Re: RSPB or BTO?
Ian
<karinnospa...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Where is my hard earned cash likely to do most good?
Better of having a bet on when aliens will land than wasting your
money on fat cat charities who preside over the largest species and
habitat decline the world has known. The top brass get fatter but the
wildlife gets thinner.
>Opinions and or reasons would be greatly appreciated.
See http://tinyurl.com/dlr4n for the truth about throwing your money
down the drain with CONservation hooligan charites.
The fattest cat in the RSPB needs in excess of ?100'000 in wages
before your donations goes anywhere else, then there is the 7million
pound junk mail advertising......ask yourself just how much has the
RSPB, BTO etc spent from their funds on wildlife and the figure is
pitiful but they wont want to discuss that.
Ian
DOMINATRIXES GIVE OFFICIALS A WHIPPING
Animal Aid dominatrixes are targeting a second big race meet as part
of our ongoing anti-whipping campaign. Two PVC-clad activists are
inviting race officials at the Vodafone Derby Festival to offer up
their own rumps to see how they like it.
Animal Aid has published a landmark report, called A Hiding to
Nothing,
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing/hiding.htm
which employs a wealth of statistics to demonstrate that, not only is
whipping cruel, but also that horses who are whipped perform less
well.
The Jockey Club's response has been to acknowledge that 'more races
are lost rather than won through use of the whip'. Click here to find
out more about our horse racing campaign.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing/index.htm
HEARTBEAT VIDEO
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing/video.htm
Watch our 90 second made-for-the-web movie on horse racing.
GO CRUELTY-FREE!
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/shop/specials.htm
Boxes of truffles from just ?1 while stocks last in the online shop.
For more news from Animal Aid - including our new vivisection booklet
and the latest on the NIRAH project - see latest news.
www.animalaid.org.uk | site map | about us |
Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and
promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by
joining, making a donation, or using our online shop. Contact Animal
Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW, UK,
tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533, email
in...@animalaid.org.uk
Miss Prudence Primm
"Ian" <cv...@000.com> wrote in message news:42a499d3$0$41892$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> DOMINATRIXES GIVE OFFICIALS A WHIPPING
> Boxes of truffles from just ?1 while stocks last in the online shop.
Aren't pigs used to find truffles? Sounds a bit cruel to me, I mean, there's this loyal pig, he finds something nice to eat and then some heartless bastard takes it off him and chucks him a bucket of swill instead.
> Animal Aid campaigns peacefully
apart from the dominatrixes that is.
Most of their reports consist of lies, half-truths, exaggerations, bias and any other old thing that makes them look good and those they oppose look bad - but of course everyone knows this.
I'm just off now for a bacon sandwich - it's a far better use of a pig than truffle hunting. I bet those dominatrixes like to get a bit of pork inside them too.
Ian
I doubt you have porked anyone for some time micheal?
Mark
RSPB were guilty of such atrocious behaviour.
==================================================
SCAPEGOATING THE ALIENS
A special report by Animal Aid director Andrew Tyler.
Animal Aid has long been concerned about the growing tendency among
what might be called 'top table conservationists' to scapegoat various
animal species for the environmental and commercial vices of human
beings.
A whole range of indigenous species are under threat as a result of
the burdens placed upon them by human population growth and by modern
manufacturing and waste disposal regimes. Yet certain 'experts' insist
on displacing the responsibility and pretending that ecological
harmony can be restored through the barrel of a gun or through the use
of body-crushing traps, snares and poisons.
WILDLIFE UNDER PRESSURE
The main sources of pressure upon native fauna and flora can be
summarised as follows:
Modern Farming Systems - involving loss of hedgerow, winter sowing,
prolific use of chemicals, the destruction of 'non-productive' plant
life, and the generation of vast quantities of methane, slurry and
silage. Birds, insects, fish and small mammals all suffer as a
consequence, either in terms of reduced numbers or increased
vulnerability to disease.
Industrial Pollution - Some chemical, pharmaceutical and other
large-scale producers are periodically fined nominal sums but they
continue with their discharges into the air, land and waterways. No
one's bothering to count how many animals have been killed outright,
or reduced in number through loss of viable habitat, but there are
sufficient pointers to indicate that this is happening on a
significant scale. There is also evidence of serious disruption to the
reproductive systems of several species, resulting in loss of
fertility and physical malformation in offspring.
