http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/news/latest/198-hsa-news-release-31st-october-2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn8JO05YrRY

HSA News Release 31st October 2009
Would David Cameron Approve of this?

On Saturday 31st October, two Hunt saboteurs were the victim of a premeditated and unprovoked attack resulting in one needing hospital treatment for severe facial cuts and bruising and a suspected broken nose, during the attack the saboteurs were also threatened with a clasp knife.

The attack took place at a public car park on the South Downs Way slightly south of Firle, East Sussex, the car park is usually the haunt of members of the public using the footpaths to enjoy the countryside or for hang gliding off the step hillside.

On this Saturday members of the South Down and Eridge Fox hunt met at Firle Place and proceeded onto the downs. As is usual members of the Hunt Saboteurs were present to monitor the hunt to ensure there were no breaches of the Hunting Act which has made the hunting of foxes illegal. No false scent drags were in evidence but Hunt saboteurs became suspicious as an official of the hunt started to act in a strange manner and seemed to be trying to keep them in one location.

While this was taking place the driver of the group’s vehicle and his passenger noticed that other hunt supporters had suddenly left the car park they were waiting in. Within minutes two land rovers and a quad bike arrived, containing about ten hunt supporters some known to the saboteurs, blocking the movement of the group’s vehicle and an unprovoked attack was launched on the two saboteurs.

The driver while attempting to regain access to his vehicle had the door slammed on his head and was then repeatedly punched in the face causing the severe facial cuts and bruising and a suspected broken nose. He was then threatened with a clasp knife and was told repeatedly that he would be stabbed. His female companion was knocked to the ground and attempts were made to steal her mobile phone.

Managing to break free the two regained their vehicle and were chased by the three vehicles for a distance. The police were informed of the violent attack and later that day one man was arrested.

Lee Moon, spokesperson for the Hunt Saboteurs Association stated:  “David Cameron is happy to sing the praises of the hunting community and has promised to repeal the Hunting Act if the Tories win the General Election.  We would like to know if he approves of this callous, unprovoked and vicious attack by ten hunt supporters on two innocent people which could easily have resulted in serious and permanent injury.  Violence is a way of life for these people whether it is directed towards animals or people.”

All press enquiries:  07774 279 133
ENDS

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100010449/china-unveils-first-ever-animal-cruelty-legislation/
 
China unveils first ever animal cruelty legislation
 
By Peter Wedderburn
September 18th, 2009
 
 
Whatever about its reputation on human rights, China has been well known for paying scant attention to issues affecting the welfare of animals. The most stark examples have included live dogs and cats crammed into tiny cages for sale as meat in markets, live cattle and goats being fed to zoo animals for public entertainment, and dogs being skinned alive for fur production.

It seems that China is moving, slowly, with the times. Today, its first ever animal cruelty laws are being unveiled. The legislation, which has been drawn up in consultation with the RSPCA, will include provisions to both protect pets and cover how farm animals should be raised, transported and slaughtered. It will also deliver protection for captive wildlife and laboratory animals.

The laws address deliberate cruelty and several of the most serious issues -such as those listed above -  that have concerned the international animal welfare community for many years. It will be the first time in China’s history that the state is sending a clear message to every citizen: “the way we treat animals matters”.

Currently in China, only endangered species are protected and there is no penalty for abusing or killing other animals. Over the last few years, reports have increased of deliberate animal cruelty, and several high-profile incidents have attracted widespread public condemnation and intense media coverage within China. Earlier this year, I blogged about the inhumane methods used in the large-scale killing of around 30,000 dogs following rabies outbreaks in China, which attracted not only international but also domestic criticism.

Of course, there are many hurdles to cross, including the precise details of the final legislation, and the practical aspects of enforcing the law, but today does mark a significant step forwards for “non-human sentient beings” in China.

• In silico - Computer models are now used that show detailed interactions between virtual humans and test drugs. Theyhave accurately predicted drug dangers and explain why some reactions occur. Unlike human or animal studies, reactions like heart attacks can be replayed, freeze-framed and slowed down.

• Cell culture - A ten year evaluation of cell culture techniques compared the use of four of these techniques with the use of animals. The cell culture methods were found to be more accurate in predicting toxicity.

• Models of the eye and skin are now available which use human cells to show what will happen when they're exposed to chemicals.

• EST - A review of decades of using animals to predict which chemicals cause birth defects was published in 2005. It confirmed that this is a very poor method. Three cell culture tests exist. One (EST) is more accurate on its own that tests on a range of species of pregnant animals.

• Proteomics - This emerging science considers the arrangement of proteins in the individual cell. This gives incredible details because it explains how cells function, how they differ, and what goes wrong to cause illness.

• Valitox- is a newer cell culture technique which takes 20 minutes to set up and 24 hours to complete. The results are known to be more accurate for humans than animal tests, and even beat the set of four cell culture methods mentioned above.

• Microdosing - This method involves giving a patient a miniscule dose of a test drug, then scanning their body to see what happens. The AMS equipment that monitors this counts individual atoms and is sensitive enough to detect a litre diluted in the world's oceans. Using doses of 1% or even 0.0001% incredibly detailed information about a drug's effects can be discovered.

• Established methods: Much of our science has depended on human observation and autopsy - which needs more resources.

BUAV: European animal welfare groups launch scathing attack on MEPs
http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/animal-welfare/buav-european-animal-welfare-groups-launch-scathing-attack-on-meps-$1293263$364615.htm
 
Tuesday, 05, May 2009 12:00

A coalition of animal welfare groups across Europe has launched a scathing attack on MEPs following their decision in Strasbourg today on the revision of the animal experiments directive.
The Parliament has significantly weakened the already inadequate proposals of the European Commission to revise the 23 year old law. If the Parliament gets its way:

- Researchers could be allowed to cause animals suffering which is both severe and prolonged, an obscenity in a civilised society
- They will be allowed to repeatedly use the same animal in painful experiments
- They will be able to use non-human primates for just about any purpose, not simply life-threatening or debilitating diseases as the Commission proposed
- There will be no incentive to stop the capture of primates in the wild, which causes them immense distress, for breeding for research
- Researchers will in effect be allowed to determine for which experiments they need governmental permission, by deciding how to categorise the likely suffering
- They will not have to carry out retrospective assessments of experiments – whether from the animal welfare or scientific point of view – in the vast majority of cases
- There will be no strategy to bring forward the day when animal experiments no longer take place, as everyone claims they want

Michelle Thew, chief executive of the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments, commented:
‘MEPs have shown themselves to be completely out of step with public opinion. A recent opinion survey by YouGov across 6 EU countries found overwhelming support to end the use of primates, cats and dogs in experiments causing suffering, and animal experiments to be allowed - if at all - only for serious human illnesses. The Parliament has produced a charter for the multibillion pound animal research industry to carry on business as usual, with scant regard either for animal welfare or public opinion.
The struggle for justice for the 12 million animals used in laboratories every year now moves to the Council of Ministers. We will not give up on them, even if many MEPs have’.
ENDS

For further information contact the BUAV Media Office on 44(0) 20 7619 6978 or out of hours on + 44 (0)7850 510 955 or visit our Web site: www.eceae.org

Notes
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 7139 adults and took place in the UK France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the Czech Republic. Fieldwork was undertaken between 24th February - 4th March 2009. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of the population sizes of the countries surveyed.
ECEAE Member Organisations: ADDA (Spain), Animal (Portugal), Animal Friends Croatia (Croatia), Animal Rights Sweden (Sweden), Animalia (Finland), BUAV (UK), Deutscher Tierschutzbund (Germany), Dyrevernalliansen (Norway), EDEV (Netherlands), Forsøgsdyrenes Værn (Denmark), GAIA (Belgium), Irish Anti-Vivisection Society (Ireland), LAV (Italy), One Voice (France), People for Animal Rights (Germany), Svoboda zvírat (Czech Republic), SSPA (Switzerland)

European Union Makes History by Banning Trade in Seal Products

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-05-2009/0005019130&EDATE=

Humane Society International Applauds Major Victory for Seals

STRASBOURG, France, May 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Humane Society International congratulated the European Parliament for voting overwhelmingly in favour of a strong ban on trade in seal products.

"Today's vote in the European Parliament marks a historic victory in the campaign to stop the commercial slaughter of seals around the world," said Mark Glover, director of Humane Society International/UK. "The European Union has acted on behalf of its citizens, and its decision will save millions of seals from a horrible fate."

"The European Union has made history by ending its trade in seal products," said Rebecca Aldworth, director of Humane Society International/Canada. "This ban spells the beginning of the end of Canada's globally condemned seal slaughter."

The Parliament voted for a strong Regulation that will eliminate the placing of seal products on the EU market, closing a primary market for Canada's commercial seal hunt. The Council and Commission have already agreed to the text, making Tuesday's plenary vote the final step in achieving the regulation. In light of the overwhelming vote in favour of the agreed upon regulation by the Parliament, the regulation will go into effect in 2010.

The EU has been a primary market for the Canadian sealing industry, accounting for about one-third of reported seal skin exports. Globally, the EU accounts for one-quarter of the world trade in seal products.

In recent years, 11 countries have banned their trade in seal products or announced their intentions to do so. They join the United States, which prohibited seal product trade in 1972.

