Well, Ive read up on the DEFRA website before. But I felt like documenting and refuting their claims of high welfare standards. Would anyone be interested in a joint effort to review DEFRA's most recent welfare act and measures, in order to send our report to them? Or just to have it compiled for any other reason?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/default.htm

an example of the stuff you'll find in those DEFRA reports,

When carried out on cattle, a procedure listed below must be carried out in accordance with the condition or conditions specified for that procedure.

1. Castration

When the method used is the application of a rubber ring or other device to constrict the flow of blood to the scrotum, the procedure may only be carried out on an animal aged not more than 7 days.

When any other method is used, an anaesthetic must be administered where the animal is aged 2 months or over.

legally any cattle under 2 months can be castrated without anaesthetic

interesting that you have put thought into this and want to make some action.

Big up to ya.

I am not real familiar with DEFRA certainly not personally... Anyway, I have time restrictions n'all. But it depends what detail would be needed and how much time it took for me to consider... which is just me being practical for my own sakes. :) I am hardly the worlds most elite and dedicated activist I must say, is why I say this....I have enough problems of my own... but still, good to hear of action being taken :) by somebody if not myself (although not counting out myself).

Maybe thats as good as my excuse will get, and so be it I guess, but anyway I would like to know however, what your expectations of doing a report might produce as the effect at best !?? Can you mention to us more stuff about whats involved and what prompted you, apart from the quite obvious suffering as motivation ?

I mean what do YOU think it will take to make change ?

I just thought, the UK is meant to have the highest standards of animal welfare in the whole world, and as i say ive read through some of the DEFRA stuff before, and the standards are actually very bad. it just has the impression that its good. i mean, DEFRA could respond to an AR letter by saying, the UK standards are among the best in the world, we have over X thousand regulations, and thats true, but if you actually look at the regulations, they allow allsorts of stuff.

i dont know what it would achieve if anything. i'd just send it to DEFRA, my local mp, peta, a few others, and just see what happens.

if you or anyone else is interested, heres how i think we could do it:

we break it down into sections, someone does a sub section each, then we compile it here, review it together, make a final copy, and send it to whoever.

ive done that already for - animal welfare act page

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/index.htm

Mutilations and Tail Docking
Racing Greyhounds
Pet Fairs and Pet Sales
Primates as Pets
Wild Animals in Circuses
Game Birds

i was planning on just doing the whole thing, but theres a lot to cover, though i still might. someone could do one of:

domestic animals -
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/index.htm

on farm animal welfare
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/on-farm.htm

welfare at transport
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/transport.htm

etc etc

and you know what people here are like, theyre big on animals , how the rspca gets more donations than the nspcc and all that. but i bet the average person on the street doesnt realise our government legally allows people to mutilate animals without anaesthetic , and they'd be unhappy about that sort of thing

and you know what people here are like, theyre big on animals , but i bet the average person on the street doesnt realise our government legally allows people to mutilate animals without anaesthetic , and they'd be unhappy about that sort of thing
lets hope so, that people would be unhappy if they knew and were faced with it.

how the rspca gets more donations than the nspcc and all that.

speaking of which, how much of DEFRA rules, regulates for the RSPCA if thats at all applicable/ the way things work??
Or to put another way which rules (how many rules made by DEFRA) are borrowed as 'fair game' (or approved) as fair/acceptable rules by the RSPCA? ....

Under WHAT assumption or auspice we base our arguement IS KEY, so that we can argue dodgy FACTS with plain inarguable FACTS....Anything that can help narrow down and filter thru the probable variations & version of fact we may encounter....

Also what backing have the FACTS or REGULATIONS already in place, is ALSO KEY to understand for us in opposition of the standing/currently held facts that are construed as "proper" or "legitimate" by law or whether the facts be nothing but liteny presiding as fact raising questions like HOW ARE THESE FACTS LEGIMATE, IS IT DOWN PURELY TO A SORDID DEMOCRACY COMBINED BUREACRACY ?

If we are to be the saviour and envoy for the general public, on behalf of welfare-concious people and animals.... we need to decipher whatever the terms of acceptance are concerning regulations ((and ALTERATIONS POTENTIALLY MADE TO THEM).....

What argument for change is the approach taken... that affects the success of the type of arguement we employ.... and will authority allow for it williingly or will we have to make scope for any investigation by high pressure means??).