Population Growth/Road Building/Developments on Green Field Sites and
Flood Plains - Animals of every description - plant life too - are
being displaced, or simply crushed under tarmac, bulldozers, cars and
lorries. The road carnage is all too visible to those of us who live
in the country and routinely see the bodies - whether maimed or
already lifeless - of foxes, hedgehogs, badgers, deer, squirrels,
rabbits and a variety of bird species.
The Pheasant Shooting Industry - In September 2000, Animal Aid
published a report, The Killing Fields, exposing the environmental
devastation caused by the pheasant shooting industry. The principal
author was a former head of investigations for the RSPB. Backed by
undercover film, the report details the staggering growth in recent
decades of what is now a major agribusiness. Each year this industry:
Breeds and releases around 35 million pheasants - half of whom soon
perish from disease, exposure, malnutrition or under the wheels of
motor vehicles. Of the roughly 16 million who are shot, it has been
estimated that just 8 million are actually eaten. Many of the shot
birds are wounded and never retrieved, or - according to reports in
pro-shooting magazines - are collected and then buried in specially
dug holes. This is because no market exists for them.
Dumps thousands of tonnes of toxic lead shot on the countryside.
Kills nearly five million wild birds and mammals with snares, poison
and traps in predator control programmes. Foxes, stoats and weasels
are among the species deliberately targeted by gamekeepers, simply
because the animals are attracted to such unnaturally large
concentrations of birds. But badgers, hedgehogs, sheep, cats and dogs
are among the victims of the non-discriminating traps and poison. Even
protected birds of prey, such as owls, kestrels, red kites, peregrine
falcons and hen harriers are eliminated. The latter now face
extinction in England as a result of these 'predator control'
programmes.
REMEDIES AND ALIBIS
The inconvenient remedy to the carnage outlined above is for human
society to curb its destructive impulses - to show restraints in terms
of 'development', consumption, 'sporting' activities and irresponsible
waste disposal. The convenient option - the one that has been embraced
- is to make nominal moves in these directions and shift the blame.
Hence the growing appetite for the blood of 'aliens'.
Before tackling some specifics relating to individual target species,
it is worth spelling out a fundamental truth.
RESHAPING THE ENVIRONMENT
Given that we human beings have comprehensively reshaped the natural
environment to suit our own ends, it is an absurdity to aspire to
environmental and/or genetic purity with regard to local fauna and
flora.
By reshaping of the environment, we refer not simply to the endless
'development' of woodlands, wetlands, riverbanks, grassland, wild
flower meadows, lakes, hills and even mountains. There is also the
impact of international trade and transportation - activities that
include the translocation every year, from continent to continent, of
billions of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians. They are
translocated either to be farmed for meat, milk and eggs; put on
display as exotic exhibits, or sold as pets. The impact that these
animals - and the systems that facilitate their use - have on local
eco-systems is often significant and sometimes significantly
disruptive. But where there is a perceived commercial advantage, such
trade is rarely resisted. And, of course, the suffering the animals
themselves endure is of virtually no concern to the sophisticates who
establish and oversee the regulatory framework.
While total solutions are not possible, if society is serious about
militating the damage outlined above, then governments and
conservation agencies must focus on curbing these animal trading
activities, and not simply by way of rhetoric and gesture - which is
what is on offer in the current proposals.
ANIMALS ON THE RUN
Now to the question of the 'alien' species already at large, e.g. the
ruddy duck, Canada goose, muntjac deer, grey squirrel, North American
mink, red swamp crayfish, New Zealand flatworm?
The 'debate' as to their fate has been dominated so far by the top
table conservationists referred to above. And their contribution, in
Animal Aid's view, has been characterised by self-serving hyperbole,
and a disregard for the welfare of individual animals. We know from
early trial culls of ruddy ducks that a significant proportion of
birds were not killed cleanly: some were wounded and never retrieved,
one took two hours to die and another was shot 13 times and was still
alive when pulled from the water. Killing the detested grey squirrel
involves smashing their dreys and stamping on the young.
The good, the bad and the anomaly
The conservation hooligans responsible for these acts take it upon
themselves to identify morally good and morally bad species; species
which are good for local ecosystems and those which are bad. They
presume to know the ideal population levels for each of the species
concerned.
