It is somewhat encouraging to see the very slight reduction in animal procedures of around 1% compared with the previous year, to just over 3.6 million in 2009. Some 3.5 million animals were used for the first time in procedures commencing in 2009 – also a fall of 1%. (Some animals are used repeatedly, resulting in a greater number of procedures than animals).

However, this must be kept in perspective. This fall followed six previous annual increases, and remains the second highest total since the current method of recording was introduced in 1987 – more than 20 years ago.
  
It was particularly encouraging to see an overall reduction in the use of primates by 7%, although new world primate use increased very substantially. The advanced emotional, psychological and social capacities of primates markedly increase their risks of suffering within laboratory environments and procedures. They have advanced capacities to understand and remember that certain people, tools or procedures are likely to cause pain and distress, and their ability to anticipate future aversive experiences is likely to compound the distress such events may cause. Disturbingly, around 30% of all EU primate experiments occur within the UK.
  
Even more disturbing was the steadily increasing use of genetically altered animals, which exceeded the number of non-GM animals used for the first time. 52 % of procedures involved animals that were genetically altered, of which a large proportion were used for breeding.  The production of genetically modified strains involves surgical procedures and significant physiological challenges. It is also an inherently inefficient process, frequently resulting in a high proportion of discarded animals, with the welfare of the survivors more likely to be adversely affected than for non-GM strains.

Animals Count calls on the Government to use scientific evidence, demonstrating the poor predictability of animal models for human toxicological outcomes and medical progress, to ban invasive use of animals in research, testing and education.

It is hard to imagine many citizens, whether in the rural or the urban areas actually believe we need to hunt foxes in order to keep them “ under control”, as Cameron has stated. The traditional practice has been to allow the fox to live if he has “gone to ground” and this practice seems to be followed in America where foxes were imported into that country for the purpose of establishing the sport. In Britain, in the 18^th Century when the sport as we know it now was developed, foxes were imported by the thousands from Europe in order to provide animals in sufficient numbers to satisfy the aristocratic hunting fraternity.

The argument that foxes are “pests” that should be controlled by the human population is further undermined when defenders such as those of the Countryside Alliance insist that hunting with horses and hounds is an important part of the rural culture and the rural economy would suffer if the activity were stopped. The reality is that “hunting” has actually increased, but that increase is likely to be due to more people taking up drag hunting, where the dogs follow a deliberate false (and non-fox like) scent laid along a pre-set trail. These drag hunts are far safer for both horse and rider, as dangerous areas can be avoided, as well as areas where damage might occur to farms’ livestock or people’s pets.

Furthermore, the point Cameron makes that other methods used to kill foxes such as shooting, using snares or gassing , are more cruel is without any merit. One cannot justify one type of cruel activity by stating other methods are more cruel. Animals Count is not convinced, nor are most other people, that the fox is killed quickly once the dogs get to it.  If foxes are killing one’s animals, other methods of prevention or deterrence should be employed, such as fencing or keeping guard animals.

Although the composition of the present Parliament is quite different from when Labour was in power, Prime Minister Cameron and other conservative MPs should bear in mind the views of the great majority of their constituents. whose views on this issue are unlikely to be much changed since that first free vote in 2004 to bring about this important piece of legislation. This Act as it stands does not in fact ban the hunting or killing of wild mammals altogether as the exemptions contained in Schedule 1, “Exempt Hunting” are so broad that if an individual farmer or group of hunters wish to kill a particular animal, even with dogs (the Acts permits no more than 2 dogs to be used to flush out the quarry) it is possible to do so and still remain within the letter of the law. These exemptions should be amended to give greater protection to wild animals.

Finally, it cannot be acceptable that any nation that chooses to call itself advanced and civilised can defend as “culture” and a “sport”, an activity that causes distress, terror and suffering, to another living creature. In this regard, fox hunting is no different to bear baiting or dog fighting, and Animals Count urges all MPs to vote for the Hunting Act to remain in place.

While the surge to the right cannot be denied, it must be recognised that the Democrats 66 increased their number of seats from three to ten, and the Green Left party gained three seats and now also has ten seats.

The clearest conclusion is that voters were fed up with Christian politcs which only focused on protection of short-term human interests ahead of nature and the environment.

A coalition will be difficult, and fingers crossed it won’t be a coalition of VVD (right wing liberals), PVV (anti-islam party for freedom) and CDA (Christian Democrats) but rather a centrist (with Green Left) coalition.

