Action Against Poisoning

LETTER TO UNESCO

Letter to UNESCO :

From: ActionAgainstPoisoning
Date: Monday, 07 Mar 2005
To: UNESCO - bpiweb@unesco.org
Fax number: +33 (0)1 45 67 16 90

To the members of the UNESCO

Subject: Arguments against bullfights

Ladies and gentlemen,

Action Against Poisoning fights animal poisoning in particular and supports animal protection in general.
We have been informed by FLAC that UNESCO is approached to include bullfights in the Cultural Heritage list. As we understand such a listing protects the cultural object or tradition involved.
We are curious what bullfight-jewels are in need of UNESCO protection.
If any bullring in the world matches the Coliseum we will understand, although we wonder why that did not happen before. So we surmise it is about the tradition. This tradition involves the deliberate torture and subsequent killing of bulls either inside or outside the arena.

If a mere tradition is the measure we might as well have supported and sponsored crucifixion, witch burning and scalping. History abolished such publicly celebrated violent traditions as very bad habits.
It should be noted that festivals based on animal cruelty create a joyful atmosphere of "having fun", influencing children in their moral concepts on the value of life. Witnessing a bullfight either creates disgust and depression, or admiration for the perpetrators of animal cruelty.
The nature and sequence of acts in bullfights can be defined as sadistic.
Sadism is a certified if not contagious mental illness that we do not want to spread.

On the analogy of Indian or African tribal war dances we have no objections to the museological preservation of weapons and costumes and the theatrical display of the artful music, dancing and stabbing. But leave the bulls out of it.

So we ask you to decide if the bullfight, i.e. a bad habit forming a mental health threat is a worthy addition to the list of cultural heritage.

With kind regards,

Action Against Poisoning.com

ALTERNATIVE FOR MALE PIG CASTRATION

Although better alternatives are available, thanks to EU regulations and consumer preferences the cruel castration of male baby pigs by farmers continues.

PIGS WITH BALLS for film go to www.ciwf.nl/inactie/biggenmetballen/film/index.html

www.ciwf.org.uk

DUTCH

Onderzoekers van CIWF slaagden er in te filmen hoe een big gecastreerd wordt. Het filmpje is zonder geluid en dat is maar goed ook, want een big die gecastreerd wordt schreeuwt het uit van de pijn.
Kijk niet naar deze film als je niet tegen schokkende beelden kunt!

www.ciwf.nl/inactie/biggenmetballen/film/index.html

Elk jaar worden in Europa 100 miljoen piepjonge biggen gecastreerd. Gewoon: door de boer en zonder verdoving. De ingreep is bijzonder pijnlijk en bovendien onnodig. CIWF start daarom een actie om een einde te maken aan deze wrede praktijk.

Wanneer een volwassen, mannelijk varken geslacht wordt is er een kleine kans dat het vlees in de pan gaat stinken. De oplossing van de bio-industrie is simpel: alle mannelijke biggen worden gecastreerd, zodat de hormonen die de beregeur veroorzaken niet ontstaan en de geur achterwege blijft. De big lijdt letterlijk pijn voor een lekker lapje vlees! Bovendien is er een verhoogde kans op infecties, en groeit een gecastreerde big minder snel.

Castratie van biggen is niet nodig. In sommige landen worden biggen helemaal niet gecastreerd. Wetenschappers én boeren weten bovendien heel goed hoe het ontstaan van de beregeur in de praktijk voorkomen kan worden. Alle bekende methoden veroorzaken aanzienlijk minder dierenleed dan onverdoofde of verdoofde castratie.

Veel boeren zouden graag direct willen stoppen met het castreren van biggen, maar zeggen dat dit niet kan omdat de vleesindustrie alleen maar vlees van gecastreerde varkens wil kopen. CIWF vindt daarom dat het de hoogste tijd is dat de EU haar verantwoordelijkheid neemt en deze patstelling doorbreekt, door het castreren van biggen zo snel mogelijk te verbieden!

VAAK GESTELDE VRAGEN

Vaak gestelde vragen over biggencastratie, datum: 14 februari 2005
Waarom worden jonge biggen gecastreerd?

Er is een kleine kans dat het vlees van mannelijke varkens (beren) gaat stinken wanneer het verhit wordt. Deze stank, de berengeur, komt soms voor bij varkens die, wanneer ze geslacht worden, zwaarder zijn dan 85 kilo. De belangrijkste veroorzaker van de berengeur is het mannelijke hormoon androstenon, dat bij zeugen (de vrouwelijke varkens) sexuele prikkeling veroorzaakt. Hoeveel androstenon bij een beer voorkomt hangt af van de sexuele ontwikkeling, van de leeftijd en van het gewicht. Hoe lichter of jonger het dier is, des te lager het androstenonniveau.
De oplossing van de bio-industrie voor dit probleem is simpel: de big wordt gecastreerd, waardoor de sexuele ontwikkeling niet op gang komt, er minder androstenon geproduceerd wordt en de berengeur achterwege blijft.

