ones listed in the new EU trade strategy. The review of EU animal welfare standards will be a test case for all who wish to see more standards applied to imports, and, hopefully, these discussions could steer needed debates at the WTO on methods of production. It is high time to transform trade policy into a real enabler of sustainability.
Takeaway the Meat is Viva!’s ground-breaking new vegan TV ad campaign and we are crowdfunding to reach 16 million people in the UK.
We want to show people the correlation between animal cruelty and what is on their plate.
Over 450 people have donated to the campaign so far helping us smash our first target of £10K – and the list is growing fast!
We need your help to reach our next target of £15K.
A very generous donor has offered to match all donations up to the total value of £40k, and we have also secured a grant from Channel 4 which will double the total again.
In the post I showed yesterday from Stacey called ‘Sweet Earth’, I mentioned that the McDonalds issue has been a very big one with animal activists in the UK for decades. Here is the sweet earth ink:
Whilst we still have issues with McD; it is at least positive to see that they have finally moved part of their food to plant based; for which the murder of animals is obviously not necessary.
So, as said, I am posting here now a film which shows how McD attempted to silence and get apologies from 2 activists in London; named Helen and Dave; over a range of issues associated with it. They both said ‘NO’; and so it went a long way for many years.
I will leave it until the end of the film for you to see the result.
In passing, the legal ‘helper’, one Keir Starmer, was a young man at the time who gave his support to the two of them. Now, Keir is the leader of the ‘Labour Party’; the main opposition organisation to the current UK government led by Boris Johnson (we share a surname, nothing else !).
I like this video; as it has positive outcomes and shows that as with Helen and Dave; if you believe in what you are campaigning for; there is never a need to be sorry for your views and statements.
Enjoy the video – simply click on the ‘Watch on YouTube’ link below to see the film
YOU MAY NOT GET IT FROM THE VERY START; JUST GO BACK AND SEE IT ALL..
McLibel
Regards Mark
————————————————————–
From Spanner films who made the video:
Hello. This is the official, full-length (81 min) version of our 2005 documentary, McLibel. This film was made completely independently (no studio/broadcaster backing) over four long years. We’re a tiny independent film company always struggling to make ends meet, so if you watch for free here, please make a donation – http://spannerfilms.net/donate – and also sign up to our email list: http://www.spannerfilms.net/mailing_list . Thanks v much and enjoy the film, Franny & Lizzie from Spanner Films – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The first documentary from renowned director Franny Armstrong (The Age of Stupid, Drowned Out), McLibel tells the true story of two ordinary people who battle McDonald’s in what became known as “the biggest corporate PR disaster in history” (Channel 4 News). The Seattle Times called the film an “irresistible David and Goliath tale… you can’t help but cheer along” and the Sydney Morning Herald described it as “an often-hilarious exposé of big business arrogance… and an extraordinary example of independent filmmaking”.
McDonald’s often used the English libel laws to suppress criticism. Major media organisations like the BBC, Channel 4 and The Sun had backed down in the face of their legal threats. But then they sue single father Dave Morris (41) and gardener Helen Steel (34). In what became England’s longest-ever trial, the “McLibel Two” represent themselves for three and a half years in court against McDonald’s £10 million legal team.
Every aspect of the corporation’s business is cross-examined, from junk food and McJobs, to animal cruelty, environmental damage and advertising to children. McDonald’s try every trick in the book against the pair, including legal manoeuvres, secret settlement negotiations, a visit from Ronald McDonald and even spies.
Seven years later, in February 2005, the marathon legal battle finally concludes at the European Court of Human Rights – will the result take everyone by surprise?
Filmed over ten years, with courtroom reconstructions directed by Ken Loach, McLibel features the first interview with a McDonald’s spy, as well as in-depth contributions from Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) and Keir Starmer (then Helen and Dave’s pro bono lawyer, now the Leader of the Labour Party).
