Category: General News

Farm Animals, General News, Uncategorized

Australia: Boe’s Story – Boar Semen Collection. A Very Concerning Video.

Boe - the boar left to die in Wacol Pig AB centre
Boars in small stalls at Wacol pig semen collection facility

Photos with thanks to Animal Liberation Queensland.

Thanks to Stacey at ‘Our Compass’  https://our-compass.org/2021/09/20/j-f-c/  for supplying this very disturbing report and video.  What do you say ?

And the UK is doing a trade deal with these !

Liz Truss (MP – UK) obviously does not give a damn about animal welfare when you see this – its all about MONEY !!!

Regards Mark

https://vimeo.com/321911235

J.F.C. by Stacey

Boe’s Story – Boar Semen Collection:

Animal Liberation Queensland VimeoEven as a vegan for many years, I had not heard of this horror until recently. That this is an accepted method of “animal husbandry” is wretched, that it is concealed as “animal husbandry” is vile.

It has been relentlessly and successfully proven that if a human can devise a form of torturous confinement, causing abject pain and maximum suffering, apathetically and indifferently, and then provide the most harrowing and terrifying death, it has been achieved on animals.

If you participate in animal exploitation in any form (consumption, products, entertainment, clothing, etc.), you contribute to this hell that humans inflict on sentient creatures – like humans, cats, and dogs – effortlessly, willingly, and without condemnation.

“Welfare” laws are 100% meaningless to the victims who suffer for them, there is no part of “welfare” that includes suffering and violence, which occurs in ALL animal exploitation; even the most “cared-for” animal is used and then killed. Using terms like “welfare” and “humane” and “husbandry” to define exploitation requiring bodily control, intrusion, violation, and violent death (yes, killing any unwilling being is inherently violent absent suffering, defense) means those human-manufactured, self-soothing terms are for HUMANS and not the victims of them. If you care, you don’t exploit. SL

Worker kicking against boar's head at Wacol piggery

Source Animal Liberation Queensland

  • Footage released in January shows filthy conditions, violent abuse by workers, untreated wounds, and one boar left to slowly die over several days.
  • Authorities have failed to prosecute and boars continue to suffer in this facility every day.
  • This is the reality for animals that live within this broken system, but thanks to you, more and more people are becoming aware and turning away from animal agriculture.

You’ve heard of sow stalls, but did you know about boar stalls?

In an unseen facet of pig farming, boars are kept in small stalls all their lives, only being released for a brief time for semen collection a couple of times a week.

Semen collection farms are a relatively unknown facet of the industry. At this facility, at least 20 boars are kept in tiny stalls – most are equivalent to sow stalls – with no room to turn around, and barely enough room to even lie down. They have no enrichment, they are left with untreated injuries, fed only the minimum food required to keep them alive and “useful”, and are routinely abused. The only time the boars leave their tiny, filthy stall is for semen collection. 

When we received the footage our immediate concern was around the strong possibility of another boar suffering a similar fate to Boe from untreated illness and dying a slow painful death. We immediately informed the authorities with a complaint to RSPCA Qld and passed on the video footage. RSPCA Qld acted quickly and arranged a team of inspectors and vets from both RSPCA Qld and Biosecurity Qld to conduct a surprise inspection. 

We understand at least one boar was euthanised that day. After that, the rest of the investigation was handed over to Biosecurity Qld. In Queensland, a Memorandum of Understanding exists in which all farmed animal issues are referred to Biosecurity Qld, which is part of the Queensland Department of Agriculture.

On receiving no further updates from Biosecurity Qld, and realising authorities were not taking this seriously, we released the footage through two videos. 

First, on 6 March, Animal Liberation Queensland & Animal Liberation (NSW) released Boe’s story. The public reacted and shared Boe’s story resulting in more than 630,000 views on Facebook. 

On 11 March we released the second video documenting further abuse and filthy conditions. Faeces and infestations were found throughout the facility. Video footage shows the worker kicking the boars, stomping and smashing metal bars against a boar’s head.