Timeline:

    * April 2009 - Prices for seal fur in Canada declined to just $15 CAD -- a drop of 86 percent from 2006 -- largely due to the pending EU prohibition. As a result, many sealers chose not to participate in the slaughter. Out of a quota of 338,200 seals, less than 60,000 have been killed to date -- making it likely that a quarter of a million baby seals will have been spared a cruel death this year.
    * March 2009 - Canadian Senator Mac Harb introduced the first bill in Canadian history to end the commercial seal hunt.
    * March 2009 - The U.S. Senate introduced a resolution calling upon the Canadian government to end the seal hunt, and on the European Union to introduce a strong prohibition on seal product trade.
    * 2006 - Four hundred twenty-five members of the European Parliament introduced a historic resolution to ban EU trade in seal products. That year, the Council of Europe passed its own resolution calling on its 25 member states to promote initiatives aimed at banning the trade in seal products.
    * 2006 - Croatia and Mexico banned their trade in seal products.
    * In the past decade - Nine EU Member states banned their trade in seal products or announced their intentions to do so.

Facts about the seal slaughter:

    * Canada's commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on earth, with hundreds of thousands of pups killed annually for their fur.
    * Veterinary experts have concluded that the commercial seal hunt is inherently inhumane because of the conditions in which it operates and the speed at which it must be conducted.
    * Canada's commercial seal hunt accounts for less than one-half of one percent of the GDP of Newfoundland, and on average, less than 5 percent of the annual incomes of the individuals who kill the seals.
    * The overwhelming majority of Canadians is opposed to the commercial seal slaughter (Environics Research 2005) and supports foreign nations ending their trade in seal products (Pollara 2007).


Humane Society International is the international arm of The Humane Society of the United States, one of the world's largest animal protection organizations -- backed by 11 million people. HSI is creating a better future for animals and people through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty worldwide-- On the web at hsi.org.

Campaigners March Against Animal Testing (Sky News)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Anti-Vivisection-Campaigners-March-Against-Animal-Testing-In-Laboratories/Article/200904415268903?lpos=UK_News_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15268903_Anti-Vivisection_Campaigners_March_Against_Animal_Testing_In_Laboratories

6:40pm UK, Saturday April 25, 2009

Thousands of campaigners have marched through central London to call for an end to animal experiments.

The demonstration marks the United Nations' recognised day of international commemoration of the suffering and killing of millions of animals in labs across the world.

Campaigners from around the UK gathered in Hyde Park for anti-vivisection speeches before they began their march through London.

Organisers expected it to be the biggest animal rights demonstration for years.
Campaigners say that in the 10 years since Labour came to power, the Government has done little to carry out pre-election promises regarding animal experiments.

 Tests are under spotlight
They claim that far from the promised reduction and end of vivisection, in the past three years the number of animal experiments has begun to increase for the first time since the 1970s.

They argue there is no need for such testing as an animal's response to a drug can be different to a human's reaction, and believe there are many successful alternative testing methods available for research.

However, the Medical Research Council says the use of animals in medical research remains essential, although scientists must avoid using animals wherever possible.
It adds that the council is committed to ensuring that medical research involving animals adheres to the highest standards of animal welfare.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said there were no reports of trouble at the march.

Cruel Cosmetics? Loopholes in EU ban
Dr Dan Lyons reports on worrying loopholes in European ‘ban’ on animal-tested cosmetics

March 11th 2009 should mark a momentous day in the history of the anti-vivisection movement, but legal loopholes and Government indifference threaten to perpetuate the most gratuitous and extreme forms of animal cruelty. After a decades-long fight, two key Europe-wide measures to tackle animal testing are due to come into force as part of the EU’s ‘Cosmetics Directive’:

·         a ban on animal testing of cosmetics ingredients (‘Cosmetics’ has a wide legal definition here and includes toiletries)
·         a ban on the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals anywhere in the world for all but three test areas, regardless of the availability of alternative non-animal tests

The complete sales ban where no animal tests are allowed at all for cosmetics sold in the EU is due to kick in during 2013. It is widely believed that the bans, supposed to be enforced irrespective of the availability of validated ‘alternatives’, has provided a serious incentive for companies to invest in non-animal, advanced testing methods.

The latest annual EU figures suggest that over 5,500 animals could be saved from poisoning tests for cosmetics in the EU alone, never mind the global impact as companies stop animal testing in order to continue access to European markets. However, the European Commission acknowledges more animals could have been used if tests are already being commissioned ‘for other purposes’. This admission flags up one of the major loopholes that companies like Procter & Gamble are likely to try to exploit.

The worry is that companies will continue to use ingredients tested on animals in cosmetics by pretending the test was for another purpose such as ‘household products’ or ‘pharmaceutical’. This would be particularly easy for companies who produce different types of products in addition to cosmetics, such as household cleaners and pharmaceuticals. Indeed, in a leaked internal memo, P&G discuss how they can get round the EU law.

But it’s not just companies that are sticking two fingers up to the rule of law – meet the UK Government. An ongoing Uncaged investigation reveals that there are potentially serious weaknesses in the way the UK Government is implementing the EU law:

·         They are deceiving MPs and the public, and blocking the release of animal testing information relating to products on sale in the UK.
·         They require local councils’ Trading Standards Departments (TSDs) to implement the law. But TSDs aren't and can't enforce this as they don't have sufficient resources and expertise. So we have a catch 22 situation where TSDs will investigate if there is evidence of wrongdoing, but it is impossible to obtain evidence as it is deemed confidential.

OFFICIAL SECRECY
Under the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008 – the UK law which implements the EU law - cosmetics products manufacturers are obliged to collate information on animal testing in Product Information Packs (PIPs). These are to be made available to the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR), and local TSDs.
 
Initially, the Government gave the impression that animal testing information could be obtained by the public. On 25 May 2008, Gareth Thomas MP, Minister for State at BERR told Linda Gilroy MP:

'Anybody who is concerned that a product or its ingredients have been tested illegally on animals should speak to their local Trading Standards Department.'

Again, in October, minister Claire Ward told MPs that the PIPs: ‘… will contain information on any animal testing that has been carried out in the past. If hon. Members are contacted by constituents with concerns about such matters, they can refer them to their local trading standards department.’

After we'd pointed out to MPs that TSDs couldn't give that information, BERR Minister Gareth Thomas MP admitted: ‘Although this information ["whether certain cosmetics products have at any stage been tested on animals"] may form part of the product information packages which all cosmetic suppliers must maintain and provide to Trading Standards Officers when requested to do so, the information provided is commercially sensitive and is not to be passed on to anyone outside the enforcement service. Anyone who wishes to find out the animal testing policies of a particular company should contact the company direct.’

Information about animal testing can easily be edited to remove any genuine commercial secrets, so the Government’s decision to keep that information secret is perverse and contrary to the public interest. Moreover, as we are all well aware, Thomas' suggestion that people write to the companies is ludicrous as there is no obligation for companies to give truthful information about their animal testing, and in fact companies who test on animals go out of their way to mislead consumers. Meanwhile, our survey of TSDs reveals their confusion and inability to enforce animal testing regulations. 
 
With best wishes
Dr Dan Lyons, Director, Uncaged
www.uncaged.co.uk and www.hurtfulessences.org

ISRAEL HOPES TO BECOME THE FIRST FUR FREE NATION

INTERNATIONAL ANTI-FUR COALITION WELCOMES A NEW BILL TO PROHIBIT THE FUR INDUSTRY IN ISRAEL

Israel – Israel creates a precedent by submitting the world’s first nationwide bill “Prohibiting the Industry of Fur”. Knesset member Nitzan Horowitz proposed on March, 18th 2009 a bill to prohibit the fur industry in its entirety, including all importation, production and all sales in Israel; illuminating that his intention is "not to lend a hand to this cruelty towards animals.”

In light of this bill, Israel takes a giant leap forward; from having no existing law concerning fur; to becoming the first nation on the planet to completely protect all fur bearing animals from the suffering and death inflicted upon millions of animals at the hands of the fur industry the world over.     

"The International Anti-Fur Coalition’ thanks MK Nitzan Horowitz for his proposal and we call all MKs to support this bill," said Jane Halevy, Director of the 'International Anti-Fur Coalition'. "We hope that Israel will inspire other countries and they too will propose comparable bills throughout the world".

Last month, a report on Israel's channel 10, led by SPCA Israel and International Anti-Fur Coalition, had revealed that items from the top fashion chain stores to cheap toys in bazaars, that what was being sold as fake fur was indeed real fur. Lab tests had shown that several articles taken from leading Israeli brands and sold as fake fur were made of dog and rabbit fur!

Each year millions of animals are brutally killed for their fur throughout the world. Animals live in tiny cages made only of wire, before being gassed, electrocuted or even skinned alive! Footage shows that some of them fight against death for up to 10 minutes in total anguish after being skinned alive!

About the International Anti-Fur Coalition
The International Anti-Fur Coalition is a collective of more than 50 organizations from around the world that fight against the fur industry. This coalition, created in 2006, organizes on a regular basis international days of action against the fur industry. For more information, please visit:
http://www.antifurcoalition.org

Russia’s seal-hunt ban pushes Canada further into isolation

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1403213

18th March 2009

Animal welfare activists have found themselves an unlikely ally in the
form of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Michael McKiernan, National Post  Published: Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin showed his cuddlier side when he
leapt to the defence of the country’s baby harp seal population, labelling
the annual hunt of the animals a “bloody industry” that “should have been
banned a long time ago.”