A good species is a native species, even though, in the case of native
favourites such as the badger and red squirrel, their populations were
supplemented in Victorian times by foreign imports because of human
persecution on home ground - i.e. they are now genetically 'tainted'.
Thoroughly foreign imports are presumed bad, except where sentiment
gets the better of the supposedly fact-driven experts. The brown hare
and little owl are thoroughly foreign but are nonetheless welcome. And
so is the little egret (native of the Mediterranean and Middle East)
who has recently been colonising parts of Dorset. A spokesman for the
RSPB, which led calls for the 'cull' against the foreign ruddy duck;
said of the egret interlopers: 'This is a truly historic event. We
hope that through the protection and management of our estuaries and
wetlands, egrets will be encouraged to establish further breeding
colonies across southern England.'
No matter the consequences for any native bird the egret might
displace?
Myth of the golden age
The RSPB statement is indicative, pointing to a muddled and
hypocritical mindset. It indicates that 'the experts' who are
responsible for shaping government policy have neither the vision, the
intellectual consistency nor the competence to accomplish their
declared objective of restoring a supposed golden age of ecological
harmony.
There never was such an age. There is no clear divide between native
and alien species. When is the cut-off point? There is nothing so
English as the oak tree, yet many we see today are descendants brought
to this country from France, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Nor is
there a clear understanding of the impact newly arrived species have
on local ecosystems into which they are cast - cast, for instance, by
bored pet owners or by bankrupt mink farmers.
A recent New Scientist article pointed to the folly of trying to
impose genetic purity upon a constantly shifting environment; an
environment that looks set to undergo accelerated change as a result
of global warming. In this new warmed-up, storm and drought-stricken
Britain, are we going to exterminate members of every species who
stray from their allotted territory?
"Populations can only be as pure as the habitat in which they evolve,'
the New Scientist article noted. 'Red deer in Britain, for example,
are threatened by the spread of Japanese sika deer genes into their
populations, which seem to do better in Britain's modern fragmented
and modified landscapes. So foreign genes influencing behaviour and
morphology may actually confer an advantage to native species living
in the habitats they now find themselves in."
(NS, Aug. 20, 1997, p.45. Jon Bridle, of the Department of Biology,
University of Leeds)
Darwinian adaptation
This gene mixing can be seen as a form of Darwinian adaptation - a
survival mechanism, rather than a sin against nature that must be
punished by extermination of the offending party. The mating of ruddy
and white headed ducks is another example of one species mating with a
close genetic kin and conferring an advantage. The white headed duck,
after all, clearly requires an input of robust genes (courtesy the
ruddy) to help it survive the attentions of its deadliest enemy -
humans beings. It is human beings who have hunted the white headed
duck and destroyed its habitat in the important winter breeding
grounds of Turkey and east Asia. Now the conservation hooligans offer
salvation by way of slaughtering the white headed's genetic kin and
latter-day breeding partner.
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON SOME OF THE ALIEN SPECIES UNDER FIRE
Glis (fat dormouse)
These are secretive nocturnal animals with a hibernation period of
nearly seven months and with the appearance of a small squirrel. The
date of their introduction to Britain is unknown but could have been
by the Romans 2000 years ago as a food source. A few scattered
colonies remain. Conservation zealots are currently making efforts to
eradicate them.
Sika deer
These were introduced from Asia at the turn of the century and, as
indicated above, there are plans to eradicate them in order to
preserve the genetic purity of the red deer. The absurdity is
compounded by the fact that other 'conservationists' want to curb red
deer numbers to protect recently planted commercial forests. It has
been suggested that red deer could be reintroduced from captivity once
the forests have grown - and that they would be specially bred with
'improved' antlers to satisfy trophy shooters.
Mink
In the summer of 1998 there were deliberate releases from mink farms
in Hampshire and Staffordshire - assumed to be by animal rights
campaigners. These releases unleashed a frenzied wave of anti-mink
sentiment that was at times breath-taking.
Animal Aid was dismayed but not surprised. We recognise that our
culture demonises those it exploits- whether vulnerable groups of
humans or animals. If the victim is defined as having no worth, no
true feelings and, where mink are concerned, an insatiable, mindless
bloodlust, then the exploitation is somehow legitimised.