....Before we find out for ourselves, as a team or whoever gets involved, and which is to say until we get hold of the facts, for me I have to assume momentarily before knowing better the facts on how to tackle things such as this leading naturally toassumption to begin with.... until I learn more.... but hoping to carry more weight therein, is the progressive premise of interrogation of how I/we would I guess base our questioning or as I would have it.... That being any assumptions we make at this moment in time, and working our way asserting the facts as we come to know them,,,, and for others too still learning doing the same, knowing how the big guns work.... (whether they be Statutes Of Law,, or governmental or other regulatory body)

Then and only then can we I think assert ourselves more as we learn more, so that we may enter debate, or act as credible oppostion, and after leave the debate (with aim to change the law or whatever) with believable facts we hope as the outcome and the facts we use in battle along the way.

THIS FIRST OF ALL THINGS TO BE ESTABLISHED IS THIS WHICH IS A MUST: (as I do not know what leg we have to stand on otherwise IF WE ARROW HEAD this campaign) before what we make in judgement, IN AS MUCH TO SAY}} Much will depend on the set up of these organizations and how they may work together.... Heralding questions like is the RSPCA opinion or say in the matter purely the RSPCA opinion or only part their opinion since they have to work (somewhat? or partially) in accordance with DEFRA ???

Hi, Micheal.

Good idea. I would love to help, after the help you offered me last month.

Can I see what you have written so far? So I can see what wave length you are going on.

Sarah

to stress the obvious we would bring our credulations to bear, on the facts, assess, and create UNIVERSAL FACTS and individualize them by author/sources/common sense merit, all of which if necessary, for presentation as the CHANGING FACTS OF FACTUAL SCRUTINY, which become WORLD REDRESS at least for the UK... (and as far as public conciousness goes in relaion to what goes on largely behind closed doors in effect for all the large number of public know such as myself now coming out of that shell of ignorance).

Even if our success, if we have any, is the success of being able to have a say in determining a few keyword components as our redress (to summon redress) to reawaken debate, that will be worth it I HOPE !!
And we could consider even touching a few raw nerves if truth was slow to thaw!! if we have to, but rather I suggest we find a way that uses language a body full of regulations will understand.... But I don't think we need to repress our true feeling on these matters either.... So its about finding a balance in negotiation, and not about compromising OUR required standard for the animals that we newly want to enforce, AND BY WHOSE AUTHORITY we gain access to be able to HAVE OUR SAY.

This is what Ive got covering the Animal Welfare Act heading.

The UK supposedly has some of the, if not the highest regulations concerning the welfare of animals in the world. However there is nothing to praise about the welfare regulations in the UK. This is only a sad indictment of the despicable standard of regulations, or lack of, throughout the whole world.

Everything I’m about to show is taken from DEFRA, at http://www.defra.gov.uk/

Anything which is quoted with “” is taken directly from the website.

- Is my response to DEFRA claims.

A – 1 – Mutilations
A – 2 – Racing greyhounds
A – 3 – Pet fairs and pet sales
A – 4 – Primates as pets
A – 5 – Wild animals in circuses
A – 6 – Game birds

UK regulations:

Premises:

“The health and welfare of animals is central to Defra's work of protecting and improving livestock and controlling and eradicating disease. The Animal Health and Welfare pages are divided into various subject areas each with its own ‘Home page’ and ‘Latest news’ section. These are detailed below:”

“It is still against the law to be cruel to an animal. But now you must also ensure that all the welfare needs of your animals are met.”

- It is not against the law to be cruel to animals, because the DEFRA website shows various regulations which permit practices which are without any doubt cruel.

“What does the new law do?
It makes owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are met.

These include the need:

For a suitable environment (place to live)
For a suitable diet
To exhibit normal behaviour patterns
To be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable)
To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease”

Regulations:

“The Act enables the government and Parliament to make secondary legislation on specific issues. More information on secondary legislation is available here; and some extra information on some of these issues in particular can be found here:”

A - 1 – Mutilations:


“From 6 April 2007 in England, and 28 March in Wales, the mutilation of animals is banned under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with certain exemptions set out in Regulations. “Mutilation” covers any procedure that involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal other than for therapeutic purposes (medical treatment).

Certain procedures are exempt from the ban because of long-term welfare or management benefits. There are some specific requirements on how many of the procedures are performed, and all must be carried out in a way that keeps pain to a minimum, under hygienic conditions, and in accordance with good practice.