Wie castreert de biggen en hoe gebeurt het?

De biggen worden door de boer gecastreerd. Dit gebeurt wanneer de big nog geen week oud is. De dieren worden niet verdoofd en er is ook na de ingreep geen pijnbestrijding.
Mag dit zomaar?

Ja. De Europese richtlijn (2001/93/EG) staat toe dat biggen die jonger zijn dan 7 dagen door de boer zonder verdoving gecastreerd worden. Wanneer een big ouder is dan 7 dagen mag zij ook gecastreerd worden, maar dan alleen door een dierenarts en onder verdoving.
Wat betekent castratie voor het dier?

Castratie veroorzaakt ook bij heel jonge biggen extreem veel pijn. Dit is herhaaldelijk door wetenschappers vastgesteld. Bovendien veroorzaakt de ingreep acute stress en verhoogt de ingreep de kans op infecties en kunnen er allerlei gezondheidsproblemen ontstaan. Bij gecastreerde biggetjes komen bijvoorbeeld meer longaandoeningen en poot- en staartafwijkingen voor. Ook groeien gecastreerde biggen minder snel.
Bovendien is castratie een aantasting van de integriteit van het dier, dat van zijn mogelijkheid tot voortplanting beroofd wordt.
Om hoeveel dieren gaat het?

In de Europese Unie worden elk jaar ongeveer 100 miljoen jonge biggen onverdoofd gecastreerd.
Worden biggen alleen in Nederland gecastreerd?

Nee, castratie komt in de meeste landen voor. Wel zijn er landen waar beertjes niet gecastreerd worden (Ierland en Engeland), waar slechts een deel van de beertjes gecastreerd wordt (Portugal) of waar andere methoden gebruikt worden om de berengeur tegen te gaan (Australië).
Is castratie van biggen nodig?

Nee. Er zijn voldoende andere manieren bekend om berengeur tegen te gaan, die bovendien in de praktijk blijken te werken. We geven hier slechts enkele voorbeelden:Berengeur komt voor bij varkens die zwaarder zijn dan 85 kilo als ze geslacht worden. Worden de dieren jonger geslacht, dan ontstaat er geen berengeur.In Australië worden varkens gevaccineerd, waardoor het hormoon dat de berengeur veroorzaakt (androstenon) niet ontstaat en de sexuele ontwikkeling van het varken achterblijft. Wanneer men een varken twee maal vaccineert (eventueel tegelijk met andere vaccinaties) ontstaat er geen berengeur. Ook dit is een i9ngreep in de integriteit van het dier, maar deze is niet definitief: wanneer men de vaccinatie niet herhaalt komt de sexuele ontwikkeling alsnog op gang. Vaccinatie (ook wel immunoneutralisatie genoemd) is bovendien veel minder pijnlijk.Het is mogelijk de kans op het ontstaan van berengeur terug te dringen door aanpassingen in de houderij, bijvoorbeeld door de dieren wanneer ze maar willen drinken te geven, door een betere hokhygiene en door aangepast voer te gebruiken.
Waarom stoppen boeren niet gewoon met castreren?

Veel boeren zouden inderdaad graag willen stoppen met castreren. Het is een onaangename klus en omdat een gecastreerde big langzamer groeit kost het geld. Toch gebeurt dat niet omdat veel afnemers (supermarkten en vleesverwerkers) alleen maar vlees van mannelijke varkens willen als de dieren gecastreerd zijn. Bovendien zijn er wettelijke beperkingen die de afzet van vlees van ongecastreerde beren bemoeilijken of die het overschakelen op een beproefde methode als vaccinatie (zie hierboven) tegengaan.
Wat moet er volgens CIWF gebeuren?

CIWF is tegenstander van het aanpassen van dieren aan de eisen van de houderij. Wanneer er dieren gehouden worden voor hun vlees of hun producten moet de houderij en de productiewijze worden aangepast aan de natuurlijke behoeften van het dier. CIWF is dus tegen het castreren van biggen.
Het dierenleed dat veroorzaakt wordt door castratie is zeer ernstig en er is gebleken dat een oplossing niet aan de partijen in de markt (Boeren en afnemers) kan worden overgelaten. De overheid moet daarom haar verantwoordelijkheid nemen en het castreren van biggen verbieden. CIWF pleit voor een verbod van biggencastratie in de hele EU.