Animal welfare activists have found themselves an unlikely ally in the
form of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The judo-loving former KGB officer showed his cuddlier side when he leapt
to the defence of the country's baby harp seal population, labelling the
annual hunt of the animals a "bloody industry" that "should have been
banned a long time ago."

The words of a man often accused of using military force to quash dissent
in areas of Russia with separatist leanings clearly packed a punch - and
they have seemingly left Canada even more isolated on the international
stage in its continued support of the right to hunt seals.

On Wednesday, Yury Trutnyev, the Russian Minister of Natural Resources,
mirrored his Prime Minister's assessment as he announced a ban on the
hunting of all harp seals less than one year old.

"This bloody hunting is from now on banned in our country, as in most
developed countries. This is an important measure to preserve Russia's
biodiversity," he said.

The Russian ban effectively ends commercial seal hunting in that country,
as most of the market for pelts comes from seals less than a year old. A
quota had previously allowed for the harvesting of up to 35,000 seals in
the White Sea, near Russia's border with Finland.

The move came as a surprise to Thomas Hedderson, the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador, whose province is preparing
for the beginning of its annual hunt. Harp seal reserves off the coast
there number well more than five million and are increasing, according to
Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

"I'm not as familiar with the Russian hunt as I am with our own, but
they're clearly having problems we are not experiencing," he said.

"Our hunt is one of the best-managed and most-regualted industries you'll
see anywhere. It's sustainable, it's viable and it's humane."

Equally surprised was Sheryl Fink, although that's where similarities with
Mr. Hedderson end. She works as a researcher for the International Fund
for Animal Welfare based in Guelph, Ont. The Russian branch of the
organization held rallies in cities across the country last month, but
after years of fruitless campaigning, Mr. Putin's support caught them off
guard.

"It highlights the fact that Canada is still in the Dark Ages on this
issue. It's astounding when even the government of Russia is more willing
to listen to its own people than ours is," Ms. Fink said.

"It's time for Canada to act, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Governments have shown they're content to plough ahead with the status quo
and I expect that extraordinary level of denial to continue."

The Russian ban is just the latest in a string of blows to the Canadian
seal hunt. Last month, a European Union committee endorsed a proposal that
would prohibit member states from importing seal products. That plan could
be put into action as soon as next month.

Although Mr. Putin has yet to indicate whether his sympathies for the
creatures extends far enough to copy the EU approach and ban imports, his
stance has pushed Canada further into the proverbial corner.

Just three countries now have a commercial harp seal hunt. Greenland and
Norway combine for an annual catch of less than 50,000 - dwarfed by the
Canadian quota of 275,000 last year.

Mr. Hedderson plays down the significance of the Russian move, saying it's
simply the latest round in an old debate.

"For 30 years our professional harvesters have been taking the brunt of
the pressure from special interest groups and this year is no different.
The campaign is ratcheting up as it always does at this time of year," he
said.

He's girded for the fight and remains confident the seal hunt will
survive, whatever the views of the Russian Prime Minister.

"I don't know where he's coming from, whether it's a personal point of
view or his country's view," Mr. Hedderson said. "But we must look after
our own resources, including seals, regardless of what others think."

BUAV: Campaigners celebrate the coming into force of the European Union ban on cosmetic testing on animals

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/animal-welfare/buav-campaigners-celebrate-the-coming-into-force-of-the-european-union-ban-on-cosmetic-testing-on-animals-$1276036$364615.htm


Tuesday, 10, Mar 2009 12:00

Wednesday 11th March marks the banning of cosmetics testing on animals within the European Union, potentially saving thousands of animals from appalling suffering every year. For nearly two decades, the BUAV, leading sister organisations in the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), has spearheaded the campaign across Europe to achieve this important ban. The 7th amendment to the Cosmetics Directive means that from 11 March 2009 it becomes illegal to:

# test cosmetic ingredients on animals anywhere in the EU, irrespective of whether there is a non-animal alternative method available (testing on the products themselves is already banned)

# sell or import into the EU cosmetics ingredients or products where they have been animal-tested after 11 March 2009, with the exception of certain types of test which have an extended deadline until 11 March 2013

The BUAV will be joined outside Parliament by a cross party group of MPs and representatives of BUAV approved companies such as Marks and Spencer, The Co-operative, Body Shop, Neal’s Yard, Essentially Yours, Herbal Secrets and Wuchi by Maks to mark the climax of many years of intensive campaigning by the organisation.

Michelle Thew, Chief Executive of the BUAV said “This is an historic occasion and a significant step forward for animals in laboratories. The BUAV has campaigned for nearly two decades to achieve this important ban across the European Union. We are delighted that it has finally come into force. We will now continue our global campaign to seek an end to the appalling suffering inflicted on animals in the name of beauty worldwide.”

Despite the ban, large numbers of cosmetic products available in high street stores will still contain ingredients that have previously been tested on animals. The BUAV’s Humane Cosmetics Standard, symbolized by the leaping bunny logo, remains the only way for consumers to know that their products are cruelty free. The BUAV also continues to work internationally on this campaign with colleagues in the US Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics, to ensure that the Leaping Bunny remains the global standard for cruelty-free cosmetics across Europe, the US and Canada.

Mike Barry, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility at Marks and Spencer said “We are delighted to be able to mark this occasion with the BUAV. As a member of both the BUAV’s Humane Cosmetics and Humane Household Products Standards , consumers can be reassured that none of the ingredients in our cosmetics or household products have been tested on animals.”

Although animal testing for cosmetics has effectively been banned in the UK for some years, it still remains perfectly legal to test household products and their ingredients on animals. Following the cross party support of 219 MPs, the BUAV is currently campaigning for an end to this cruel and unnecessary practice too.

ENDS

HUNTINGDON LIFE SCIENCES INFILTRATED & EXPOSED IN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION

TAKE ACTION NOW!

Animal Defenders International have just published a report and film exposing
every aspect of the vivisection primate trade across three continents
including sending a worker undercover inside Huntingdon Life Sciences.

They have revealed primates being torn from the wild and placed into tiny
prisons in Vietnam, to then endure a thirty hour journey in a restrictive cage
arriving at Huntingdon Life Sciences in the dead of night to undergo horrific
experiments.

The undercover worker filmed monkeys strapped in to chairs and forced to
inhale
products. Many were left in one cubic metre cages and then taken
out to be held down by workers as tubes were forced down their throats.

Primates inside HLS are living in cramped, dirty baron cages. The
psychological
damage inflicted on these innocent beings lead them to chew
their own fingersand toes off the the bone; and one primate's face became
so injured she had to be force fed.

During the year long ADI investigation 217 primates were killed in just five
studies for customers including GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca and the
MoD.

To view the ADI report and view the video footage shot inside HLS, visit:
http://www.savetheprimates.com/primateban/news/

After the 1997 expose when HLS workers were filmed abusing animals GSK and
AstraZeneca both dropped HLS. They soon went back to them when Brian Cass
promised to turn the company around, but said if it ever happened again they
would not use HLS to contract experiments. We all know this kind of thing is
going on every day inside HLS, but now we have up to date footage from inside
HLS during 2008.

Please contact GSK & AstraZeneca and ask them to stop contracting experiments
at HLS and ask them to look at the undercover footage and report written by
the Animal Defenders International. There is a sample email below with
details on who to write to.

Do not let these animals die in vain; now is the time to take action. We must
stand up and fight against animal cruelty, we urge everyone who can to attend
our next national protest in London on the 27th of february where we will
protest against HLS's financial backers. For more info see:
http://www.shac.net/action/demos/city_shakedown/

Why the UK SHAC 7 were sentenced

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news6632.php

SchNews. 23 January 2009.
Sentenced for life as long prison terms are handed down to the
SHAC 7.

"Gregg Avery, Natasha Avery, Dan Amos, Heather Nicholson,
Gerrah Selby, Gavin Medd-Hall, Dan Wadham and all others
accused in this politically motivated witch hunt are guilty of
the highest level of compassion. They have given their all to
save the lives of others and expose the inbuilt failings of
animal experimentation. Prison and the threat of prison will
not stop decent people from doing what is right." - SHAC
spokesperson.

Vicious sentences have been handed down in the SHAC conspiracy
to blackmail trial (see SchNEWS 661). Heather Nicholson was
jailed for 11 years, Gregg and Natasha Avery for nine years
each, Gavin Medd-Hall for eight years, Daniel Wadham for five
years and Dan Amos and Gerrah Selby were both sentenced to
four years. Greg and Natasha had earlier pleaded guilty; their
sentencing was left until the end of the trial. At no point
did the prosecution allege that any of the defendants were
involved in home visits, paint-stripping cars or in fact any
illegal activity.

All they had to prove, it seemed, was that
the campaign against HLS influenced 'persons unknown' into
taking illegal direct action. Not that you'd have guessed that
from browsing the mainstream media - which is united in saying
that the defendants themselves were 'extremists' guilty of the
actions.Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) are in the business of
poisoning healthy animals to death.