Instead of concentrating on the minks' suffering within their cages -
their self-mutilation and desperate isolation - the victims became the
villains, together with the 'extremists' who set them free.
Far from the wild rampages of newspaper fantasy, many of the released
mink hung meekly about their cages, waiting to be fed - their
institutionalised existence having rendered them helpless in the wild.
Many others got run over, or wounded but not cleanly killed by local
idiots with air rifles. Hundreds were blasted by individuals whose
chief concern was to protect their own animal exploiting interests,
not least pheasant farmers, part of whose trade, as previously noted,
involves killing large numbers of indigenous animals, such as stoats
and weasels, who would otherwise prey upon 'their' pheasants .
Mink live a solitary life in the British countryside, marking out
territory a mile apart from each other. Argument has gone back and
forth in scientific journals about their effect upon other species. A
balanced view seems to be that they have caused no demonstrable impact
on other species, except to the water vole in certain areas where the
river is in an unhealthy state due to pollution, the clearance of
vegetation and where banks have been revetted. There has also been
high predation of ground nesting birds on some Scottish islands, as a
result of a defunct mink farmer releasing his captives.
In 1992 the BBC screened a programme in its Wildlife on One slot
called Invasion of the Killer Mink. Its producer told the Radio Times:
'On a healthy, well-stocked waterway, wildlife can co-exist with it.
There is a danger that mink becomes the scapegoat for man's own
damaging actions in the river habitat.'
The producer would rather we celebrate than demonise the mink. 'It's a
superb creature,' he noted, 'supremely agile and adaptable. It can get
by almost anywhere.'
Minks' declining numbers
Until recently there were approximately 110,000 breeding mink living
in the wild in the UK - a figure that had changed little for the last
50 years, ever since they were released by financially pressed
farmers. Recent research, however, (BBC Wildlife magazine, July 2000)
indicates an 'astonishingly high' decline in the mink population
during the last seven years. Most experts, the report notes, point to
its larger relative, the otter, as the cause.
"There is evidence that otters kill and eat mink and that they destroy
the sites used by mink to mark their territories. Ironically, mink
were once thought to have contributed to the otter population crash in
the 1950s but scientists believe that mink were only able to colonise
Britain so quickly because of the low numbers of otters - the results
of widespread use of organochlorine pesticides in agriculture at that
time."
The survey in question pointed to a mink population decline in the
West of England of 91 per cent, while even in the Thames region, which
has seen the smallest reductions, mink have disappeared from 27 per
cent of sites.
Whether or not this newest survey is correct, note how the certainties
of the 1950s have been turned on their head; and note that it was
farmers' use of pesticides, rather than mink, that is now identified
as the cause of the otter's problems. In fact, otters, at this time,
were also being mercilessly hunted for sport and persecuted by anglers
because they were perceived to be interfering with their hobby.
Red Squirrel
The cherished red squirrel was also, for many decades, persecuted by
foresters and game keepers. They used to be known as tree rats and
there was a price on their head. Just one so-called 'squirrel club' in
the highlands killed 85,000 reds in the first 30 years of the last
century.
As well as being hunted, the red was a victim of climate changes,
disease, woodland destruction and the cessation of hazel coppicing
since the Second World War. They were already in decline before the
grey was introduced 100 years ago as an ornamental species.
The greys have flourished because they have been better able to adapt
than the red. They are more sturdy, opportunistic and faster at
breeding.
So what is behind the grey squirrel pogrom? What is behind the lie
that the grey is responsible for the demise of the red and for
damaging Britain's forests? The answer, it seems, is an alliance of
powerful vested interests that includes the Country Landowners
Association, the Timber Growers Association and The Forestry
Commission.
Grey squirrels, the FC noted when announcing a new grey squirrel
'cull' in the early '90s, do better in broadleaved forests than in
conifers. Therefore, we in this country need to plant more conifers
and fewer broadleaf species, such as the much admired oak, beech and
sweet chestnut.
It so happens that the quick-growing soft-wooded conifers form the
basis of the commercial logging industry in this country. Many people
despise the gruesome mess caused by the regimented planting and
felling of the spindly commercial conifers. But now we know that, for
our own good, we need much more of the same. How else are we to
dispose of that most implacable and dangerous enemy: the grey
squirrel.