These exemptions largely consolidate and replicate existing legislation. There have been no very significant changes to the status quo.”

- At least DEFRA is not attempting to obscure the fact that nothing has changed, and a whole plethora of procedures and mutilations, many of which could be considered cruel are still perfectly legal. As shown:

--

“SCHEDULE 1
Regulation 3



PERMITTED PROCEDURES

Cattle

Identification Procedures:

Ear clipping.
Ear notching.
Ear tagging.
Freeze branding.
Micro-chipping.
Tattooing.

Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.

Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Embryo collection or transfer by a surgical method.
Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive.
Ovum transplantation, including ovum collection, by a surgical method.
Vasectomy.

Other Management Procedures:

Dehorning.
Disbudding.
Nose ringing.
Removal of supernumerary teats.

Pigs

Identification Procedures:

Ear clipping.
Ear notching.
Ear tagging.
Micro-chipping.
Tattooing.

Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.


Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive.
Vasectomy.

Other Management Procedures:

Nose ringing.
Tail docking.
Tooth reduction.
Tusk trimming.

Birds

Identification Procedures:

Micro-chipping.
Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.


Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive.
Ovidectomy.
Vasectomy.

Other Management Procedures:

Beak trimming of poultry.
Desnooding.
De-toeing of domestic fowl and turkeys.
Dubbing.
Laparoscopy.
Wing pinioning.

Sheep

Identification Procedures:

Ear clipping.
Ear notching.
Ear tagging.
Micro-chipping.
Tattooing.
Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.

Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive.
Vasectomy.

Other Management Procedures:

Dehorning.
Disbudding.
Removal of the insensitive tip of the horn.
Tail docking.

Goats

Identification Procedures:

Ear clipping.
Ear notching.
Ear tagging.
Micro-chipping.
Tattooing.

Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.


Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive.
Vasectomy.


Other Management Procedures:

Dehorning.
Disbudding.
Removal of the insensitive tip of the horn.

Horses

Identification Procedures:

Freeze branding.
Hot branding.
Micro-chipping.
Tattooing.
Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.

Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Vasectomy.

Deer

Identification Procedures:

Ear clipping.
Ear notching.
Ear tagging.
Micro-chipping.
Tattooing.

Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.

Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive.
Vasectomy.

Other Management Procedures:

Removal of antlers that are not in velvet.

Other species

Identification Procedures:

Ear clipping.
Ear notching.
Ear tipping of feral cats.
Insertion of subcutaneous tracking devices.
Tagging.
Chemical branding of fish.
Freeze branding of fish.
Micro-chipping.
Removal or perforation of parts of fishes' fins, adipose fins or fin rays.
Tattooing.

Other methods of identification involving a mutilation required by law.

Procedures for the Control of Reproduction:

Castration.
Embryo collection or transfer by a surgical method.
Implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive.
Ovum transplantation, including ovum collection, by a surgical method.
Spaying.
Vasectomy.

Other Management Procedures:

Laparoscopy.
Removal of the dew claws of dogs.
Removal of fish scales.”

--

- Moreover, in certain cases anaesthetic is not even required by law when carrying out these mutilations. As shown:

“CATTLE: REQUIREMENTS WHEN CARRYING OUT CERTAIN PERMITTED PROCEDURES

When carried out on cattle, a procedure listed below must be carried out in accordance with the condition or conditions specified for that procedure.

1. Castration

When the method used is the application of a rubber ring or other device to constrict the flow of blood to the scrotum, the procedure may only be carried out on an animal aged not more than 7 days.

When any other method is used, an anaesthetic must be administered where the animal is aged 2 months or over.”

- Any calf may be legally castrated without anaesthetic aged 2 months or under. This alone is a mockery of any ideas of concern for animals’ welfare. Similarly, for pigs:

“1. Castration

The method used must not involve the tearing of tissues.

An anaesthetic and additional prolonged analgesia must be administered where the animal is aged 7 days or over.”

- For sheep:

“1. Castration

When the method used is the application of a rubber ring or other device to constrict the flow of blood to the scrotum, the procedure may only be carried out on an animal aged not more than 7 days.

When any other method is used, an anaesthetic must be administered where the animal is aged 3 months or over.”

- For goats:

“1. Castration

When the method used is the application of a rubber ring or other device to constrict the flow of blood to the scrotum, the procedure may only be carried out on an animal aged not more than 7 days.

When any other method is used, an anaesthetic must be administered where the animal is aged 2 months or over.”