Far from being the
pioneers of life-saving medical research depicted by the
media, they are a commercial contract testing company that
tests artificial colourings, flavourings and sweeteners,
herbicides, GM food, plastics, industrial chemicals, "health
foods", dietary supplements and a small amount of drugs for
other commercial companies. They are the largest company of
this kind in Europe. Five hundred animals are put to death
every day by HLS.

The world's media, prompted by police press officers, have
been quick to condemn activists by pointing to harassment
against the employees of HLS and their customers, shareholders
and investors. What is never examined is the ongoing cruelty,
scientific fraud and the development of repressive new laws
targeted at the animal rights movement.

SHAC's activities have been lawful; the campaign publishes
information about animal abuse inside HLS labs, reports
campaigning activities and issues contact alerts calling on
supporters to write polite letters to companies working with
HLS and ask them to desist. If those companies continue to do
business with HLS, protests would usually follow. All material
on the SHAC website and newsletters is checked by a barrister.
Even the judge at Winchester has said that SHAC is a legal
campaign. Other pressure groups such as Greenpeace, Amnesty
International and Friends of the Earth all use email alerts
and website campaigns to highlight protests and campaigns.

Putting these campaigners on trial for 'conspiracy to
blackmail' was clearly a political decision. A £4 million
inquiry - involving five police forces - targeted SHAC despite
admitting that campaigners "rarely caused physical harm". This
is due to the effectiveness of the A.R. movement in
confronting and challenging the power of corporations involved
in animal abuse. The demonisation of animal rights campaigners
in the media has made it easier for the state to repress them
without public outcry. The conviction and sentencing of the
SHAC 7 in Winchester is another nail in the coffin of the
public's right to voice their anger and dissent against
corporate greed.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/01/proposed-seal-trade-ban-harpooned/63723.aspx

PROPOSED SEAL TRADE BAN HARPOONED

By Jennifer Rankin -- Jan. 22, 2009

Author of European Parliament report describes proposed ban as "worst of both worlds"; Greenland brings case against ban to Brussels.

A proposal from the European Commission to ban most trade in seal products could prove to be unworkable, according to an influential MEP.

Diana Wallis, a British Liberal (ALDE) MEP who is the Parliament's rapporteur on the issue, told European Voice that the proposed ban was "the worst of both worlds" as it contained too many exemptions to work while also harming "fragile indigenous communities" (???) of traditional seal hunters. Wallis said it was "a ban with a huge hole in the middle" that could result in entire countries being exempt. "I want to achieve better treatment of these beautiful animals," she said, "but I do also think we need to respect the Inuit communities".

Last year the European Commission proposed a ban on seal products that are traded within and into the EU. But the ban is studded with exceptions, for products proven to meet animal welfare standards and for traditional Inuit seal hunts.

Wallis believes that the regulation has been drawn up too quickly and that the EU risks legal challenges if it goes ahead with a ban. She suggests that the EU has over-stepped its competence. "We cannot legislate for Canadian hunting, any more than we can regulate fox-hunting in the UK," she said.
quote
Greenland says existing exemption for Inuits has not helped indigenous hunters
quote

Instead, Wallis proposes a mandatory labeling system that would state whether seal products - skin, fat and meat - meet animal-welfare standards. The Commission also wants a certification system so consumers know that seal products meet animal-welfare standards.

Wallis faces a challenge in the European Parliament, where animal welfare is an emotive issue. Frieda Brepoels, a Belgian centre-right (EPP-ED) who is drafting the environment committee's position on the Parliamentary report written by Wallis, wants to toughen the Commission's proposal. Brepoels calls for a full ban on seal products with a limited exemption for Inuit communities. "Only a total ban meets the widely demonstrated concerns of European citizens," she argues.

In 2006, 425 MEPs backed a resolution in favour of banning trade in harp and hooded species of seals. Wallis said she expected that the regulation would split parliamentary groups.
Impact on Greenland

Finn Karlsen, Greenland's fisheries, hunting and agriculture minister, told European Voice that the proposal would have negative consequences for hunters in Greenland. The minister said that an existing exemption for Inuits from current rules had not helped indigenous hunters and led to the government off Greenland paying out large subsidies to support hunters.

"Seal hunting has been part of our culture for 1,000 years," the minister said. "We all eat seal meat and we are dependent on seal hunters."

Karlsen also said that the Inuit way of hunting met animal-welfare standards: "Greenlanders hunt with rifles. They shoot them [the seals] in the head and they die immediately."

The minister said that the Wallis labelling proposal was "more acceptable" than a ban, but needed to be evaluated very carefully.

The majority of the 900,000 seals that are killed each year worldwide come from non-EU countries, chiefly Canada, Greenland, Namibia, Norway and Russia. But a ban would split the EU. While Sweden, Finland and the UK have small-scale seal hunts, Belgium and the Netherlands have passed laws to restrict trade in seal products, while Germany is considering such a law.

The Parliament's environment committee discussed Wallis's report on the Commission's proposal on 21 January. Its internal market and consumer protection committee will also vote on Wallis's report on 17 February and the full Parliament will vote in April. The Czech presidency of the EU hopes to lead the Parliament and the Council of Ministers to a first-reading agreement before July.

EU Press Release on Cat and Dog Fur Ban

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/midday_express.pdf

MIDDAY EXPRESS

News from the Press and Communication Service's midday briefing
Nouvelles du rendez-vous de midi du Service Presse et Communication

05/01/2009

Commissioner Vassiliou welcomes entry into force of ban on imports,
exports and trade in cat and dog fur

A comprehensive EU ban on imports, exports and intra-Community trade in
cat and dog fur and products containing such fur entered into force on 1
January 2009.

European Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou said: "I am delighted
that this long awaited measure is now in force, so that European consumers
can be confident that they will no longer be at risk of inadvertently
purchasing products containing cat or dog fur. This ban reflects the
profound attachment that Europeans have to cats and dogs as companion
animals only, and their total rejection of this appalling practice."

The European Commission proposed a ban on cat and dog fur in November
2006, due to evidence that cat and dog fur was being placed on the
European market, usually undeclared or disguised as synthetic or other
types of fur.

Diverging national bans on cat and dog fur threatened to disrupt the
single market. The vast majority of cat and dog fur is believed to be
imported from third countries, notably China, where the rearing of these
animals for their fur is practiced.

The Commission's proposal for a regulation was adopted by the European
Parliament and the Council of the European Union on December 11 2007. It
assures EU citizens that cat and dog fur will no longer be sold anywhere
in the EU through a harmonised approach, prohibiting all production,
marketing and imports and exports of cat and dog fur in the EU.

Cat and dog fur, found occasionally on the EU market in the past, provoked
a strong response from EU consumers, who demanded that measures be taken
to prevent such fur and fur products from being sold in the EU. Tens of
thousands of Europeans sent protest letters to the Commission and handed
petitions to Members of the European Parliament.

For more information, see:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/fur_cats_dogs_en.htm

--

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/fur_cats_dogs_en.htm

Animal Welfare - Cat and Dog Fur

On 20 November 2006, the European Commission adopted a proposal to ban the
import, export and sale of cat and dog fur in the EU. The proposal was
drawn up in response to strong demands from EU citizens, as well as
politicians, who asked for measures to be taken to prevent cat and dog fur
from being sold in the EU.

    * Cat and dog fur: Commission proposes total EU ban
    * Questions and Answers on the proposal to ban cat and dog fur in the EU

The Commission proposal was negotiated in Council and European Parliament
up to June 2007, with a view to concluding this dossier as quickly as
possible through the co-decision procedure. On 19 June 2007 the European
Parliament approved a compromise text, which the Council and the
Commission also agreed on.

Press release of the Commissioner's speech

Debate at the Parliament

The Council formally adopted the proposal in November 2007.
The ban will apply from 31 December 2008. This transitional period is
necessary as several Member States have to adapt their national
legislation to the new EU wide ban.

The ban on import, export and sale of cat and dog fur enters into force on
1 January 2009

    * Regulation

from IndymediaUK:

On December 23rd, 4 out of 5 activists on trial at Winchester Crown
Court were found guilty of 'Conspiracy to Blackmail' at Winchester
Crown Court after a 3 and a half month long show trial. The world's
media, prompted by police press officers, were quick to condemn
activists by pointing to harassment against the employees of
Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) and their customers, shareholders and
investors. Actions against HLS, not linked to those convicted, such as
hoax bombs, letters alleging paedophilia, and threats were pointed to
as evidence of the defendants' extremism. Police spokesmen and the
National Extremist Coordination Unit (NETCU), the branch of the police
set up to deal with the AR movement and other expressions of the
public's dissent, hailed the convictions as a victory.
What was not examined in the media was the worrying development of the
repressive use of the law which lead to the conviction of the four
defendants.

Corporate Watch has followed the progress of the trial at Winchester
since the beginning. The reason we were concerned about the trial is
that we see it as part of a larger attack on the animal rights
movement motivated by the state's desire to protect private
corporations against dissent. Since the animal rights movement began
to effectively challenge the profits of those involved in vivisection
and the pharmaceutical industry the state has repeatedly responded
with new repressive measures. In May this year Sean Kirtley, an
activist involved with Stop Sequani Animal Torture (SSAT), was
sentenced to four and a half years in prison for updating a website
with news about a legal, nonviolent campaign to close down Sequani
laboratories in Ledbury. Kirtley was convicted of 'Conspiracy to
interfere with the contractual relations of an animal research
facility under section 145 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police
Act' (SOCPA 145) . His only crime was to protest lawfully against the
lab and to update a website.