Ruddy Ducks
Bird-watchers and experts within the field have made some enlightening
comments in the media recently pointing to the futility and false
scientific premise of the ruddy duck extermination programme.
Here, for instance, are extracts from two statements by the
conservationists who first alerted the Spanish authorities to the
decline of the white-headed duck in Spain:
"For the last 28 years, I have studied birds and conservation in Spain
and I was the first to respond with action in the field to protect
White-Headed Ducks... Is the Ruddy guilty - or likely to become guilty
- of hybridisation on a scale which will endanger the population of
White-headed? I do not know of evidence which can lead to such a
guilty verdict. I know of only one case of hybridisation when a female
Ruddy was misidentified by Spanish authorities and left to the mercy
of a group of drake White Headeds after her male Ruddy companion had
been shot. What evidence is there that the few Ruddies seen are from
the feral UK population? Neighbouring France, with many Ruddy Ducks in
waterfowl collections, is a much more likely source."
Tom Gullick, Castilla-la-Mancha, in Bird Watching, April 1999
"With Tom Gullick, a well-known ornithologist living in Spain, I
carried out a survey of the lakes in southern Spain in the Seventies.
We alerted the Spanish authorities to the precarious position of their
white-headed ducks, then numbering 20 to 30 birds... Some experts,
including the late Ramon Coronado, conservador of the National Park of
Donana, and Mike Lubbock, a world respected aviculturist, believe that
the Spanish race of the white-headed duck is only a sub-species. They
are not only a darker bird in plumage but are often to be found in
Spain with black heads, something we never see in the birds we have in
captivity here. It may well be worth investigating in these days of
DNA whether the Spanish ducks are an entirely pure breed. They may be
the result of earlier hybridisation with the African Maccoa duck,
another species of Stifftail."
W.M. Makins, Director, Pensthorpe Waterfowl Trust, in The Times Feb 6,
1999
The Ruddy Duck cull is, inevitably, tied up with international
politics and the British government's keenness to be seen to be 'doing
something' for the environment. To quote British Birds, (92:222-224),
'when faced with a long list of biodiversity actions, many of which
are difficult, intangible, expensive and not necessarily in the
short-term interests of the economy, politicians and environmental
agencies will always tend to jump on easy targets'.
During the Department of the Environment-funded trials in 1993 and1994
shooting with shotguns and rifles, trapping and egg destruction were
all tried. The detailed report ultimately recommended shooting the
ducks on the basis of cost rather than effectiveness. It judged that
shooting was less effective than other methods and certainly inhumane.
It also noted that shooting caused more disturbance to other birds
than did visiting nests to trap ducks or oil eggs (dipping them in
paraffin), this latter method being 100% effective.
Animal Aid believes there is no moral or scientific case for
'controlling' ruddy ducks. We might reasonably have expected, however,
that the 'bird protection' groups advising government in the initial
trial period, would have insisted on the most humane method of control
- namely oiling eggs. This they failed to do.
And so the shooting goes on. Given that ruddy ducks are found in mixed
flocks of wildfowl, it is impossible to imagine how they could be shot
without also killing or injuring other species.
One final twist to this bitterly ironic saga: Some experts maintain
that since North American ruddy ducks were introduced to the UK in the
1950s, they have developed differences in DNA from their ancestors. If
this is the case, it makes them one of Europe's rarest ducks and
therefore, a conservation priority!
Canada Geese
These birds are accused of defecating on paths, harassing other birds,
pinching the behinds of children and spoiling the public amenities by
trampling and nibbling grass. They also cause an, as-yet unspecified,
disease problem (see below*).
In rural areas, where the complaint is that the Canada geese eat
pasture grass and clip the tops off cereal crops, farmers are busy
shooting them, notwithstanding their supposedly protected status.
(Where there's a will there's a legal loophole). Some experts say the
farmers' complaints of large-scale damage to crops - a significant
portion of which end up being dumped as surplus - are exaggerated. But
it does seem that Canada geese numbers have increased in the last few
decades. Not surprising really, given their history.
They were brought over from North America in 1678 by Charles 11 so
that they could be sportingly shot. Numbers were probably stable until
about 65 years ago when large chunks of the Home Counties were dug up
for road building. The resultant gravel pits filled with water and
vegetation, providing ideal breeding grounds for the geese. Come the
1950s and sporting types rounded-up large numbers of the adult birds
and dispersed them around the country so that the pleasure of blasting
them from the sky could be more widely enjoyed.