After numerous follow-ups with the Department, we learned that several “direction orders” were given to the owner to rectify issues they had found in their inspection. Biosecurity Queensland has confirmed that they have been back multiple times since the initial inspection and they are satisfied that all direction orders are being adhered to. In other words, it seems they will not be taking further action and have given this place the tick of approval. 
In practice, very little has changed for the boars that may spend the rest of their lives in these barren rusty metal cells. From the information we have, the direction orders related to the untreated wounds, and the maintenance or uncleanliness of the facility. There is nothing that will give any sense of relief to these boars and nothing that will stop others from meeting a similar fate to Boe.

Despite numerous requests for further information authorities would “not comment on the outcome of any investigations”. We can, unfortunately, conclude that no charges have been laid – despite numerous animal cruelty abuses outlined above that were documented by investigators, as well as issues during the inspection by authorities. If these boars were dogs, the owner and workers would now be facing court. 

More than 3000 people sent emails of concern to the Minister for Agriculture. A couple of weeks later his office sent out a generic reply showing very little concern:.

Above: Minister’s office response to public concerns regarding lack of action taken by the Department. 

Above: Injuries were left untreated. 

We have also raised several conflicts of interests. Firstly, the land on which the Wacol pigs are incarcerated is leased from the Department of Agriculture – the very Department that is responsible for upholding animal welfare laws – is also taking money from this facility. The Minister failed to see any conflict here.

Secondly, this issue reminds us of the conflict of interest that exists for all animal agriculture. The Department of Agriculture in each state is responsible for growth and economic sustainability of the industry, but at the same time has the responsibility to enforce the Animal Care and Protection Act – and to police the very businesses it seeks to promote and grow. Both the Premier and Minister continue to ignore this very clear conflict of interest. 

We are grateful to the investigators who took great risks to bring this cruelty to light. This is a thankless task, being confronted first hand with this cruelty. We greatly appreciate the thousands of you who complained to the Minister, made phone calls, and shared the video footage. 

Sadly, this is the reality of millions of animals used and abused around the country every day. It is no wonder we see cruelty like this when the system is set up to fail these animals. As long as we have a society that supports, embraces and even celebrates animal agriculture, scenes like this will continue to be commonplace. 

Know that this hasn’t all been for nothing. Hundreds of thousands of people have had their eyes opened to the reality of animal agriculture. For countless people, this was the final straw, and they have committed to going vegan. For others, this may be the start of their journey. 

We can all help through our daily choices. By choosing vegan alternatives and never buying meat, dairy, eggs and other animal products, we take away the demand. Speak to your friends and family. Keep sharing footage and stories on social media. Keep writing and calling the Ministers, and speak to your local MP. Volunteer with or donate to animal advocacy groups. 

Pressure on industry and government is growing every day, and every day the public is becoming more and more informed. Sadly, these industries of cruelty will not close down overnight, but with your help their days are numbered. We will keep fighting, and we will achieve animal liberation. 

Download Your FREE Vegan PDF HERE

Order a FREE vegan kit HERE

Dairy-Free Info HERE

Take the Dairy-Free Challenge HERE

Click HERE for more Dairy-Free

Fish alternatives can be found HERE

Learn about eggs HERE

Find bacon alternatives HERE and HERE

Take PETA’s Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide along with you next time you head to the store! The handy guide will help you find humane products at a glance. Order a FREE copy HERE

Searching for Cruelty-Free Cosmetics, Personal-Care Products, Vegan Products, or more?
Click HERE to search.

Free PDF of Vegan & Cruelty-Free Products/Companies HERE

Click HERE to find out How to Wear Vegan!

Want to do more than go vegan? Help others to do so! Click below for nominal, or no, fees to vegan literature that you can use to convince others that veganism is the only compassionate route to being an animal friend:

PETA HERE

Vegan Outreach HERE

Get your FREE Activist Kit from PETA, including stickers, leaflets, and guide HERE

Have questions? Click HERE

Environmental, Farm Animals, General News

50 NGOs call on the European Commission to end the promotion of meat and dairy.

50 NGOs call on the European Commission to end the promotion of meat and dairy

19 September 2021

Eurogroup for Animals have signed a letter to the European Commission together with 50 NGOs calling for an end to the promotion of meat and dairy.