NETCU, however, was not satisfied with seeing animal rights activists
banged up for four and a half years and chose to charge campaigners
associated with Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) with 'conspiracy
to blackmail', an offence carrying up to 14 years in prison. In May
2007, police arrested 32 people in raids dubbed 'Operation Achilles'.
Since then, 15 people have been charged with 'conspiracy' and are
being tried in two separate trials, of which this was the first.

The charges relate to six years of concerted campaigning against HLS,
the largest contract testing laboratory in Europe. The defendants
included people who had been involved in SHAC from the outset.
However, two of the defendants, Gerrah Selby and Dan Wadham, had been
in their early teens at the beginning of the period concerned and had
only been involved for a short time. Wadham was only 17 when his part
of the alleged conspiracy allegedly occurred.

SHAC, an international campaign group calling for the closure of HLS,
has been painted by the police and the press as a 'criminal
organisation' duping members of the public concerned with animal abuse
into donating their money to further 'a campaign of blackmail'. SHAC's
activities, however, have been overwhelmingly lawful: the campaign
publishes information about animal abuse inside HLS labs, reports
campaigning activities and issues action alerts calling on supporters
to write polite letters to companies working with HLS and ask them to
desist. If those companies continue to do business with HLS, protests
would usually follow. All material on the SHAC website is checked by a
barrister and police are given prior notice of their demonstrations.

Customers, suppliers and shareholders in HLS have also been the
subject of some direct action. Slogans have been daubed at company
premises and employees homes; cars have been painstrippered; hoax
bombs have been sent and employees have been accused of being
paedophiles. However, these actions are not directly linked to the
SHAC campaign and have only tenuous links to the defendants, whose
faces were spashed across many tabloid front pages after their
convictions at Winchester.

During the summer, three defendants, committed campaigners against
HLS, plead guilty to charges of 'conspiracy to blackmail'. During the
trial, evidence recovered from the campaign PCs and activists'
personal computers was presented. Police had found many documents
believed to have been permanently deleted or shredded by their
authors. This included a spreadsheet detailing names and addresses of
people working for companies linked to HLS, details of direct actions
carried out against them and a document containing a private chat
between activists apparently talking about direct action. This
evidence may suggest that some activists had decided to take direct
action against companies linked to HLS, but the evidence linking the
defendants found guilty on 23rd December to these documents was
circumstantial and, in some cases, non-existent. Even if some
activists linked to SHAC did decide to take direct action, this does
not make everybody associated with the campaign guilty by association.
The prosecution case was that that the entire SHAC campaign was aimed
at closing down HLS, which is true, and that SHAC campaigners
attempted to persuade companies not to work with HLS, which is also
true. The prosecution argument, however, went on to imply that, when
companies did not agree to cease trading with HLS, they were the
subject of direct action. Often direct action did occur but this was
not under the banner of SHAC. Moreover, SHAC did not publish any
information about companies that was not already in the public domain.
But because some activists, sometimes under the banner of the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), did take direct action, the prosecution argued
that the SHAC campaign was facilitating direct action and giving it
its tacit appoval. The police went one step further and said SHAC and
the ALF were one and the same thing!

Much of the evidence in the three-month trial was in relation to
lawful demonstrations against companies linked to HLS. This was
particularly important in the instances of defendants who could not be
linked to the uncovered computer evidence. In several cases, the only
evidence was what they had said at demonstrations. Comments made by
defendants during protests in earshot of the police were portrayed as
linking them to the 'conspiracy'. Comments, such as "we know where you
live", were taken as proof that defendants were party to the
conspiracy. In any other context, such spur-of-the-moment comments
would have, at most, lead to minor charges in the Magistrate's Court.
Equally important was the fact that some of those convicted were
linked personally to the defendants who pleaded guilty. Heather
Nicholson and Gerrah Selby had both shared houses with them. This was
obviously a factor in finding them guilty by association.

So what does this mean for free speech and anti-corporate dissent in
the UK? By the same logic, an anti-war campaign that publishes
information on the whereabouts of a military base or arms factory and
calls for its closure could be put in the frame for the same crime if
that base was then the subject of an arson attack. All it would take
would be for the police to imply that the people running the public
campaign are linked to those involved in direct action. Consequently,
campaigners might feel compelled to publicly distance themselves from
acts of direct action lest they find that, unbeknown to them, those
responsible for the covert actions are involved in public action too
and the whole movement is charged with 'conspiracy'. In fact, the use
of such charges is a classic police tactic aimed at spreading paranoia
and convicting as many activists as possible for acts carried out by
only a few. The aim is also to minimise public support for illegal
actions by harrassing and criminalising those who speak up in solidarity.

NETCU have already intimated, for example in the recent Mark Townsend
article on 'eco-terrorists', that environmental or anti-gm protesters
might be their next target.

The convicted activists are now long periods in jail, they will be
sentenced on January 19th. Heather Nicholson, who was remanded after
her arrest in May 2007, has already spent over 19 months in jail,
longer than some convicted of serious assaults or sex crimes would
spend in prison. In May this year, Sean Kirtley, who was imprisoned
for his role in another animal rights campaign, was sentenced to four
and a half years in prison on the same day that men who beat a man
until he was blind received two years. Since 'Operation Achilles', the
police have been patting themselves on the back for putting the animal
rights movement into 'disarray'. A NETCU source told the Observer in
November 2008 that the animal rights movement's 'ringleaders' had
'either been prosecuted or were awaiting prosecution.' One may suspect
that comments like these are more to do with maintaining NETCU's
funding than reality (see this Corporate Watch commentary for more
details).

In fact the attack on animal rights campaigners does not seem to have
limited their capacity to take action. Regular demonstrations are
still taking place against companies linked to HLS, with one planned
for 29th December.The ALF, which does not seem to be in need of
'leaders', has recently freed 70 turkeys from a UK farm. If anything,
the global animal rights movement seems to be growing steadily.

The decision to try these campaigners for 'conspiracy to blackmail'
was evidently a political one. Huge amounts of police resources have
been poured into this prosecution, and others like it, at the behest
of the Labour government. This is due to the effectiveness of the
animal rights movement in confronting and challenging the power of
corporations involved in animal abuse. The demonisation of animal
rights campaigners in the media, facilitated by NETCU press releases,
only makes it easier for the state to repress them without public
outcry. The conviction of the defendants at Winchester is yet another
nail in the coffin of the public's right to voice their anger and
dissent against corporate crime.

links to media articles (any updates will be added here as well):
http://againess-en.wikidot.com/news#toc1

Chinese seek to pull cats from the menu

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cats23-2008dec23,0,21317
22nd Dec. 2008

Associated Press
Cats peer from a cage after being saved from a market in Beijing. The Small
Animal Protection Assn. says one business in Guangzhou, where cats are
eaten, captures up to 10,000 a day ‹ including pets ‹ from around China and
brings them back to be sold as food.
In most of the country, eating felines is considered disgusting, but not in
Guangdong. So the battle begins.

By Barbara Demick
10:03 PM PST, December 22, 2008

Reporting from Guangzhou, China -- The gray tabby cat with hazel eyes and a
white nose scrunched at the bottom of a stack of metal cages filled with
rabbits, quail, pigeons and ducks, across the aisle from the buckets of
turtles and scorpions in a narrow shop with as many live animals as a
petting zoo.

If it was male or female, young or old, nobody seemed to know or care. All
that mattered was its weight, 6 1/2 pounds.

After a few quick calculations, the shopkeeper offered to sell the cat for
$1.32 per pound, about $9.

"We'll cut it up right here in back for you," the shopkeeper suggested,
gesturing toward a bloodstained room.

The scene is routine at butcher shops in Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong
province, formerly known as Canton.

Although Cantonese cooking is known abroad for dim sum and won-ton soup, it
is also recognized as the most exotic of the Chinese cuisines, serving up a
veritable Noah's ark of species on the dinner plate. As a popular saying
goes, the Cantonese will eat anything that walks, crawls, hops or flies.

But now fellow Chinese are drawing the line. Eating cat, they say -- that is
just too disgusting.

"Cats are your friends, not food," read the banners carried at a
demonstration last week at the Guangzhou train station, where protesters
were trying to intercept a shipment of cats.

"Shame on Guangdong!" they chanted at another demonstration, held at the
Beijing offices of the Guangdong provincial government.

Dog is eaten in many parts of China, but only in Guangdong do people eat
cat. It is rare to see a stray wandering the streets. Many cats served for
supper here are shipped down from the north.

The Small Animal Protection Assn. says one Guangzhou-based business captures
up to 10,000 cats per day from different parts of China. The cat snatchers
are typically formerly unemployed people who use large fishing nets and are
paid $1.50 per cat.

"They've eaten all their cats so they have to take ours from Beijing. People
don't want to let their cats go out on the street," said Zhao Ming, a
55-year-old physician who was among about 40 people demonstrating in
Beijing.

The cat trade thrives in a seemingly boundless gray area of commerce. Police
are reluctant to charge the cat catchers with theft because many of the cats
involved live outside and, in the famously independent way of cats, are not
technically owned by humans, merely fed and nurtured.