Now we're told there is a problem of over-abundance.
(*Because various pathogens can be isolated from an animal species,
that doesn't amount to proof that the animal constitutes a health risk
to the human population. All animals (humans included) carry a host of
endogenous and exogenous viruses and other disease organisms. The
chances of another party getting sick depends on the virulence of the
pathogen in question, the rate at which it is being replicated and
shed, and the relative health of the potential recipient.)
Muntjac Deer
A native of China and Taiwan, muntjac deer were brought to Britain at
the turn of the last century and first released, in 1901, from Woburn
Abbey by the Duke of Bedford. They too have developed a reputation as
a crazed despoiler of nature because of their fondness for bluebells,
primroses, orchids, young trees and shrubs. In fact, they are
secretive and solitary creatures, who are especially vulnerable to
road traffic, dogs, arthritis and snowy weather. Many die young.
Claims that they cause serious damage to agricultural crops are
unproven.
There are believed to be about 50,000 in Britain, mostly in central
and southern regions. While their population is believed to have
increased sharply in recent years, their numbers are self-limiting -
being dependent on available habitat and food sources. Various
strategies can be used to discourage them from entering off-limits
territory. These include electrical fencing.
CONCLUSION
Look around at the consequences of human beings' voracious appetite,
destructiveness and profligate breeding and there will be some hapless
animal or other taking the blame: mink, deer, rats, pigeons, moles,
gulls, seals, badgers, hedgehogs, pike, ruddy ducks, muntjac deer,
Canada geese... All are being curbed or killed. In fact, any animal
species is suitable for scapegoating as long as a commercial or
political interest is served, or the guilt of the majority over its
own actions can be assuaged.
More particularly, this hostility towards 'alien species' is a symptom
of a destructive mindset within the Neanderthal leadership of the top
table conservation bodies. They imagine they cherish nature and yet
their list of enemy species grows and grows. They claim they like the
world full of exotic animals. But they are reluctant to allow them the
space to nest or eat. Depressingly, these bodies - being able to
direct the public debate - are also able to blacken the name of the
'undesirables' and mute what would otherwise be a justifiable public
clamour for existing or planned pogroms to abandoned.
Their argument for wanting to decimate the aliens is usually couched
in conservation terms - the animal concerned is a marauding pest that
is placing other species in mortal danger.
In reality, these animal pogroms are usually motivated by the
self-interest of the participating parties, or by an obsessive and
irrational attachment to particular species, at the expense of any
other.
Our society needs to define and bring to life a new kind of
conservation, one that is fit for the new millennium. It will be a
conservation that respects the individual animal and has a broad
rather than rigidly myopic view of nature. We need a conservation that
dispenses with scapegoating and with trying to regulate species
numbers through large-scale destruction.
Above all, human beings must be ready to concede actual territory to
non-human animals. Too often, people pay lip service to bio-diversity
and yet insist that animals be exterminated if they so much as
exercise their most basic functions of eating and defecating. If we
are not prepared to grant animals even these limited freedoms, then
the world we construct will be one in which wild animals become things
of history. It will be a world in which only the domesticated and the
incarcerated are permitted to exist. Is this the world we want?
Top ^
Mark
Animal Aid challenges aid agencies to abolish animal donor schemes
As the G8 Summit (Gleneagles, July 6-8) prepares to tackle the issue
of global poverty, national campaigning group, Animal Aid, has issued
a stark challenge to three poverty relief agencies: stop providing
living animals to farmers in poorer countries.
Many 'developing' countries rely on aid agencies to help feed their
undernourished. Several, including Christian Aid, Oxfam and Send a
Cow, now supply living animals to serve as breeding stock for meat and
milk. But farming animals is an inefficient, unsustainable and
problematic way of producing food. Apart from those who feed on
pasture where it is difficult to grow crops, farmed animals use more
food calories than they produce in the form of meat. They also compete
directly with people for other precious resources, notably water.
Poorer countries do not need aid in the form of live animals - who
require feeding, bedding, shelter and veterinary care - but
sustainable, drought-resistant crops.