While I am obviously shocked by the PVV victory, thank god for proportional representation in the Netherlands, and the chance for the Party for the Animals to continue their fantastic and extremely important work for animals, people and the environment. Not only within the Netherlands, but the party is an inspiration worldwide, as these topics affect us all.

We strongly urge the Government to rescind this thoroughly unnecessary and cruel policy of badger killing and instead demonstrate its alleged commitment to a “new” politics by resisting the unscientific lobbying pressure of the farming industry.

It is for the Government to act in accordance with its own fine-sounding words and respect the unambiguous evidence of the detailed scientific studies which have been undertaken showing no causal relationship between badger colonies and Bovine TB; and it is for the Government to respect the law and ensure that all wild badger populations remain protected by law. No exceptions should be made to this law simply to protect the alleged interests of the livestock industry, an industry which already receives very substantial financial subsidy from the public purse and which would be better advised to examine more critically the poor welfare and health support systems for animals on the country’s farms.

The 131-page 2010 Conservative manifesto pledged to “promote high animal welfare standards”, but few additional details were provided. Wildlife protection and habitat conservation are emphasised – particularly wildlife trafficking, whaling, ivory sales and the creation of marine conservation zones. While these issues are undoubtedly important, and while elephants and whales enjoy iconic status, some may consider that, in welfare terms, they pale into relative insignificance, compared to the welfare problems faced by nearly a billion UK farm animals.

The only details provided of any programme to address farm animal welfare is a commitment to a “carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of [bovine tuberculosis]”. The Conservatives have previously committed to culling badgers. Additionally, they promised to dedicate government time to providing a free parliamentary vote on repealing the Hunting Act 2004. More positively, they stated their intention to work toward a reduction in scientific animal use, and to promote responsible pet ownership via codes of practice under the Animal Welfare Act, and through targeting of irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs.

At the time of writing, neither animal welfare nor protection was included within the list of policy areas on the Conservative Party website. However, a booklet on farming (accessible from the “Countryside and Farming” section) includes some animal welfare policies. While primarily focused on the promotion and protection of British farming, the booklet states the Conservatives “remain committed to upholding and improving welfare standards” for farm animals. The party asserts its support for welfare reforms, such as the 2012 ban on conventional cages for laying hens, with the proviso that such standards are raised equally across the EU.

Significantly, it states its intention to work toward the inclusion of production standards within World Trade Organisation negotiations. To date, countries seeking to ban the importation of cruelly produced animal products have risked falling foul of free-trade agreements, and incurring severe financial penalties. Allowing such bans would be likely to significantly assist animal protection campaigns within the UK and abroad.

Most of the booklet, however, focuses on disease control among agricultural species. The Conservatives would develop an animal health policy in partnership with farmers and veterinarians, and would seek to share, with the farming industry, the responsibility and cost of tackling animal disease. They place particular emphasis on border controls. No obvious mention is made of the overwhelming majority of animal welfare policy areas, however, including most farmed species, long-distance animal transportation, religious slaughter, companion animals, animals in laboratories, and animals in sport and entertainment (including zoos and circuses).

Additional insights into Conservative policy on animal welfare were provided to us during a meeting with former MP Roger Gale, president of the Conservative Animal Welfare (CAW). Since 1994, CAW has offered a focal point for Conservative Party members interested in animal welfare. Its policies on animal welfare appear to have been provided by a veterinary advisor. A positive example is: “The conditions in which all farm animals are reared, grown and slaughtered should be considered, and particular attention should be given to stocking densities, transport and slaughter. Animals should always be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible, and the means of slaughter should always cause as little psychological or physical trauma as possible. Where the means of slaughter is dictated by religious traditions, this should not be a valid argument to disregard trauma to the animals concerned.”

Additionally, CAW states that: “The Conservative Party is the first political party in the UK to designate a specific front-bench spokesman for animal welfare.” This was Andrew Rosindell MP, the former shadow home affairs minister, with special responsibility for animal welfare.

Other aspects may be considered disturbing. An example is the statement: “[It is a] biological fact that man is an omnivorous animal and, as such, needs to eat meat. It follows… that there is a need to farm, kill and eat other species for our own biological needs… A vegetarian diet… is not optimal for humans.” While this may once have been considered true, we believe this demonstrates ignorance of current nutritional knowledge. Balanced vegetarian diets are well established as offering the potential for significant health benefits. Ample published medical papers and the positions of relevant professional associations support this.