- For birds:

“5. Beak trimming of poultry

The procedure must be performed using a suitable instrument, and on—

(a) both the lower and upper beaks, with not more than one third of each removed, or

(b) the upper beak only, with not more than one third removed.

Any subsequent haemorrhage from the beak must be arrested by cauterisation.

On poultry that are intended to become laying hens and which are kept on establishments with 350 or more laying hens, the procedure—

(i) may only be carried out in order to prevent feather pecking or cannibalism;
(ii) may only be carried out before 1st January 2011;
(iii) may not be performed on poultry that are intended to become laying hens (or which are laying hens) and which are aged 10 days or over.

6. Desnooding

Where the turkey is aged not more than 21 days, the procedure may be carried out either by manual pinching-out or with a suitable instrument.

7. De-toeing of domestic fowl and turkeys

The procedure may not be carried out on a bird that is aged 3 days or over unless a veterinary surgeon considers that it is necessary that it be carried out.

An anaesthetic must be administered where the bird is aged 3 days or over.

part2

8. Dubbing

The procedure may not be carried out on a bird that is aged 3 days or over unless a veterinary surgeon considers that it is necessary that it be carried out.

An anaesthetic must be administered where the bird is aged 3 days or over.

10. Wing pinioning

The procedure may not be carried out on farmed birds.

An anaesthetic must be administered where the bird is aged 10 days or over.”

- There are various other mutilations for livestock and birds which do not require anaesthetic. Anaesthetic is only required by law for all castration procedures on ‘Birds’ , ‘Horses’ , ‘Deer’ and ‘Other Species’.

- Furthermore, the premise that owners are legally responsible for protecting their animals’ ability “To exhibit normal behaviour patterns” is demonstrably meaningless, proved by the various legal mutilations (as shown in the above list) which inhibit the animals’ ability to do so. For example: (Of cattle) ‘Dehorning’ , ‘Disbudding’, ‘Nose Ringing’ , (Of pigs) ‘Nose Ringing’ , ‘Tail Docking’ , ‘Tusk Trimming’. (Of birds) ‘Beak trimming of poultry’, and many others.

- Let’s again look at certain DEFRA premises.

“From 6 April 2007 in England, and 28 March in Wales, the mutilation of animals is banned under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with certain exemptions set out in Regulations.”

- Although this is qualified by the disclaimer that it is in fact untrue, it still can be construed as an act of deception, to give the impression that DEFRA opposes mutilation of animals.

- Furthermore, the premises of owners insuring the ability of their animals

“To exhibit normal behaviour patterns


To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease”

Has also been proven meaningless, as DEFRA regulations I have shown explicitly allow practices which violate those premises.

A - 2 – Racing Greyhounds

“Animal Welfare Act
Racing Greyhounds
Due to the concerns expressed by Parliament during the debates on the Animal Welfare Bill about the welfare of racing greyhounds, the government has promised to improve the regulation of the greyhound racing industry. New arrangements should be in place by 2009 and will provide further protection for racing greyhounds.

Defra has set up a Greyhound Welfare Working Group to examine the issue of greyhound welfare. Members of the group include representatives of welfare organisations, the racing industry, local authorities, the devolved administrations and Defra.

The group has been asked to offer advice to Ministers and officials as to how best to regulate the industry and in the drafting of a code of practice to improve greyhound welfare. In addition we are waiting for the outcome of the All Party Group on Animal Welfare (APGAW) inquiry into the welfare of racing greyhounds and the inquiry by Lord Donoughue into the way that the industry regulates welfare standards.

Our present preference is that whenever possible the welfare standards should be enforced by the industry. However, the standards would be set by central government, and the effectiveness of the enforcers would also be monitored by central government.

Before recommending such a system to Parliament the Government first needs to be convinced that the industry is capable of being an open and auditable regulator of its own affairs. The Animal Welfare Minister, Ben Bradshaw, has met with the industry and made it clear to them that the industry must demonstrate that it has adopted a modern, open and auditable approach to the regulation of welfare standards. This includes addressing concerns about the need for greater commitment in terms of its resources to the promotion of welfare.”

- There is no regulation shown here which addresses the cruelty or welfare issues of the greyhound racing industry in the UK. We will apparently have to wait until 2009 to see if anything is done about this industry which kills and exploits many thousands of dogs in the name of ‘sport’.