The EU promotion policy for agricultural products has previously funded campaigns that have aimed at increasing meat and dairy consumption with slogans such as “Milky is great” and “Pork lovers Europe”. Some campaigns have specifically targeted young people with the aim to reverse a declining trend in meat consumption among European youth.

The European Commission is currently reviewing the promotion policy, with “a view to enhancing its contribution to sustainable production and consumption, and in line with the shift to a more plant-based diet, with less red and processed meat and more fruit and vegetables”, as emphasised in both the Farm to Fork Strategy and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan. 

The letter points out that in the last four years the European Commission spent 32% of its €776.7 million budget for agrifood promotion on advertising campaigns for meat and dairy.  The European Commission also spent 28% of the promotion budget on the promotion of mixed baskets of products, almost all of which included meat and dairy. This use of public money goes contrary to the established science about the negative impact on the environment and on public health of current diets that are heavy in animal protein. 

The letter calls on the Commission to support the public interest to stop the promotion of meat and dairy and instead shift the promotion policy to promote healthy, sustainable plant-based food.

“Plant-based foods deserve wider promotion to benefit public health, the environment, and farmers. However, a shift towards a more plant-based diet can only be achieved if, in addition, the plant-based sector receives sufficient support to grow and to produce alternatives that can adequately mimic the texture, taste, and price of conventional meat and dairy products.” 

Read the full letter.

Regards Mark

Environmental, General News

European Commission to ban beef, soy and palm oil imports linked to deforestation.

 

European Commission to ban beef, soy and palm oil imports linked to deforestation

20 September 2021

The European Commission will propose in the next months a piece of legislation aiming at banning imports of certain products linked to deforestation. Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the initiative, but calls on the Commission to avoid any loopholes that would defeat the purpose of the legislation.

In a bid to minimise the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market, the European Commission will propose by December 2021 a piece of legislation that would encompass product-specific due diligence requirements, and a prohibition of placing deforestation-related commodities on the EU market. This legislation should complement other EU initiatives aiming at further embedding sustainability into corporate governance, such as the upcoming proposals on Due Diligence and non-financial reporting.

The scope will be limited to products with “the highest global contribution to deforestation” such as palm oil, wood, cocoa, coffee, beef and soy. The legislation would apply to all origins, “without geographical indication”, but it would create a system categorising countries into “low, standard and high risks of deforestation”, with simplified due diligence duties for low risk countries, and enhanced scrutiny for high risk ones.

The proposal is interesting for animals in regions of the world where intensive animal agriculture or economic activities fuels deforestation. For instance, by banning imports of palm oil linked to deforestation, the habitats of wild animals such as orangutans and gibbons could be better preserved. Also, the welfare of farmed animals used in intensive productions could be improved, as intensive animal agriculture – which fuels deforestation as requiring crop feed – would be dissuaded. If Mercosur countries are categorised as “high risk countries” – two of the main products responsible for deforestation in Mercosur are beef and soy for animal feed – the legislation could possibly ban or restrict the imports of these products into the EU.

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes this initiative as producers intending to export to the EU would be incentivised to switch to more sustainable food production systems. However, the upcoming legislation must avoid loopholes that would defeat its purpose. For instance, the scope of the legislation needs to be improved as some products that are currently left out contribute to deforestation. Pig and poultry meat are for now excluded, but these animals are most often fed with soy, which largely contributes to deforestation. Avoiding this “distortion” is all the more important as some trade partners of the EU, such as Ukraine, exports significant quantities of poultry meat to the EU under the EU-Ukraine FTA. This means that Ukraine – biggest supplier of poultry meat of the EU – could feed the chicken from which the meat it exports derive with soy linked to deforestation that would be banned in the EU.