Despite the problems associated with animal farming, per capita
consumption of meat has doubled over the last decade in poorer
countries and it is predicted that 80% of the worldwide increase in
meat consumption will take place in the developing world. Aid
agencies, therefore, need to diminish the role of farmed animals in
their food aid policies.
Animal Aid has written to the heads of the leading 'animal donor'
agencies asking them to abandon their counter-productive initiatives.
Says Animal Aid Campaigner Kelly Slade:
"We acknowledge the important work carried out by international aid
agencies, and the fact that, without their help, the plight of people
in famine-stricken countries would be infinitely worse. We urge these
organisations most strongly, however, to recognise that livestock
farming is incredibly inefficient - in particular when grain and water
are in short supply - and that rearing animals for meat is far from
the best way of solving the food shortage problem. To compound the
problem, some of the grain grown in developing countries is being sold
to the west for animal feed instead of being used to feed their own
people. At the time of the 1984 famine when Bob Geldof led the call to
'feed the world', Ethiopia was exporting crops to the UK to feed our
livestock. It is not just drought that is killing people, the Western
meat habit is costing people in developing countries their lives."
.........................
Notes to Editors
The argument against the donation of farmed animals to poorer
countries is compelling.
Presently, up to 50% of the world's harvest is fed to farmed animals.
The UN World Food Council has estimated that transferring ten to
fifteen per cent of cereals fed to livestock would be enough to feed
the current world population.
Up to ten times as many people can be fed per hectare of land by
growing crops directly for human consumption rather than using the
land to graze livestock.
It takes 100,000 litres of water to produce 1 kilo of beef but only
900 litres of water to produce 1 kilo of wheat.
In times of drought, animal farming carries more risk than crop
production, and animals take much longer to restore to a productive
capacity.
Worldwide, animal manure is responsible for 10% of total greenhouse
gases that cause global warming - the greatest global environmental
threat and one that will affect the occurrence of droughts in the
developing world. To produce one calorie of protein from soyabeans
takes an estimated two calories of fossil fuel, compared with beef,
which takes 54 calories of fuel to make only one calorie of protein.
As stated in Compassion for World Farming's Report: The Global
Benefits of Eating Less Meat (2004), it is imperative that the human
population decreases its dependence upon animal products, whether on
the grounds of human health, animal welfare, sustainable use of
resources or environmental protection.
For more information contact Kelly Slade on 01732 364546 ext.27 or
Andrew Tyler on 01732 364546 ext.25.
For background on the impact of meat production and the benefits of a
vegetarian diet see our vegetarianism section, and our factfiles - eat
less meat feed the world and wrecking the planet.
We have an ISDN line for broadcast-quality interviews.
Mary
>Interesting post from the Animal Aid website. I never realised the
>RSPB were guilty of such atrocious behaviour.
>
They're not the only conservation freeloaders either. Whats the point
in giving to charity if we cant trust the scum?
Mary
Crazy world huh? Go veggie.
Phil Kyle
news:a5Cze.1572$WW5...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:
IAWTP
--
Phil Kyle™
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!
"Be very aware that my willingness
to continue to criticise your sig
is infinite." -- Neil Barker
Phil Kyle
David
Wholeheartedly.
David
I agree. Throw the conmen charities in jail, thats about the best
conservation measure for them.
Phil Kyle
news:TDwBe.3120$BN5....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net:
Wholesale.
Phil Kyle
Yes and release the political prisoners, such as Maurice.
David
Phil Kyle
Wholeinone.
GryphonCat
David
Wholebutton
Rosyposey
"GryphonCat" <gryphonN...@laranica.com> wrote in message
news:db8qhp$k2$1...@usenet02.sei.cmu.edu...
whole-ear thanthou (couldn' resist)
David
Desist
Phil Kyle
news:db8qhp$k2$1...@usenet02.sei.cmu.edu:
Better call an engineer about that.
Phil Kyle
David
Rosyposey
"Phil Kyle" <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbba07$d3c$7...@m3t00.databasix.com...
Come on guys, where's your sense of humour? :-)
Rosyposey
....Ok, I'll go back to the chickens now (I'll get my coat).
> --
> Phil KyleT
Phil Kyle
Diseased
Phil Kyle
news:dbc4ng$9g3$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
It broke.
David
Phil Kyle
I'm getting a new one, just waiting for the post.