- 3 – Pet sales and Pet fairs

“Animal Welfare Act
Pet sales and pet fairs
Pet sales
There will be new regulations on pet vending. At present, we are considering making the following changes. These will, of course, be subject to public consultation and Parliamentary approval.

Pet shops should continue to be licensed with renewal every three years rather than annually, with inspections on a risk managed basis.
Local Authorities will issue licences and will have powers to inspect, and to withhold or revoke licences.
Businesses that use internet sites for selling should be licensed in the same way as conventional pet shops.
Pet shops and commercial premises where animals are kept prior to sale will be subject to a code of practice, approved by Parliament and enforced by the Local Authority.
A member of the management of a pet shop or animal internet selling site should have a suitable animal welfare qualification (for new entrants only).
Written advice addressing the welfare needs of the animal being sold will be made available to buyers at pet shops and on internet selling sites.”

- It is clear then, that DEFRA will continue to legitimise the pet trade industry, which is responsible for many welfare issues, and promotes the use of nonhuman animals as toys / gifts.

- Moreover, none of the proposed measures address the most pressing welfare issues connected with the UK pet trade, namely: Excess of unwanted pets directly facilitated by the legality of the pet trade, legal imports of wild animals from abroad to be sold as pets, breeding which keeps animals in captivity to be sold as pets, the ease with which consumers can purchase an animal, and many more.

- All that is seen to be happening, is maintaining the status quo, whilst unsubsidised shelters, sanctuaries, zoos and charities attempt to pick up the pieces.

“Because of these two factors, the governments is proposing to modernise the law by prohibiting the sale of animals, where this is part of a business, to members of the public at pet fairs.

However, we also propose to make exceptions to this prohibition in the case of koi carp shows, racing pigeon sales and poultry sales. These types of events will be licensed by local authorities under regulations to be made under the Animal Welfare Act.

Those events where there is either no selling of animals to members of the public; or where there is selling of animals but where it is not in the course of a business, such as hobbyists selling excess stock, will continue to take place without the requirement to be licensed.”

- Whilst it is good that businesses selling animals will be prohibited from doing so at pet fairs, the regulations are easily overcome. As shown, if the selling is not considered part of a business, it does not require licensing. It seems therefore that the government is again presenting an illusion of concern for animals, whilst in practical terms doing nothing which promotes their well-being.

- 4 – Primates keeping

“Animal Welfare Act
Primate keeping
There is some evidence that the welfare of primates is compromised where they are kept as ‘pets’ and where their welfare needs are not fully understood.

As a result of concerns raised during the passage of the Animal Welfare Act through Parliament, the government intends to introduce a code of practice on the keeping of primates as pets. It is anticipated that this will restrict the keeping of primates by private keepers to specialists.

This will provide a comprehensive guide for primate owners and keepers on how they can best meet the needs of their animal and so meet their ‘duty of care’ under the Animal Welfare Act.

The government has convened a working group of experts to consider the standards that should be included in the code of practice. Members include representatives of zoos, primate sanctuaries, specialist vets and private keepers.

The code will be subject to public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny, and is intended to be introduced in 2008.”

- The intended measures do not seem to address the moral validity of the trade itself. Whilst DEFRA correctly recognises the welfare problems associated with the keeping of primates, it shows no willingness to prohibit the trade, only to bring in ‘guides’ and ‘codes of practice’, which also do not address the point of capturing primates from their families, or breeding them to be removed from their families in the first place.

- If the new code of practice does restrict the ownership of primates to specialists, that will be a positive step.

- 5 – Wild animals in circuses

- The report introduces no actual measures yet again. Only that there is ongoing analysis of the suitability of certain species for use in circuses.

“Remit
The remit of the group is to provide, and consider, evidence relating to the transportation and housing needs of non-domesticated species. It will look at the possibility of a read across between the welfare standards for non-domesticated animals being kept in zoos with those being used in travelling circuses. Training will not be included in the remit as it is being considered as part of the wider Defra review of the regulation of animals used in performance.

The Group has set up three sub groups.

The Industry Sub Group and the Welfare Sub Group will each be asked to provide evidence, and to consider which, if any, non-domesticated species are suitable for use in travelling circuses. We would expect these groups to provide evidence relating to:

final

welfare during transportation,
accommodation standards,
behavioural needs, and whether these can be met in a travelling circus environment,
the future of those animals deemed unsuitable for a circus environment, but already represented in circuses,
the percentage of time that animals are on tour with travelling circuses,
the extent to which they may also be travelling and in temporary accommodation for use in media other than circuses.