LETTERS TO AND REACTIONS FROM

EUROGROUP FOR ANIMAL WELFARE

by Action Against Poisoning

-----Original Message-----
From: Action Against Poisoning
Sent: January 2005 23:08

To the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare
The Hague, January 2005

Subject:protection of stray animals

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Action Against Poisoning fights animal poisoning in particular and supports animal protection in general. In our experience especially stray animals fall victim to poisoning or (often lethal) violence. We are informed that "Even within the European Union the competence to deal with stray dogs and cats remains at the Member State level."
We would like you to take a few arguments in consideration to extort EU commitment on this subject.

The competence to deal with stray animals is trusted to the member states. Particularly a number of Mediterranean (candidate) member states have a disputable reputation on handling stray animal problems. A recent highlight were the stray animal "killing fields" on Olympic Games locations in the Athens region.
Although humane solutions for stray problems are presented regularly, the execution
turns out to be extinction. Poisoning is the cheapest and most common method.
An example of such deception was the Olympic Committee PR notice stating that stray animals were collected and housed in new shelters. When we asked where these shelters were situated we did not receive an answer. We have not received information that those shelters have ever been built; we have been informed that stray animals have been killed. Other examples of government approved animal abuse are the extermination of earmarked sterilized dogs in Turkey and toleration of animal cruelty in Portugal. These are a few examples of public interference: authorities that kill or stand by and watch.

If animal protection laws exist in such countries, those laws are not enforced. Quite understandable when poisoning or lethal abuse of an animal is only a slight offence punishable with a fine of a few Euros. A trifle for which police officials either flatly refuse to file a report or do not supply a copy. No files leads to no registration. So statistically there is no poisoning problem in Portugal although half (!) of the Portuguese we spoke about the subject have experienced poisoning of pets or stray animals in their direct surrounding.

In short, because of systematic violation of animal rights the protection of stray animals cannot in general be left in the hands of "the member states". We also think that the keeping qualities of the "culture & tradition" excuses for European aloofness have expired.

It strikes us that international organizations restrict their animal protection efforts to wild animals and domestic animals including cattle. We note that wild animals can care for themselves within their habitat. Domestic animals are cared for by their owners. It is sad to see that stray animals are denied that protection categorically. Sad as they are pre-eminently the category that needs such support and protection as they are (the offspring from) abandoned domestic animals that were and very much still are dependant on human care for food, shelter and health.

A society organizes and supplies the kind of care and protection for its civilians, infrastructure, nature etc. that cannot be organized and financed on the personal level. It is alarming and offensive that the protection of stray animals is left over to private initiative. We see a priceless handful of private persons - spending their money and energy on assistance and costly veterinary care - burn out. We object to abundant public funds flowing towards animals that enjoy constant care whilst the welfare of stray animals is lacking such subsidies. Obviously governmental policies are restricted to human self-interest related to economy and public health.

In short, on EU- as well as on member state level there is much work to be done. We hope that you can change the everlasting alarming situation for stray animals. We gladly offer our assistance wherever needed and possible. We await your answer.

With kind regards,

Action Against Poisoning
www.actionagainstpoisoning.com

From: "Info" info@eurogroupanimalwelfare.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:51:06 +0100
To: Action Against Poisoning
Subject: RE: English translation

Thank you for sending me an English translation of your e-mail. I did not have time to answer until now, and I will try to go through the different points you mentioned.

The lack of EU competence to deal with companion animals comes from the fact that there is no legal basis in the Treaty to establish laws purely with an animal welfare objective. The existing animal welfare legislation is based on articles of the Treaty which relate to other subjects, such as agriculture (for farm animals), internal market (for lab animals) or environment. So the fundamental reason is that from a legal point of view the EU does not have the power to establish legislation on the welfare of companion animals. I agree with you that the exceptions to the protocol on animal welfare have made possible inacceptable practices to continue, such as bullfighting or ritual slaughter. I attach a chapter of our revised publication "Analysis of Major Areas of Concern for Animal Welfare in Europe" on the Treaty and the legal basis for EU legislation on animal welfare.

On the other end, the Council of Europe has established a Convention on the protection of pet animals which has been ratified by a number of countries, but not all the EU MS. The countries which have ratified it are supposed to respect it, although there is no enforcement mechanism. But it is a good tool to make pression on them. You can find the text of the Convention and the list of ratifications at:
conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=125&CM=8&CL=ENG <conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=125&CM=8&CL=ENG>

Concerning the enforcement of laws at national level, again it is the responsibility of the MS. Even for EU laws, the MS are responsible for their application and lack of enforcement is also a big problem (see with the transport of live animals for example). Even when the Commission starts an infringement procedure against a MS, it takes a lot of time to result in judgement and even then, the MS frequently ignore the sentence.