In the absence of police action, cat lovers are increasingly taking matters
into their own hands.

When Shanghai activists got a tip in August that a truckload of cats was
passing nearby on its way to Guangdong, they staged an ambush. About 11
p.m., they confronted the truck at a market, where the driver had stopped to
rest, and tried to buy the cats.

When the driver refused, a standoff dragged on until the next afternoon.
While some activists argued with the driver and police, others opened the
back of the truck and released about 1,600 cats. About 300 cats were found
dead.

Many of the rescue efforts are directed by Lu Di, a nearly 80-year-old woman
who used to work for Mao Tse-tung, reading to the Chinese leader in his
final years when his eyesight was poor.

"You can judge how advanced a civilization is by the way it treats its
animals," said Lu, paraphrasing Gandhi. She founded the Small Animal
Protection Assn., which she runs out of the Beijing apartment she shares
with 15 cats, more than a dozen dogs, a quail, a pigeon and a monkey.

She picked up one cat with a fresh red scar running around its body caused
by a wire that dealers wrap around cats to keep them from running away.
Often, the cats are badly mistreated in their final moments, crammed as
tightly as tomatoes into crates so they can't breathe, and clubbed into
semiconsciousness before being thrown alive into boiling water.

"This is a crime that humiliates all Chinese people," Lu said.

Eating cats clearly has become socially unacceptable for many Chinese. When
- Hide quoted text -

the Guangzhou-based newspaper Southern Metropolis Daily published an expose
this month on a cat-snatching operation, it set off last week's
demonstrations.

Chinese websites were filled with outrage.

"Guangdong people are the most unprincipled of the human species!" wrote one
person. "They would eat their mothers-in-law if there was no law."

The dispute over eating cat cuts across the fault lines of Chinese society.
Among the increasingly Westernized middle class, there is a fast-growing
culture of cat fanciers who like them for cuddling, not eating. Restrictions
on the size and number of dogs one can have as pets make cats popular pets
in the city.

Inside Beijing's largest shopping mall, a dozen pampered felines recently
lounged inside a huge display case of a pet store specializing in cats.
Well-heeled shoppers strolled by oohing and aahing through the glass.

The pet store was a study in contrasts with the Yongxing- long food shop
(the name means "Forever Prosperous") in Guangzhou. Butcher shops in these
parts are not for the squeamish since much of the merchandise is sold alive
and then butchered in front of the customers.

"Cat meat is good for women. You can eat it in the summer or winter. It is
very light. Men usually prefer dog. It is like yin and yang. Cat is yin and
dog is yang," said customer Jiang Changlin, who works for the local
government.

He recommended that visitors try one of Guangdong's most famous recipes,
"dragon fighting tiger," a dish made with both snake and cat, its
distinctiveness coming from the competing power of the ingredients.

"Delicious!" Jiang said.

Still eager to sell the cat in the cage, the shop's manager, Tang Huacheng,
suggested a simple recipe.

"You just have to boil the cat for a long time," Tang said. "It has a very
nice, fresh taste."

Epilogue

After some negotiations, this reporter bought the cat alive for the
equivalent of $9. A cage cost an additional $10.

Guangzhou is a dense city with almost no place to leave a cat. A row of
apartment houses next to an empty lot seemed like a good place. There were
small restaurants at street level. People sat around a plastic table on the
sidewalk playing mah-jongg.

The cat, its underbelly white and soft and its hazel eyes clear, appeared
tame. It walked calmly to sit under a shrub.

"Oh, we really need a cat here," said one of the women gathered around.
"There are mice in the empty lot."

Her accent indicated that she came from northern China, and many of the
people around the neighborhood were migrant workers from outside Guangdong.
They don't eat cats.

We can only hope for the best.

barbara.demick@latimes.com

Eliot Gao and Nicole Liu of The Times' Beijing Bureau contributed to this
report.

Activists deny farm raid charge

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Activists-deny-farm-raid-charge/article-562205-detail/article.html
Saturday, December 20, 2008, 07:30

FOUR animal rights activists denied charges connected to a raid at a Lincolnshire farm.
The farm was targeted because of its links to the Huntingdon Life Sciences research company, Lincoln Crown Court heard.
The group are Dean Cain (27) of King Street, Ulverston, Cumbria, Luke Steele (18) of Woodside View, Leeds, Victoria Waterhouse-Taylor (18) of Eva Street, Rusholme, Manchester, and a 17-year- old boy from Manchester, who cannot be named for legal reasons.

All four pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to cause damage at Highgate Farm, Normanby-by- Spital, north of Lincoln, between April 13 and October 13.
The four also denied charges of interfering with a contractual relationship so as to harm an animal research establishment and a further conspiracy.
 
Cain and Steele were each remanded in custody. Waterhouse-Taylor and the 17-year-old boy were each granted conditional bail and the hearing was adjourned until next year.
Highgate Farm was previously raided by activists in January when 129 rabbits were stolen and £100,000 damage caused by a group claiming links to the Animal Liberation Front.

None of the four are charged with any offence in connection with this incident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/18/animal-welfare-china-monkeys-attack

From Rhesus to Spartacus

Cruelty to animals all too often goes unpunished, but one abusive trainer
discovered his monkeys could dish it out too

    * Craig Redmond
    * guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 December 2008 17.40 GMT

The news – and more specifically, the photos – of three monkeys beating up
a man in China who was abusing them to make them perform has again
provided an opportunity to look at how we treat animals.

The monkeys were forced to ride mini-bicycles and were allegedly being hit
with a stick. Having had enough of this cruelty, they decided to take
matters into their own hands. According to the Times, "One twisted his
ears and another pulled out his hair in handfuls and bit his neck. Then
when the trainer dropped the cane, the third one picked it up and started
hitting him around the head with it until the stick broke."

Earlier in the week, two people were injured by stones thrown by a
chimpanzee at Kolkata Zoo in India, reportedly because visitors were
teasing the animals and throwing things at them.

It is likely that the animals in China had been treated badly for some
time before they took this action; their very captivity and use for
"entertainment" is cruelty in itself. It is hoped that the police
will now
investigate allegations of animal cruelty and confiscate the monkeys.

There have been plenty of media stories in the past about animals being
abused to make them perform in China, such as at the infamous Animal
Olympics – but, of course, this doesn't only happen in China. In many
countries, including the UK, animals are cruelly treated to make them
perform in circuses. We may not have any bike-riding monkeys in UK
circuses but there are still performing lions and tigers, dogs riding on
the backs of horses, an elderly arthritic elephants and other animals.
Despite the UK being heralded as a "nation of animal lovers", this
cruelty
still continues while around us other countries, including Austria, Israel
and Croatia have banned it.

It is no surprise when animals decide to hit back against the cruelty
inflicted on them by humans. In fact, it is a bigger surprise that it does
not happen more often. Three years ago, a worker in an Irish circus was
almost killed after being gored by an elephant he allegedly provoked to
perform, and four people at another circus in the country were injured by
a monkey on separate occasions that year. Databases kept by the Captive
Animals' Protection Society reveal a regular catalogue of injuries and
deaths to both animal keepers and visitors in circuses and zoos around the
world.

We need to recognise that animals are not here for our amusement, to be
made to perform in the markets of China or the Big Tops of UK circuses, or
caged for us to gawp at in zoos. All animals – human and non-human – share
many things in common, emotions being one. In his book The Emotional Lives
of Animals, Prof Marc Bekoff writes: "Lacking a shared language, emotions
are perhaps our most effective means of cross-species communication."

For those three monkeys in China, it is pretty clear exactly what they
were trying to communicate. The test now is whether we recognise that
other animals captive in circuses and zoos also have something to tell us.

Animal rights group wants sheep off street

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1205/1228337449490.html
 
Friday, December 5, 2008
 
 

SEÁN Mac CONNELL, Agriculture Correspondent
 
THE DUBLIN Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has called for the removal of 22 sheep from pens outside the Department of Agriculture where a protest by sheep farmers has been continuing for 10 days.
 
It said it had sent an inspector to the site and found the sheep were being fed and watered but should not be placed in an urban environment like Kildare Street.
 
"We do not have the legal power to have them removed but if we had, we would do it immediately," said Jimmy Cahill, general manager of DSPCA. He said the society had received "many, many calls" from the public asking what it was doing about the sheep.
 
Yesterday the Irish Farmers' Association issued a report prepared by Dr Kevin Dodd, the vet it retained to supervise the animals during the protest over a demand for a support payment to sheep farmers.
 
Dr Dodd said the sheep were in excellent health and had "an air of indifference in the passing people and, in my opinion, are in a good balance with their present arrangements.
 
"These sheep have been present in the pens for some days now and have clearly become habituated to their present environment and show no observable signs of stress or of interest in passing traffic or people.
 
"During the time I observed, some ruminated, some nibbled hay, some rested lying down in the normal way, some sipped water and some stood about. At no time did they 'bunch' together or huddle together or show any signs that they were uneasy with the set-up," said the report.
 
Henry Burns, chairman of the IFA's sheep committee, who accompanied the sheep to the site, said the only endangered species outside Agriculture House were sheep farmers.
 
The sheep farmers, who have the animals in two pens on each side the front door of Agriculture House, say they will remain there with their animals until they get a commitment of financial aid for the sector from Minister for Agriculture Brendan Smith.