The McLibel trial became a cause-celebre in the UK, resulting in changes both to UK law and to McDonald’s itself. It is often cited as influencing works which followed, including Fast Food Nation, Jamie’s School Dinners and Super Size Me.
The producers estimate that more than 26 million people have seen McLibel on TV, cinema, DVD and at local screenings worldwide.
Animals in Spain will no longer be considered as “objects” by the law thanks to new legislation passed on Thursday by Spain’s lower house, the Congress of Deputies.
From now on, animals will be treated as “sentient beings,” and as such will have a different legal standing than an inanimate object.
They will no longer be able to be seized, abandoned, mistreated or separated from one of their owners in the case of a divorce or separation, without having their wellbeing and protection taken into account.
The new law to modify the legal framework of animals was approved on Thursday with wide support from Spain’s Congress – only the far-right Vox party voted against the measure.
The legislation changes the Civil Code,Mortgage Law and Civil Procedure Law, and broadly applies to all animals, whether they are domesticated or wild.
Animals were already recognized as sentient beings, with rights and interests that must be taken into account, in European law, regional administrative laws and even Spain’s Criminal Code.
But this recognition was not present in the Spanish Civil Code, which covers issues relating to property, family and obligations.
This meant that lawyers did not have a legal basis to address certain problems, such as what to do with pets in divorce cases.
“It’s a step forward and it says that in separations and divorces, the arrangement that will be applied to the animals will take into account not only the interests of the humans, but also of the animal,” explained María González Lacabex, from INTERcids, a legal organization specializing in animal protection.
“We are the only species that recognizes the suffering of others and as such we have an obligation to prevent that suffering” Guillermo Díaz, Ciudadanos lawmaker.
The process to get the law approved has been long and winding.
It was first proposed in 2017, but did not move forward due to the upheaval caused by Spain’s two general elections in April and November of 2019.
It was not until April of this year that the initiative appeared before Congress, where it was supported by all parties except Vox.
In September, the law was then approved by Spain’s upper house, the Senate, which introduced some modifications.
And on Thursday, it was given the final green light by Congress.
The conservative Popular Party(PP) largely supported the text of the document, but warned the coalition government, which is led by the Socialist Party (PSOE) and junior partner Unidas Podemos, that it will not back greater protections for animals.
The warning was in reference to the Social Rights Ministry, headed by Ione Belarra from Unidas Podemos, which is preparing a draft for a new animal welfare law that includes stricter measures to prevent animal trafficking and abuse.
Teresa Aguada, a lawmaker from the PP, called on the Socialists not to “cede to the extremist pressure of your partners [Unidas Podemos] to attack our traditions, culture and rural world.” (!!)
Most of Spain’s congressional parties, however, welcomed the law’s approval. “It’s a moral victory in a country where 200,000 animals are abandoned each year,” said Juantxo López de Uralde, from Unidas Podemos.
Sonia Guaita, from the PSOE, pointed out that similar legislation exists in most European countries, adding: “Those who are violent against animals are potentially violent against humans as well.”
Guillermo Díaz, from the center-right Ciudadanos (Citizens), also defended the law. “We are the only species that recognizes the suffering of others and as such we have an obligation to prevent that suffering,” he said, explaining that up until now, “animals were not considered different from a television” in divorce cases.
The sole voice of dissent came from Vox lawmaker Ángel López Maraver, who is the former president of the Spanish Hunting Federation. He described the law as “insanity, nonsense, stupidity. It humanizes animals and dehumanizes man.”
And I mean…A small milestone in the Spanish kingdom, where animal cruelty is widespread and where the judiciary still looks the other way when prosecuting ill-treatment.This is the result of years of pressure from animal welfare organizations
The reform could also give the state a new weapon in the fight against the abandoning of dogs and cats
The bill that Spain’s Conservative People’s Party introduced to the national parliament makes it clear that the abuse of animals is not allowed, and neither is the abandoning of pets.
The situation with the animals in Spain is (let’s write “was”) catastrophic.