Both the industry and welfare organisations sub-groups have nominated three people who are qualified to peer review scientific evidence to sit on an Academic Sub Group. This sub-group’s members are all vets and appropriately qualified academics. It is currently reviewing relevant scientific evidence submitted by the other two groups.”

- The findings have not been announced, or disclosed, and DEFRA seems oblivious to the fact that use of any nonhuman animals in a circus environment requires their exploitation, for the purposes of entertainment and profit.

- Furthermore, use of nonhuman animals on tour with circuses would seem to violate DEFRA’s premises of:

“These include the need:

For a suitable environment (place to live)
To exhibit normal behaviour patterns”

- 6 – Game birds

- There are no measures shown as yet. There is ongoing consultation with the intention of DEFRA commissioned study to be completed in 2007 and any measures being introduced by 2009.

“It is expected that a draft code will be produced for public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny by the end of 2008, with the aim of bringing it into force in 2009.”

thanks sarah
goth ill respond in about an hour

to stress the obvious we would bring our credulations to bear, on the facts, assess, and create UNIVERSAL FACTS and individualize them by author/sources/common sense merit, all of which if necessary, for presentation as the CHANGING FACTS OF FACTUAL SCRUTINY, which become WORLD REDRESS at least for the UK... (and as far as public conciousness goes in relaion to what goes on largely behind closed doors in effect for all the large number of public know such as myself now coming out of that shell of ignorance).

Even if our success, if we have any, is the success of being able to have a say in determining a few keyword components as our redress (to summon redress) to reawaken debate, that will be worth it I HOPE !!
And we could consider even touching a few raw nerves if truth was slow to thaw!! if we have to, but rather I suggest we find a way that uses language a body full of regulations will understand.... But I don't think we need to repress our true feeling on these matters either.... So its about finding a balance in negotiation, and not about compromising OUR required standard for the animals that we newly want to enforce, AND BY WHOSE AUTHORITY we gain access to be able to HAVE OUR SAY.


i agree, we have to find a balance. i think its obvious we have an agenda, that we are firmly on the side of the animals rights aswell as welfare. its difficult addressing some of these points. the government considers certain procedures like debeaking of poultry for example to be necessary, so even though it is a cruel procedure by any means, it might not fall under the category of "unecessary suffering" so i dont know if we'd really get anywhere.

but certainly, when it comes to mutilations being carried out without anaesthetic, that is only for the purpose of saving money and convenience, so there is no excuse at all for that. and this is only the first heading on that page, no doubt there will be alot of contentious points when it comes to transport or slaughter

speaking of which, how much of DEFRA rules, regulates for the RSPCA if thats at all applicable/ the way things work??
Or to put another way which rules (how many rules made by DEFRA) are borrowed as 'fair game' (or approved) as fair/acceptable rules by the RSPCA? ....

Under WHAT assumption or auspice we base our arguement IS KEY, so that we can argue dodgy FACTS with plain inarguable FACTS....Anything that can help narrow down and filter thru the probable variations & version of fact we may encounter....


i think, though ill check up, that farm animals are subject to different regulations than wild or domestic animals. im sure thats true because the rspca has the authority to take you to court (who can then take the animals from your custody) for something like keeping an animal in an unsuitable environment, while many farm animals are legally kept in environments 100 times more unsuitable, but in that case its deemed necessary

Well it's not like me to sound apathetic, but I think they'd ignore a full report if it wasn't either from a well-known (and reasonably respect by the government) organisation or someone who has been appointed by the government.

so we would write to our MP's first to get endorsement of our merit and stead of validiction or something ?

lion the government wouldnt care who a report came from. the FAWC, the independant advisory body DEFRA itself set up issued a report condemning religious slaughter and recommending it not be allowed to continue, and nothing has been done

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/ritual_slaughter/index.htm

i dont really expect anyone would take our report if it happened seriously, certainly not the government. another motivation was so that I can be more educated about the actual laws that govern animal welfare in our country.

so we would write to our MP's first to get endorsement of our merit and stead of validiction or something ?

writing mps i dunno. they would only respond with the official government line. 'we take animal welfare very seriously bla bla bla, we are constantly looking at ways to improve the welfare of farm animals bla bla bla, we understand your concerns however we feel our regulations andwelfare laws uphold a high standard of animal welfare bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla *head explodes*

yeah, so what apart from educating OURSELVES, who should know this stuff in theory, do we do about other people doing what is right and about what they should know about better ? but don't !!