The geographical scope of the legislation must include other ecosystems in addition to forests, as the EU’s consumption of beef, soy and palm oil is linked to the destruction of other ecosystems such as grasslands, wetlands, and savannahs. The categorisation system of “low, standard and high risks of deforestation” could open the way for goods which have been produced on illegally deforested land, to be ‘green washed’ through a “low standard” country. 

Considering that agriculture-driven deforestation is permanent (whereas lands that suffer from deforestation caused by fires may regenerate), there is urgency for the EU to uphold its sustainable agenda. The EU must adopt this legislation before the ratification of any FTA with Mercosur. Mercosur is already the largest supplier of beef to the EU,  accounting for 73% of total EU beef imports. If the EU-Mercosur trade deal was implemented as it stands, imports of beef would increase between 30% and 64%. The Ambec report – the impact study commissioned by the French government – concluded that, as it stands, the EU-Mercosur agreement would generate an extra 25% of deforestation in the Amazon in the six years following its entry into force.

Regards Mark

 

General News

Animal abuse on social media: making money from misery

SMACC- Report 2021

A recent report by SMACC (Social Media Animal Cruelty Coalition) documents how animal cruelty is being promoted.

Videos on the social media platforms TikTok, YouTube and Facebook were analyzed for 13 months.

Perhaps the most amazing revelation is that the approximately 5,480 individual videos that were documented were viewed a total of 5,347,809,262 times at the time the report was written.
89.2% of them were hosted on Youtube because they are easier to find there.

In one of the many staged animal rescue videos on YouTube, a dark tiger python wraps around a gibbon.
The great ape is freed by a man who appears at the scene with a video camera, apparently “by chance”.

This staggering number is associated with extreme agony for the animals concerned – and the platforms that host such content have benefited by millions, according to the report.
The data clearly confirm that online content that is cruel to animals is a major global problem.

The five most commonly shown animal species were birds of various species, dogs and cats, wildlife, snakes, and primates.

Social Media Animal Cruelty Coalition (SMACC)

In 2020, founded the Asia for Animals (AfA) network – SMACC – to answer the hundreds of inquiries its member organizations have received.

The main SMACC organizations include: Action for Primates, AnimalsAsia Foundation, Humane Society International, PETA Asia and World Animal Protection.

E-mails and phone calls described horrific animal cruelty to organizations, including the burial of live animals, the mistreatment of companion animals, the setting on fire and the recent fake rescue videos – all posted freely on social media.

According to the SMACC report, the videos found on social media platforms showed animals being drowned, broken limbs, and even how mothers were killed and their babies stolen from them.

The report states that “animals have become silent victims of the hunt for clicks and advertising dollars as videos promoting, encouraging, and benefiting from their abuse become rampant”.

Hunt

The hunting videos regularly feature foxes, hundreds of species of birds and wild boar, as well as animal fights.

Of the 5,480 videos that were recorded, 2,634 were assigned to the topic of “hunting”. These videos often show protracted deaths, extreme suffering, and both legal and illegal hunting methods used by the hunters.

The availability of thousands of hunting videos on social media platforms encourages this cruelty.
It is actively encouraged and normalized while the activity is being sold as “fun and exciting” and at an extreme cost to the wildlife.

The report quotes Nick Stewart, World Animal Protection’s Global Head of Wildlife Campaigns, as saying, “Wild animals are not props, toys, or entertainers; they are sentient beings with a right to life.”

Adam Parascandola of Humane Society International said, “The devastating data uncovered by this research only scratches the surface to reveal the shocking levels of animal cruelty on social media.”

Fake Animal Rescue Videos

Continue reading “Animal abuse on social media: making money from misery” →

General News

Tattoos for animals is cruelty to animals

Text: Together for the Animals (“Gemeinsam für die Tiere”)

In the past you were considered a criminal with a tattoo, but today you are often looked at wrong if you don’t wear one.
But what is common to all people who have the color in the flesh?

They do it voluntarily and accept the associated pain for their little work of art.
Forcing a person to have a tattoo or forcing them to tattoo is coercion, mutilation and grievous bodily harm. And of course punishable!