Another statement suggests: “If we did not rely on animal cultivation for a major food source then there would theoretically be no need for any other mammal to be preserved except for aesthetic purposes… It is easy to envisage a planet virtually devoid of other animals if they did not provide a biological advantage for us.” Statements such as this may be considered to demonstrate a lack of awareness of:
- the intrinsic value of other species and individuals, which provides a fundamental ethical basis for attempting to conserve them, and of considering their interests, independent of possible human benefit; and
- the ecological interdependence of most (if not all) species, and their role in supporting the planetary life-support systems on which we all depend – surely a planet “virtually devoid of other animals” would be similarly devoid of humans?

Additionally, CAW appears to be more interested in ensuring good welfare for laboratory animals, rather than in finding alternatives to their use: “We should be prepared to accept that it will not be possible to eliminate the use of live animals for the development and testing of some procedures, pharmaceuticals and equipment.”

CAW does not necessarily support additional regulation: “Over-enthusiastic regulation on research animal conditions does not always produce the best conditions for those animals.”

Roger Gale believed all major parties considered the big political issues to be the economy, health, education, defence and policing, and that voters would be unlikely to give much weight to animal issues. The impression given was that, in the current economic climate, animal welfare was likely to be a very low priority for any incoming government.

We regret the recent turn of events and hope that a possible change in electoral reform may help to finally make people’s vote count, and thereby ensure that animals count!

Whilst this result is a disappointment for us and at the lower end of our expectations we should not be too disheartened. We know that Animals Count offered a professional and positive campaign to the electorate, with the tremendous efforts of our small, volunteer team who gave up very considerable personal time to taking the message we offer out to the voters. We received a lot of encouragement and support on the streets and via messages and emails to the Animals Count website, and our membership has increased, but regrettably that local support did not translate into actual votes as people decided to vote tactically for the “big” parties, and this is something that was seen across the country and should not be perceived purely as a rejection of the Animals Count policies and objectives.

We should remember that we have only been in operation for three years and this was our first participation in a General Election. The Green Party has just achieved the great success of having their first MP (Caroline Lucas, Brighton) and we offer our sincere congratulations to them, but it has taken the best part of 30 years for that dream to come true, and so we must recognise that we (Animals Count) are still in the very early stages in our evolution as a political party in this country.

Everyone (including those regarded as the best and brightest and smartest pundits!) thought that this election would represent real political change and “other” parties would do really well (following on from the credit crunch, the expenses scandal, lobbygate et al) but in fact the British electorate, up and down the country, knew that it would be an extremely close contest. In the last days before the elections, the government and headlines screamed ‘Vote tactically’ and that is what everyone did, to either keep Labour or the Conservative Party out. This type of voting behaviour on this scale has not been seen before.

Despite the media’s insistence that the TV debates had “changed the game forever” and “talking up” the alleged “surge” in support for the Liberal Democrats and their leader, Nick Clegg, nothing has changed and no “surge” in support for the “third” party has been forthcoming – far from it, the Liberal Democrats have lost seats compared to 2005.

We should, therefore, examine the Animals Count result in light of this dramatic attempt to either keep Labour or the Tories out across the UK. Many people (if not a majority) must not have voted for their first preference. It is regrettable that there is still huge support for the “big two” despite the damage they have done to our economy, the environment and communities over recent decades. In addition, due to the recession, people probably also considered their own interests ahead of more sustainable environmental interests.

However, the media was sufficiently interested (we were mentioned in a BBC online article, Richard Deboo was interviewed on the BBC2 Daily Politics show and by the Telegraph, and there were articles about Animals Count in local newspapers and animal-related magazines). In the 2009 European Parliament elections, we received over 13,000 votes in the Eastern region, which shows that the public is interested in animal issues.

We would like to thank all of our supporters for their help, and for the many messages of encouragement and hope that we have received during our campaign. It is tremendously heartening to us to know that there are people out there who do care about more than their own narrow self-interest and do want to ensure that those millions of animals in our society, who are so utterly at our mercy, can be properly represented in our political system, and who are so determined to see that politics can and should have compassion at its heart.

We will keep fighting!

Click here to watch the interview again.

The Telegraph also covered the launch with a video story.

Richard Deboo commented:

“This manifesto launch shows our determination to challenge the main parties on these vital issues, to demonstrate that there are other voices in our society, people who will stand up and be counted and make the call for justice for all – and mean it!

We will stand in this election not only because it is our democratic right to do so, but also because it is absolutely right for us to do so. We speak for everyone and democracy must mean that everyone is heard, and so our voice is the voice of all in the community.

We are the proof that another politics is possible!”

Animals Count’s ultimate goal is a world in which animals are not exploited, and are treated as sentient beings.