Just saw on the news that DEFRA are authorising the slaughter of thousands of turkeys at a farm in East Anglia due to an outbreak of foot and mouth.

Animal welfare standards in the UK certainly aren't as good as a lot of people think. I did read that battery cages are going to be outlawed by 2012 at least.

maybe none goth. im probably going to do it anyway over the course of a month or so, ill post here whenever a new section is finished.

on another note im half losing hope. i was thinking that the government could be challenged legally because their whole premise regarding animal welfare is that avoidable suffering is illegal and a punishable crime - and the whole of animal farming is avoidable. but the govt makes the rules, its a huge industry which ties pretty much every country on the planet. they simply wouldnt care. if in court that opposition was upheld, the govt would simply make new rules to excuse themselves, change the wording, bring in a new welfare act with a thousand hidden exemptions.

i really dont know at the moment

according the wiki 95% of thais are buddhist and meat is EVERYWHERE there, even (some of) the monks eat meat

Just saw on the news that DEFRA are authorising the slaughter of thousands of turkeys at a farm in East Anglia due to an outbreak of foot and mouth.

Animal welfare standards in the UK certainly aren't as good as a lot of people think. I did read that battery cages are going to be outlawed by 2012 at least.

That though (as with quite a few at least half-decent laws despite what the Daily Mail and The Sun may want you to think) came from a European Directive - probably wouldn't have happened if it was left to the UK government.

Yeah JonVeggie I live near that farm in Norfolk where about 5,000 birds were culled (Bird Flu not foot and mouth - but same difference!). When I watched the news that evening, the government's chief vet was saying that the birds would be slaughtered, then he corrected himself by saying they would be "humanely" slaughtered by vets. I found myself thinking what this actually meant.

After finishing reading Slaughterhouse (Michael2 you MUST read this, I'll explain later), I learned that in the US, poultry are exempt from the HSA Humane Slaughter Act and also that OMG, this is really shocked me, that RABBITS are considered to be POULTRY :wall: - this would probably explain why people always tell me that rabbit tastes like chicken.... well guys guess what! I'm laughing with the ridiculousness of it (NOT because I think it is funny) - you know that mad lunatic type of laughter.... anyway I'm rambling.

So back to HSA. Does it mean that those 5000 turkeys would be euthanised with an injection by the vets (as opposed to being electrocuted and boiled alive). The next day I saw the news footage and saw the birds being dumper trucked into a container. Their bodies seemed intact. I found myself thinking these birds probably had a kinder death than those destined for the dinner plate.

Then the Bernard Matthews people (they're here locally too and I often see their double decker bus ferrying all the eastern european immigrant workers back and forth), then said "To the British public, don't worry, it's only 5000 turkeys, we have 2 million we are preparing ready for you, your Christmas won't be spoilt" :wall:.

Anyway to you Michael2: the writer of the book I keep on going on about is now the chief investigator of the Humane Farming Association. Her book details accounts of workers within the meat industry (OK it's in the US) who have spent over 2 million hours on the kill floor. I think you'd find it interesting as they've (HFA) just filed a lawsuit against the USDA (DEFRA equivalent) regarding the Humane Slaughter Act. Basically it's there on paper, but is NEVER enforced and actually cannot be physically enforced due to the way the meat industry is set up.

I know your angle on this topic is the legal issue. I agree as someone else said, that we as individuals are mere specks to the big cheeses, but I reckon organisations such as Viva might carry more weight. From other postings here on VB, I'm sure there's something about the HFA in the UK. I'll check it out.

That though (as with quite a few at least half-decent laws despite what the Daily Mail and The Sun may want you to think) came from a European Directive - probably wouldn't have happened if it was left to the UK government.

Do we thank Brussels for this 'ratcheting up and tightening the law and its entaility, for to make half-decent moral standard' then ?? European Union anything to do with that??

ill pick it up fraggle. on wiki it says

Also, current inspection policies allow licensees to operate indefinitely with documented violations of Animal Welfare regulations or standards.

and apparantly how farm animals arent 'animals' for the US welfare act, its the same here. which is so ridiculous, thats like having the bill of humans rights but 'manual labourers' dont count as humans, theres a different section for them allowing them to be abused in ways all other humans couldnt be.