I don't agree with your perception that international organisations restrict their efforts to wild and farm animals. Our observer, WSPA, works on dogs and cats too. Several of our member organisations have an international programme where they deal with companion animals too: RSPCA in the UK, FBB in France, HSI in the US (International section of the HSUS, also a Eurogroup observer). IFAW, which is traditionnally working more on wildlife, also has a programme on the protection of dogs. Furthermore, we are a federation of national organisations which all work on companion animals.

I would like to finish my answer by an example. You have probably heard about the debate on cat and dog fur. Although there is an international trade dimension, the issue is related to the welfare of companion animals. Through a written declaration signed by a majority of MEPs, the European Parliament called on the Commission to ban the import of cat and dog fur, but the Commission has consistently answered that there was no legal basis for such a ban in the EU.

For your information, I also attach the chapter on companion animals from the same publication mentioned above.

Best wishes,
Véronique Schmit
Policy Officer
Eurogroup for Animal Welfare
6 rue des Patriotes
1000 Brussels
Tel. 32 2 740 08 20
Fax 32 2 740 08 29
www.eurogroupanimalwelfare.org

From: www.ActionAgainstPoisoning.com
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:58:03 +0000
To: info@eurogroupanimalwelfare.org
Subject: your letter 12 January 05

To the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare

Dear Mrs Schmit,

As we had to tackle a few nasty real life stray problems I am sorry that I could not respond to your email of 12 January 2005 at an earlier time. Thank you for responding but it appears that my arguments have not been understood.
I have not been informed on what efforts Eurogroup has taken or Eurogroup plans to do for the strays. So I am quite in the dark about your possibilities and the question if you have been approached on this subject before.
I was not pleading for the fate of companion animals in general but specifically for stray animals. And I am not asking for a legal answer but a moral EU position on this issue.
If the EU Parliament can debate on the moral merits of Price HarryŽs Swastika, it should certainly be able to debate on the morality of killing strays.
So bear with me in my argument why the EU should be involved.

In Europe - or other parts in the world for that matter - so called "stray problems" regularly lead to massacres amongst stray animals. Stray animals are (the offspring of) abandoned companion animals. The most prominent characteristic of stray animals is that they were bred for human company and depend on human care. So in our view society has an obligation towards stray animals like cats, dogs and donkeys. In our view we should not kill victims of neglect.

For some unknown reason stray animals lose their status as companion animal or domestic animal. Our main point of concern is the fact that consequently stray animals are legally and/or effectively not protected. This lack of protection is especially unjustified as this category is in the highest need of shelter, food and medical care.

Whether we like it or not, stray problems and violent solutions repeatedly erupt in especially Southern and Eastern European countries. For this reason we urge the EU to construct a clear definition of stray animals and stray animal problems and a clear policy for stray problem solutions.
On the prevention side vaccination, spaying, neutering and chipping are the primary conditions for direct control of the stray problem. Furthermore subjects like legal frameworks for enforcement of animal rights, responsibilities of pet owners, animal rights and pet care education, shelter reform and pest control should be on the agenda.
Last but not least organization and budget should be worked out. I presume that you are very well aware that none of the existing animal protection organizations is equipped to handle "the stray problem", let alone the handful of volunteers.

We do understand that financial objections will be raised immediately. However, we would appreciate an approach that starts with policy and finishes with budget estimations.
So we ask you to take this course of action. And we ask for your advice how small organizations like ours can give support to that action.
Furthermore we would like to receive names and (email) addresses of EU MPŽs that are willing to support our action.

Kind regards,

Action Against Poisoning
www.actionagainstpoisoning.com

on 27/01/05 11:12, Info at info@eurogroupanimalwelfare.org wrote:

Dear Mr.
We work on matters related to EU legislation on animal welfare. I thought my detailed answer was clear.

I am sorry that we cannot help you.

Yours sincerely,
Véronique Schmit
Policy Officer
Eurogroup for Animal Welfare
6 rue des Patriotes
1000 Brussels
Tel. 32 2 740 08 20
Fax 32 2 740 08 29
www.eurogroupanimalwelfare.org

From: www.ActionAgainstPoisoning.com
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:38:32 +0000
To: Eurogroup Animal welfare Mrs Schmit info@eurogroupanimalwelfare.org
Subject: Re: your letter 12 January 05
To the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare
Att. of Mrs. Véronique Schmit

Dear Mrs. Schmit,

Your detailed answer was clear enough. I pointed at an embarrassing omission in the EU Legislation on animal welfare. I asked you to look at the policy side of this subject.

I expect from the Eurogroup - and especially a policy officer for that matter - to close that gap in EU Legislation on animal welfare.

With regards,