WHY NOT ALSO IN ANIMALS?
A new trend is emerging among mindless pet owners: Tattoos for Animals.
They have their pigs, dogs, cats etc. decorated with painful pictures.
An animal does not even want a tattoo, nor has it consented to the pain associated with it.

No animal voluntarily lets a needle penetrate its flesh thousands and thousands of times until the injected color forms an image determined by the animal owner.
So it happens with coercion and violence, whereby both the animal keeper and the “artist” can be described as perpetrators.
It’s not a fashion trend, it’s just pure cruelty to animals.

Giving an animal pain for no good reason is against the law: For example, the administrative courts in Germany and Austria have decided – Ergo, it is illegal and must be severely punished, apart from the fact that it is morally reprehensible.

The passage “justified reason” in the legal text can be disputed because, strictly speaking, there is never a justifying reason for violence against other living beings.

We strictly reject this form of alleged art.
Tattoos are for people who get it done of their own free will, but never for animals.
There must be international action here and an offense punished accordingly, for animal keepers and tattooists.

Prison sentences and a lifetime prohibition of practicing the craft of tattooing seem to us only more than fair.
Leave tattoos where they belong: under human skin !!!

Please also all of you sign this petition against this cruel cruelty to animals, the animals will thank you:
https://www.change.org/p/government-stop-animal-tattooing-4c84b801-2bba-4d54-b195-cde4005a4729

And I mean…There are countless photos circulating on the Internet showing dogs and cats with tattoos and nose rings.
How does one get this perverse idea to do something like this to his pet?

Who says animals would agree to wear tattoos? 
There is no question that something like this is reprehensible for ethical reasons and that it is animal cruelty to do such a thing to an animal, because tattooing is pretty painful.

In some countries and after years of pressure from animal rights activists, tattooing or piercing of animals is already banned

In Mexico, for example, animal rights activists campaigned for a ban on tattoos and piercings on animals.
After this pressure, a new draft law should prohibit tattooing on pets for aesthetic reasons and punish the tattooing or piercing of animals with the equivalent of more than 1,000 euros.
The environmental protection commission of the Congress of Mexico City had already unanimously approved the new ban.

In Germany and Austria it is forbidden to have animals tattooed for aesthetic reasons and to cause them pain for no reason.

In New York there has even been an official ban since this year. According to the law, pets are no longer allowed to be tattooed or pierced.
“It’s cruelty to animals, it’s that simple,” said Andrew Cuomo, ex-governor of New York.

In the twenty-first century, after years of fighting over a ban on docking ears and tail for aesthetic reasons, we are still forced to look at shameful photos like these that are still circulating on the internet.
It’s not cool, it’s not aesthetics, it’s a degradation of animal dignity and a cruelty to animals that gets under the skin.

My best regards to all, Venus

Environmental, General News

Environmental Articles To Read.

 

 

Climate change: UN warning over nations’ climate plans

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58600723

US and EU pledge 30% cut in methane emissions to limit global heating

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/17/us-and-eu-pledge-30-cut-in-methane-emissions-to-limit-global-heating

Hole in the ozone layer that develops annually is ‘rather larger than usual’ this year – and is currently bigger than Antarctica, scientists say

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10001063/Ozone-layer-Hole-develops-annually-larger-usual-year-scientists-say.html

Regards Mark

Farm Animals, General News, Uncategorized

EU subsidies and aquaculture – the weakened link.

Photo – Artur Rydzewsk

EU subsidies and aquaculture – the weakened link

13 September 2021

Opinion

Over 1 billion fish are being raised on fish farms in the EU at any one time. These are undomesticated species quite new to being captive in production systems, which are often highly intensive and are themselves new technologies undergoing development. 

While European aquaculture doesn’t have the transparency mechanisms to measure or report welfare conditions and outcomes, mortality rates of 15% to 20% are reported in cage farming in the mediterranean and in third countries that report mortality figures, and the Commission found very limited uptake of the effective stunning technologies commercially available for several fish species.