As expected, the GE will be held on 6th May which is the same day as the local elections. Richard Deboo, on behalf of Animals Count, will contest the Islington South and Finsbury constituency. Several volunteers have already helped distribute leaflets to raise awareness but we are going to step up our efforts significantly over the next few weeks in the area.

Richard Deboo, our Parliamentary Candidate and Animals Count Deputy Leader, is pictured here at our Fourth Party Conference on 27th March. Watch Richard’s inspiring keynote address.

Events
We would like to invite you to our Manifesto Launch and Press Conference at 5pm on 17th April at Housmans Bookshop, 5 Caledonian Road, Kings Cross, N1 9DX.

Richard Deboo will take part in a hustings event ‘Ask your Candidate’ organised by Greenpeace on Monday 19th April from 6.30-8.30pm at City University, Room BG02, University Building, 10 Northampton Sq, London EC1V 0HB. Most parties are unlikely to mention the massive impact of livestock farming on climate change. RD will mention this link as one of the biggest contributors to climate change.

On 23rd April, Jasmijn de Boo will give a presentation about Animals Count at the conference ‘Animal(s) Matter(s): the future of critical animal studies’ at the University of Liverpool.

On Sunday 25th April, veterinarians Andrew Knight and Lucy Fish will be offering free veterinary dog consultations in Barnard Park, Islington from 11am-1pm. Animals Count is not just talking about our policies; we put them into practice and show that there is public support for them. There will be fun things for kids to do as well (colouring animal masks, etc.).

Leafleting
We are putting the finishing touch on the election leaflet which will be sent to the printers in the next day or two. We desperately need your help with distributing leaflets! Any help would be much appreciated. You could cover a street, or an area, for a couple of hours or spread it out during several days. Rebecca is kindly coordinating the leafleting by maintaining a map showing which areas have been covered by different people. Please contact us if you are able to help (form does work even though it gives an error message after submitting – we are trying to fix this).
We also need to deliver the ‘Free veterinary dog consultation’ flyers in the area around Barnard Park between next week and 23rd April. Please help us spread the word!

Grueling mountaineering challenge to raise funds for Animals Count
After successfully completing the UK’s Vegan 3 Peaks Challenge in 2009 and raising over £1,300 for Animals Count’s 2009 EU election campaign, veterinarian Andrew Knight needed a bigger challenge. Accordingly, on the 5th of June, 2010, he and eight team mates are taking the next logical step: the Vegan 15 Peaks Challenge! They will cover 48 km horizontally, and no less than 4,000m vertically. And they must do it all in a single day… Yet, not even this is enough challenge for Team Vegan! To deliberately add to their burdens they will also complete the Yorkshire 3 Peaks Challenge on the 11th of April, which requires them to hike an additional 38K, and climb another 1,600m up and down. Andrew and Chloe ( http://www.vegan15peaks.info/pages/Team.htm) are raising funds for Animals Count’s election campaign.

PLEASE SPONSOR THESE BRAVE, BUT SLIGHTLY MAD, PEOPLE BY VISITING: http://www.animalscount.com/join/donate/

Finally…

Animals Count has been nominated again in the category Best Campaigners in the Bristol Eco-veggie Awards. Please vote for Animals Count once in April and once in May: http://bristol.ecoveggiefayre.co.uk/awards-vote

Thank you very much for your support!
The animals count on you. Now is the time to make a difference…

Housmans provides the right platform for Animals Count to launch a radical but realistic political manifesto. The bookshop specialises in books, zines, and periodicals of radical interest and progressive politics. They stock the largest range of radical newsletters, newspapers and magazines of any shop in Britain.

Richard Deboo, Animals Count Deputy Leader and Parliamentary Candidate for Islington South and Finsbury, commented: “I am very excited about our manifesto, our policies, our philosophy, which together represent a practical and achievable proposal for a better world, a future in which everyone is entitled to their share, where the abundance created by our economy and the natural fruits of the earth are shared fairly amongst everyone.

We will stand in this election not only because it is our democratic right to do so, but also because it is absolutely right for us to do so. We speak for everyone and democracy must mean that everyone is heard, and so our voice is the voice of all in the community.

We call for genuine partnership, collaboration and co-operation between all members of our community, and a genuine recognition and protection of those non-humans in our world whose personhood has been denied – against all scientific and moral evidence – for too long and whose rights therefore should be established in law and fully endorsed by a system of social justice that is all encompassing and all-embracing.”

Our full manifesto can be read here.