Info and video at http://www.buav.org/e_projecty.php

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4AM0TC20081123

Animal rights group slams Cambodia monkey trade

Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:32am EST

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - An animal rights group says Cambodia is flouting
international conventions by allowing the cruel capture of monkeys for
research in the United States and China.

A report to be released on Monday by the British Union for the Abolition
of Vivisection (BUAV) says thousands of long-tailed macaque monkeys are
taken from the wild each year and kept in cruel conditions before being
exported.

Thousands more are raised on monkey farms in conditions so far removed
from nature that they are traumatized for life, it says.

While the long-tailed macaque is not endangered, the group says the
unregulated trade is already having an effect on population numbers and
leading to a degrading of Cambodia's jungles.

"People around the world will be shocked by the findings of the BUAV
investigation and to learn of the suffering inflicted on Cambodia's
monkeys," said Michelle Thew, chief executive of the organization.

"At a time when there is growing international concern over the plight
of primates, we urge the Cambodian government to protect its indigenous
macaque population."

Apart from humans, the macaque is the world's most widespread primate
and includes 22 species ranging from Africa to Japan.

They are highly intelligent and adapt well to living in urban areas
where they frequently earn a love-hate relationship with locals on
account of their mischievous ways.

The report says nearly 10,000 monkeys were exported from Cambodia last
year -- mostly to laboratories and primate dealers in the U.S. and China.

International conventions discourage the use of captured wild animals
for research, preferring second-generation breeding stock instead, but
BUAV says this is widely ignored in Cambodia.

The report said as many as eight out of 10 macaques trapped in the wild
died before reaching the laboratory as a result of poor treatment,
handling or trauma.

The BUAV has called on the Cambodian government to better regulate the
industry and to ban the capture of wild animals.

It also urges the U.S. and European Union to prohibit imports of
captured wild animals and to press for better conditions at monkey
breeding centers.

£70,000 rabbit farm damage charge

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/70-000-rabbit-farm-damage-charge/article-467246-detail/article.html
Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 07:30

A man has appeared in court accused of causing more than £70,000  damage at a Lincolnshire rabbit farm which was targeted by animal rights protesters.
Lewis Pogson, of Bush Road, East Peckham, Kent, faces charges of blackmail, burglary and criminal damage at Highgate Farm, Normanby-by-Spital, in January this year.
The 22-year-old also faces a further charge of interfering with a contractual relationship so as to harm an animal research establishment and four conspiracy charges.
A total of 129 rabbits were stolen and a large amount of damage was caused during a raid at the farm overnight on January 6 and 7.
The damage included vehicles being smashed up and Animal Liberation Front graffiti daubed on walls.
Highgate Farm has been targeted by animal rights groups because it supplies rabbits used in testing by the research company Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Pogson did not enter a plea and was remanded in custody until January 9 after an application for bail was refused.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082732/Police-planned-dirty-war-animal-rights-activist-accused-terror-campaign-court-told.html

Police planned 'dirty war' against animal rights activist accused of terror campaign, court told
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:00 PM on 03rd November 2008

Police investigating a high-profile animal rights activist accidentally recorded themselves planning to wage a 'dirty war' against him, a jury heard today.
The officers were heard allegedly scheming to bring down Mel Broughton, who is on trial over a suspected firebombing campaign against a controversial animal testing research laboratory.
He said he was not knowingly concerned in the planning or execution of the plot against the multi-million pound facility at Oxford University.
Today his defence barrister, David Bentley, revealed the recording of officers discussing Broughton in early 2007.
He said:''We have been provided with a recording by police officers, unaware they were recording.
'Included in that were a couple of officers who were talking about you (Broughton) in a disparaging fashion, who were discussing candidly ways to, as it were, 'get you' in some way or another.

'One was recorded as saying that he would wage a "dirty war".'
Broughton said the recording had caused him great concern, as the tone went far beyond any possible harassment he might have expected.
He told the court that whenever he went to Oxford, his every move was recorded by police officers, from joining a protest to sitting in a coffee shop.
Taking to the witness box during his trial, the veteran of numerous campaigns and demonstrations admitted he had previously been part of a firebomb plot.

Despite this he said he had moved on and that he was now too old, too high profile and no longer willing to take part in direct action.

Broughton faces charges of conspiracy to commit arson, possession of an article to damage property and keeping explosive substances.

The case related to failed firebomb attacks on the laboratory in South Parks Road, Oxford, in which the prosecution said the 48-year-old defendant was directly involved.

Forensic experts said Broughton's DNA was found on a bottle top and a match found at the scene.

Prosecutor John Price also told the jury of seven men and five women that when police raided the defendant's home, they found incriminating evidence.

This included sparklers - which can be used as fuses on improvised explosive devices - hidden in an old water tank in the shared bathroom.

Today, the defendant spoke frankly of his past as an animal rights activist and the campaign group - SPEAK - which he founded and ran.
He also admitted being stopped with fellow campaigners in a car in the late 1990s, when police found firebombs.
Mr Bentley said: 'In the year 2000 you pleaded guilty to conspiring with another to cause an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life and cause injury to property. As a result you were sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

'I was,' Broughton replied, explaining that the conspirators had been on their way to destroy livestock transporter lorries to prevent the shipment of live animals to and from the continent.
He admitted his involvement and said in his subsequent high-profile media role, promoting animal rights campaigning, he never tried to hide his criminal past, nor did he feel he could criticise anyone else involved in direct action.

'It would be very hypocritical of me, having done that in the past, to condemn other people for having those feelings," he said.

Yet he stressed his direct action finished years ago and he was not connected with the later plot.

He told the jury: 'I have not knowingly been involved with anything to do with these devices.

'It (direct action) is something I am no longer willing to do.'
'Philosophically I have always understood why people take direct action for animals but I'm now so outspoken and I'm getting older and I am no longer able or willing to do that anymore.' 

Broughton said he would regularly have visits from fellow campaigners to his house in Semilong Road, Northampton, where smokers would often leave behind or pick up boxes of matches.

'If the jury was satisfied that it was your DNA (on the match), could you assist in how it could have come about," asked Mr Bentley.

'The only way I could think is if someone came and took those matches," Broughton replied.

He added: "Some people (in SPEAK) are 100 per cent supportive of direct action and others are 100 per cent against and you have got every shade of opinion in between. You never know.' 

Mr Bentley asked: 'Would you ever know if anybody visiting your premises was involved with direct action?'  

The defendant replied: 'No. I would never ask.' 

He explained the hidden sparklers by saying he had bought them as an eye-catching addition for a night-time vigil outside the controversial lab, saying that intensive police surveillance and his criminal record had made him paranoid and caused him to conceal them.
The trial, at Oxford Crown Court, was adjourned until tomorrow.

Police halt elephants' illegal parade

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/mamba-mia-police-halt-elephants-illegal-parade-14010092.html

By Lesley-Anne Henry
Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Mamba Mia! Police halt elephants' illegal parade

Two circus elephants may have to 'pack their trunks' after being
reported to
the Parades Commission.

Mamba and Mia, from the Sydney Circus, found themselves in trouble with the
law after the PSNI branded their stroll through Bangor town centre an
illegal parade.

Last Friday, the Indian elephants were led through the Co Down seaside
resort as part of their daily exercise when police intervened and ordered
them back into their trailer.

Circus director Alexander Scholl said he had never heard of the Parades
Commission and was unaware of the formalities that had to be completed
before a walk through a town.

Indeed the elephant owner described how he had previously walked his animals
along the Shankill Road, through Lanark Way and into Belfast city centre -
ironically one of Belfast's most contentious routes.

"I had never heard of the Parades Commission. Two weeks ago I was in
Belfast
and walked with the elephants from the Shankill along Lanark Way right into
Belfast and nobody said a word to me - not even the police. They said
'hello'
and laughed. Only in Bangor did they say it was a problem.

"The police, with blue flashing lights, pulled us over and told us to put
the elephants back in the cage.

"We were only giving the elephants a little bit of exercise. We did not
know
we had to ask for permission.

"The policeman was very nice, he just explained that we had to ask for
permission to walk through Bangor."

The German circus director insisted that Mia and Mamba, who were born in the
circus, were not a danger to the public.

A PSNI spokeswoman said: "Police attended and spoke with the individuals
concerned. The parade was halted and a report is being compiled for the
Parades Commission."

Meanwhile a Parades Commission spokesman said any prosecutions would be a
matter for the PSNI.

"The PSNI did report the parade to us. It was an illegal parade because
they
had not notified us; however any matters to do with prosecution are the
concern of the PSNI."

Four activists remanded in UK

from: www.vpsg.org:

"Four activists were arrested yesterday (15.10) and have been remanded
on animal rights-related offences. Please write to Luke Steel, Dean

Cain, Victoria Waterhouse-Taylor and Thomas Clarke. It's Luke's birthday
today, so please send him a belated card."

Apparently the activists are very young (17, 18, 19, 24) and were not
expecting this. They are accused of criminal damage, conspriracy to
commit burglary and they are also using the SOCPA legislation (Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act, under which Sean Sean Kirtley was jailed
for four and a half years for "organising demos", more:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/AgainstALF/KirtleySentenced.htm).