EU aquaculture and animal welfare policies are pursuing fish welfare objectives, while a new regime governing EU financial support to fisheries and aquaculture has weakened the links between EU investment and EU policy objectives. 

National aquaculture strategies and the implementation of EU financial support mechanisms need a smooth and coordinated implementation by Member States for subsidies to operate in support of policy initiatives and realise improvements in fish welfare. 

When compared to terrestrial farm animals, scientists, producers, policy makers and animal advocates alike were late to understanding fishes’ needs and applying animal welfare approaches to fish in aquaculture. Some milestones were:

  • 2005 the Council of Europe adopted guidelines for fish welfare during farming
  • 2008 EFSA scientific opinion on fish sentience
  • 2009 EFSA scientific opinion on welfare during husbandry and slaughter
  • 2009 The OIE adopted standards for fish welfare during transport and at slaughter
  • 2020 EU Platform on Animal Welfare adopts fish welfare guidelines

With the many EU and external research projects in the intervening years, we now have a wealth of knowledge for practical implementation. Initiatives from sector organisations, third party certifiers, and policymakers seek to apply knowledge to provide a better life and death for farmed fish, improve product quality and resource efficiency, and better meet consumers’ expectations.

In May 2021 the European Commission published its new aquaculture strategy until 2030 which includes fish welfare priorities including developing best practice codes and guidelines, setting validated indicators, providing training, and supporting a transition to lower-trophic species. 

The Farm to Fork Strategy previously committed the EU’s aquaculture policy to being a part of its animal welfare initiatives, and in August 2021 the inception impact assessment of the revision of all EU farm animal welfare legislation included specific options for fish welfare.

The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) 2021 – 2027 regulation seeks to simplify Member States’ administration and programming. One approach to simplification is to only reference high level Union priorities such as sustainable economies and communities, and to maintain weaker links between national and EU aquaculture policies. Opening up the fund for investments to meet legal obligations has also weakened the incentive to invest it now in policy areas marked as important next priorities. This is where the link between the spending of EU funds and the delivery of EU policy is weakened. 

Maintained from the previous regulation is the requirement that financial support is consistent with Member States’ own multiannual national strategic plans, and those plans must themselves use the EU’s aquaculture strategy as their basis. However there is no real requirement that national priorities contribute to specific EU objectives, or even that Member States update their national plans now. Then the EU’s aquaculture strategy is referenced as a more complete set of policy priorities, but there is less impetus for Member States to direct financial support for the delivery of EU policy priorities.

Aquaculture is not an area of exclusive EU competence and Member States operate national policies and licensing regimes specific to their varied geographical and market contexts. Member States should take the fish welfare objectives from the EU’s aquaculture strategy as priorities in their national strategies in support of the moves to advance animal welfare in aquaculture.

The Commission funds aquaculture research and facilitates Member States’ coordination of aquaculture policies, and it needs to do more to provide substance and cohesion for its aquaculture priorities. It needs to look beyond the small portion of the EMFAF that it controls directly and to activate mechanisms in other policy areas including animal welfare. 

Animal welfare policy could consolidate knowledge into implementable indicators and guidelines through a dedicated Animal Welfare Reference Centre.  The Commission could mandate EFSA to provide the necessary knowledge, since its last opinion on fish welfare was more than ten years ago. 

The alternative path is that intensive aquaculture systems continue to evolve without accounting for the needs of the animals. Aquaculture takes the production and reputational losses that are seen with intensive terrestrial agriculture systems, and the fish continue to suffer unnecessarily.

The EU has identified the right fish welfare policy priorities, and they are aligned with voluntary measures being taken widely in the market. The new EU financial support regime (EMFAF) has weakened the explicit links between EU financial support and specific EU aquaculture policy objectives, but Member States can take up the common EU priorities and the Commission should use other mechanisms to provide the necessary resources and cohesion.

 Op-ed by Douglas Waley, Fish Welfare Programme Leader at Eurogroup for Animals

Regards Mark