The previous Animal Welfare Act does not deserve its name in every autonomous community in Spain; often enough it just legalizes the killing of unwanted animals.
In most regions there is hardly a word for animal shelter, as a rule there are animal killing stations in which animals that are picked up are killed after a short period of time if no one claims them.
It is estimated that in Spain 300,000 abandoned animals end up in state animal shelters, known in Spain as “perreras”, every year.
These perreras are operated either privately or by the cities.
Animals are only kept here for a short time, usually 10 to 20 days.
Then the animals come to the killing station.
Many cases of animal abuse in Spain concern hunting dogs.
We have often reported on the miserable life of the Spanish greyhounds in our blog;
They are used en masse for hunting rabbits or for competition – at least as long as they are fast enough.
Three years on average, then they are sorted out, that is: they are hanged, drowned, starved to death or tortured to die in a mass grave.
Therefore, the new legislation is a light of hope in the backward handling of the Spaniards with animals.
Now animals (at least some animals) are to be regarded as living, sentient beings by right.
That is a very good basis, the Spaniards must get the best of this.
Animals are living beings, not possessions.
A fact that should have been a matter of course and legally protected for a long time. And not just in Spain
Here below is the latest article which makes very interesting reading;
Thanks Stacey
Regards Mark
PS: McDonalds has always been a huge campaign issue here in the UK. Many years ago we had the ‘McLibel’ issue where some protestors were attempted to be silenced. I have covered this issue once before I think, but consider the video of the fight is worth showing again on another post which I will publish very soon.
Plant-based meat has gone mainstream. The Impossible Burger, which debuted at a single restaurant five years ago, is now on Burger King’s permanent menu. And McDonald’s is testing its McPlant burger, featuring a Beyond Meat patty, in select US locations. Both plant-based startups are now veterans in a product category that did $1.4 billion in sales and grew 27 percent in 2020.
Under the tagline “Eat Meat. Save the Planet,” Impossible Foods claims its soy-based burger uses 87 percent less water, takes 96 percent less land, and has 89 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions than a beef burger. Beyond Meat makes similar claims about its pea-based burgers.
This matters because animal agriculture contributes around 15 percent of global greenhouse emissions, and experts agree that without a major shift away from meat in our diets, we won’t be able to meet the global community’s climate targets. The promise of plant-based faux meats is that consumers will be able to keep enjoying the foods they love, but with a far lower climate footprint.
One recent whitepaper from an environmental NGO states that the above claims from faux meat companies “are unproven, and some clearly untrue.” A sustainability analyst quoted in the New YorkTimes goes further, claiming that the companies’ secrecy about their production methods means that “We don’t feel we have sufficient information to say Beyond Meat is fundamentally different from JBS.” (JBS is the world’s largest meat producer).
But years of research on the environmental impact of food make one thing clear: Plant proteins, even if processed into imitation burgers, have smaller climate, water, and land impacts than conventional meats. Apart from environmental impact, reducing meat production would also reduce animal suffering and the risk of both animal-borne disease and antibiotic resistance. The criticisms against the new wave of meatless meat appear to be more rooted in broad opposition to food technology rather than a true environmental accounting — and they muddy the waters in the search forclimate solutions at a time when clarity is sorely needed.
‘Grass-Fed’ Cows
They will no longer be able to be seized, abandoned, mistreated or separated from one of their owners in the case of a divorce or separation, without having their wellbeing and protection taken into account.
Animals were already recognized as sentient beings, with rights and interests that must be taken into account, in European law, regional administrative laws and even Spain’s Criminal Code.
Most of Spain’s congressional parties, however, welcomed the law’s approval. “It’s a moral victory in a country where 200,000 animals are abandoned each year,” said Juantxo López de Uralde, from Unidas Podemos.
These perreras are operated either privately or by the cities.
Therefore, the new legislation is a light of hope in the backward handling of the Spaniards with animals.
World Animals Voice 