They need lots of support! Even short messages of support will be very

appreciated. There addresses are:
 
Dean Cain
HMP Lincoln, Greetwell Road, LN2 4BD.
 
Luke Steele
HMP Lincoln, Greetwell Road, LN2 4BD.
 
Thomas Clarke
HMP Wetherby YOI, York Road, LS22.
 
Victoria Waterhouse-Taylor
HMP Peterborough, Saville Road, Westwood, Peterborough, PE3 7PD

Hi,
 
Great news!!! Yesterday, within minutes of arriving outside Wild Child (Crowe Street - Temple Bar) to protest, the manager came out and invited me in to ''search'' the shop, as he claimed there was no fur there.
 
I went in, and I asked him whether he just didn't have any in at the moment, or had he decided to adopt a fur free policy.
 
He informed me that his boss (the owner of the shop) did infact want to go fur free, and would agree to signing a fur-free statement! So I will be meeting with them again, in the shop, on Tuesday with the statement. Success!
 
 
Many thanks to everyone involved,
 
Laura Broxson
 
086 8729 444
 
CAFT Ireland / N.A.R.A.
www.naracampaigns.org

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1007/1223323541023.html

TCD defends use of vivisection

by Mary Minihan

TRINITY COLLEGE Dublin has denied that using live animals for medical and scientific research is a "cheaper" option.

The university was responding to complaints by animal rights activists about vivisection being carried-out in the biology department.

"The use of animals for medical and scientific research involves considerable expense," a TCD spokeswoman said.

She said non-animal alternatives did not require the same level of background support, "and as such are considerably cheaper and researchers will choose these if they possibly can".

The author John Banville wrote to The Irish Times about the issue last week, urging the university to stop vivisection after the National Animal Rights Association (Nara) drew his attention to the practice.

The Nara claimed a TCD staff member "basically admitted to us that the college only use animals because its cheaper".

Last night Banville pointed out that Charles Darwin had made a significant memo to himself in the margin of a notebook while preparing his masterpiece, On the Origin of Species : "Never say higher or lower".

Meanwhile, a TCD spokeswoman said the use of animals was controlled by a law which required that all such work was carried-out in Department of Health-registered premises complying with the standards laid down by a Council of Europe convention.

"In short, this requires that animals are kept in purpose-built climate-controlled buildings with space allocated to them as defined in statute.

"The maintenance of these units is done by qualified animal care technicians whose sole function is to look after the welfare of the animals. This is overseen by a veterinary director.

"The process of applying for licences requires ethical approval and compliance with policies laid down by both the college and law. All of this costs money and this support is paid for by the researchers.

Non animal alternatives do not require this level of background support and as such are considerably cheaper and researchers will choose these if they possibly can."

Meanwhile, Nara spokeswoman Laura Broxson said representatives of the association would be distributing anti-vivisection leaflets outside the gates of Trinity today.

"We are not going to stop until we get vivisection banned in this country. We are going to keep up the pressure. It's not about making things more humane, it's about abolishing it completely," she said.

© 2008 The Irish Times

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2008/oct/05/banville-blasts-trinitys-barbaric-experiments/
 
Banville blasts Trinity's 'barbaric' experiments
 
October 5, 2008
 
John Downes News Investigations Correspondent
Author John Banville and animal rights activists slam Trinity College for choosing 'cheaper option' of using live animals for research
 
One of the state's leading universities, Trinity College Dublin, has defended its use of live animals for medical research, amid strong criticism of the practice by one of Ireland's most celebrated authors and claims by animal rights activists that animals are used in the college because it is the "cheaper option."

In response to a series of questions from the Sunday Tribune, the college confirmed it uses animals for medical research, but declined to provide a full list of which types of animals it conducts tests on.

However, it revealed mice and rats represent 95% of all animals used and said the "justification of the use of animals in medical research is continuously under review by the college."

A spokeswoman for TCD said, "All studies are conducted on the basis of well-defined scientific objectives, giving due consideration to the welfare of the animals, minimising the number of animals used and where possible using animal tissue rather than live animals.

"Scientists in TCD are required to demonstrate that there are no alternatives available before the ethical review process will permit the procedures," she said.

"The animals in question are cared for in a centralised unit under the supervision of a veterinary surgeon assisted by trained technical staff. Any research carried out on the animals requires the prior licensing of the person and the project by the minister of health.

"College staff continuously monitor experiments in progress and are authorised to terminate any experiment in which any animal is judged to be in distress."

However, author John Banville, who wrote a letter to The Irish Times last week in which he called on the university to cease inflicting "unendurable agony upon conscious animals," said the TCD response "doesn't cut any ice with me."

"The notion of doing it is barbaric," he said. "Any obfuscation that they put up, for example talking about limits and controls, is simply that. The simple fact is they do vivisection and they should not. I'm no expert but I feel very strongly about this."

Laura Broxson, spokeswoman for the National Animal Rights Association, which is strongly opposed to all forms of animal vivisection, said TCD students have contacted her organisation to express their concerns about the practices at the college.

She said a senior member of TCD staff had also "basically admitted to us that the college only use animals because it is cheaper." She claimed animal testing "doesn't work" and said the NARA believes that even if it did, "living, breathing, sentient animals" should not be used for these purposes. She also claimed NARA has reports of cats, dogs and even horses being used at TCD. TCD could use other methods, such as those involving human material, cell cultures and computer modelling, if it chose to, she said.

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/news/story/?trs=cwidgbqlql
 
Fur flies over That Touch of Mink!

By: Michael Tracey
2nd October 2008

45,000 murdered in Stradbally death camps – that was the grisly claim trumpeted last Saturday as the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) descended on the town to campaign against a local mink farm. Over a dozen members of the animal rights group campaigned loudly for over 90 minutes outside the Vasa Ltd Mink Farm.

CAFT Spokesperson Laura Broxson said the protest had been a successful one and labelled the farm a "death camp". "They murder over 45,000 mink on this death camp every year, so we weren't about to go easy on them. We spent over an hour and a half shouting on megaphones leaving them in no doubt why we were there. Employees of the farm kept coming down to briefly look at us and even people driving by stopped to watch.

It was a very successful day," she said. The sight of protestors picketing around Laois could become a more common sight as the group aims to have similar "awareness days" in the future.

Prior to last Saturday's 'death camp vigil', the animal rights group had set up a stall in Portlaoise, which according to Ms Broxson gathered a lot of support. CAFT Leaflets were also handed out in local shops.
 
Ms Broxson vowed to keep the pressure on and described the fur trade as "disgusting".

"Fur farming is Ireland's secret shame. If more people knew about them, the quicker they would be closed. But as long as people are being kept unaware, the Department of Agriculture is happy to keep these death camps in business by licensing them. We cannot stress enough how important it is that people voice their objections to this disgusting industry, whether it's joining our campaigns or writing to the minister of agriculture.

Something needs to be done now," she said This is not the first time Vasa Ltd has drawn the wrath of animal rights groups. In March, the Animal Liberation Front released 500 mink from their cages, which were all eventually recovered.

Where's the woodland equivalent of Oscar Schindler when you need him?

Dear all those concerned
 
Following all the responses we have had, you may like to see our new web page and now a petition
http://www.plamilfoods.co.uk/petition.htm
with thanks
 
Plamil Foods Ltd. Folkestone, Kent. CT19 6PQ. UK Tel +44 (0)1303 850588 www.plamilfoods.co.uk

Hi,
 
I recently visited two shops, that I was told were selling real fur (thanks to our members for the tip-offs!).
 
The first was 'Costume', on Castle Market (across the street from Rohu Furs). We had given this shop an anti-fur information pack last year, but to no avail obviously! I spoke with the new manager (they appear to have a totally new set of staff), who claimed that the only fur for sale was rabbit fur, a ''by-product'' of the meat industry.
 
I explained how this was not the case, that any rabbit fur used on clothes would be from rabbits specifically bred for their fur, and not their 'meat'. She was adamant however, that the fur items they had were by-products. This, I said, was beside the point really, as it was still real fur. So we talked in length about the issue, and others (including the leather industry), and by the end of the conversation she said that, although she wouldn't get rid of the few offending items she had for sale, she wouldn't buy in fur again - and would probably not purchase any leather items for her store in future either.
 
So, as she seemed genuine, I will not be adding this shop to the protest-target list, but, I will not be adding it to the 'fur-free' list either - not until next season (when I can confirm that they are actually fur-free).
 
The next shop I visited was the vintage store 'Wild Child' on Crowe Street in Temple Bar. The shop only had a few fur trimmed hats and boots when I went in, so I figured it would be pretty easy to convince the manager to remove them - unfortunately, I was wrong. The manager was very blunt and rude, and told me that it was ''his business'' and he could ''sell what he wants''. When I tried to talk to him about the barbaric nature of the fur industry, he cut me off mid-sentence, claiming that he ''already knew everything'' about the fur industry, and that he had ''no ethical problem with it''. I was then asked to leave the premises.
 
I have added 'Wild Child' to our protest-target list, and will be organising the first demonstration outside the shop on Saturday 11th hopefully. I'll keep you posted anyway!
 
 
In the meantime, as the fur season is upon us once again, I urge everyone to keep an eye out in shops for real fur, and to please let us know if you come across any.
 
Thank you,
 
Laura Broxson
 
086 8729 444
 
CAFT Ireland / National Animal Rights Association