animals count - A UK political party for people and animals

09-02-2010 Animals Count meets with Conservative MP

Andrew Knight reports:

In the lead-up to the 2010 national elections, Animals Count is meeting with other political parties and candidates to ascertain their positions on animal issues, and to encourage the adoption of pro-animal policies. In October 2009 Animals Count met with the Green Party Deputy Leader, and MEP Jean Lambert’s assistant.

The second of these meetings was held on 2^nd February at Westminster Palace. Animals Count Leader Jasmijn de Boo, with Andrew Knight (veterinary ethicist and AC Spokesperson) and a solicitor member, met Roger Gale MP, the conservative Member for Thanet North. Roger is a founding member of Conservative Animal Welfare (CAW), which has a history dating back to 1994. CAW offers a focal point for Conservative Party members interested in animal welfare, and “recognises that animal welfare is an important political subject and is one that any Government should take seriously as it reflects the morality and ethics of the society in which we live.” (1).

Roger has a long history of involvement with animal issues. He served on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill Committee, and was the founding Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. He was Chairman of the All-Party Group for Animal Welfare for six years. He is an Honorary  Member  of the British Veterinary Association, an honorary life member of the League Against Cruel Sports, and a recipient the RSPCA`s highest recognition — the Richard Martin Award for services to animal welfare. He is a patron of the charity Animals Worldwide, and a Trustee of the Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad.

Interestingly, Roger told us he had effectively sacrificed his chances of a conservative front bench position, by refusing to support conservative policy favouring fox hunting. Roger has consistently voted against the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and remains committed to this admirable position.

The meeting was both interesting and disappointing. On the one hand, it was entertaining to be regaled with stories of Roger’s trips to Africa, partly to investigate human rights and animal welfare issues. On his Zimbabwean trip, for example, he had to travel incognito, as the consequences if identified as a UK parliamentarian could have been dire, given UK criticism of the Mugabe regime.

On the other hand, it proved difficult to get a word in, to discuss conservative policies on animal welfare, making this one of the most difficult political meetings this author has attended.

CAW aims to have very ‘science-based’ policies on animal welfare, and depend heavily on veterinary advisors for their expertise. Unfortunately, most veterinarians are expert on medicine and surgery, but — contrary to popular misperception — are not expert on animal welfare science or issues, although of course they do posses a certain level of knowledge. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that their positions on animal welfare issues often lag behind those of the general public. (2)

The CAW policies on animal issues are summarized on their website by a veterinary advisor (3). On the one hand, there are positive features. A major example includes:

“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, the site states that: “The Conservative Party is the first political party in the UK to designate a specific Front Bench Spokesman for Animal Welfare”. This Spokesperson is currently Andrew Rosindell MP, the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, with special responsibility for Animal Welfare.

Other aspects of conservative policy are disturbing, however. An obvious example is:

“[…it is a] biological fact that man is an omnivorous animal and as such needs to eat meat. It follows from this fact 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.”

Whilst this may once have been considered true, it demonstrates a fairly profound ignorance of current nutritional knowledge. Balanced vegetarian diets are well-established as offering the potential for significant health advantages. Ample published medical papers and the positions of relevant professional associations support this fact (4).

Additionally, “…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.”

Such statements demonstrate a disturbing lack of awareness of: (i) the intrinsic value of other species and individuals — which provides a fundamental ethical basis for attempting to conserve them, and of safeguarding their interests; and, (ii) the ecological interdependence of most (if not all) species, and their role in supporting the planetary life-support systems on which we all depend. A planet ‘virtually devoid of other animals’ would almost certainly be similarly devoid of humans.

Additionally, CAW appears more interested in ensuring good welfare for laboratory animals 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.”

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

Animals Count will shortly be providing CAW with some key suggestions regarding their policies, which, we feel, could be considerably updated, to reflect the best current evidence, ethical thought, and policy, on animal issues. Roger affirmed their willingness to consider suggestions from any source. He stressed very strongly that given the current economic climate, animal welfare would be a very low priority for an incoming conservative government (or, he felt, any government). He stressed that any policies promulgated would need to be desirable, politically realistic, and must not incur a financial cost.

Roger also provided some interesting insights into political thinking about animal issues. He informed us that his colleagues were advised by strategists that there are “a million votes in animal welfare.” However, he also asserted that the perception of animal advocates that animal welfare is a big political issue is greatly exaggerated. Many people care about animal issues, he felt, but their commitment is “soft,” and they are unlikely to vote primarily on animal issues, relative to their range of other concerns. He stated that the big political issues are the economy, health, education, defence and policing. (Yet, in countries with proportional political representation such as the Netherlands, nearly 180,000 people voted for the Dutch Party for the Animals in November 2006, resulting in two elected MPs.)

This is in stark contrast to opponents of animal advocates such as the Countryside Alliance, who Roger considered to be much more committed, and much more likely to leaflet, canvass for votes, and actually exert political power. This would explain the relatively low political impact of animal advocates, relative to the large number of people who do actually care about animal welfare. Roger was also dismissive of groups who adopt ‘extreme’ positions, (e.g. on the abolition of all animal experiments), or who conduct noisy protests. He considers such groups to be out of touch with reality.

When asked whether there were any animal issues on which he felt real progress might be made, Roger identified two:

1. Limiting the export of live animals, in favour of domestic slaughtering. CAW also supports the establishment of a domestic veal market (‘rose veal’), in the hope this would decrease calf exports. Given that supply is largely determined by demand, however, it seems likely that creation of such an additional market would simply increase calf production, rather than decrease calf exports to existing markets.

2. Limiting the export of animals for other purposes, when they might be used for those purposes domestically. CAW are, for example, opposed to the banning of animal experiments within the UK, fearing this would lead to an increase in experiments abroad, where welfare standards are lower.

Similar arguments have been raised throughout history, by those opposed to reformist bans of various kinds. A veterinary parallel is the argument against banning canine tail-docking: “if we don’t do it, the owners may do it themselves, compromising animal welfare.” Of course widespread veterinary opposition to tail-docking has been important in securing current legal bans, and it is difficult to imagine such progress if there had instead been widespread veterinary support for tail-docking.

We are grateful for the opportunity to meet with Roger — a Conservative leader on animal welfare issues. We hope our suggestions for the strengthening of Conservative policies on animal issues will be fairly considered, and adopted wherever possible.

We aim to similarly meet with other political parties in the coming weeks.

Footnotes:

1. www.conservativeanimalwelfare.co.uk

2. http://tinyurl.com/knight-vet-AW

3. http://www.conservativeanimalwelfare.co.uk/page.php?pid=14

4. e.g. Craig WJ, Mangels AR. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82.

26-01-2010 DEFRA consultation on the use of wild animals in circuses

The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is running a 12-week consultation on the use of wild animals in circuses, closing on 15 March 2010. It has been agreed between animal welfare agencies and representatives of the circus industry that maintaining the current regulations will not be an option.

The consultation focuses on how best to protect the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses, and the options are as follows:

• A complete ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses
• A voluntary system self-regulating the use of wild animals in circuses
• A statutory system regulating the use of wild animals in circuses

Animals Count believes that performances with wild animals in both traveling and static circuses as well as zoos should be banned as the aim of entertainment should not outweigh the animals’ right to integrity.  The well-known and obvious cruelty of transporting animals across the country, keeping them chained up and forcing them to learn unnatural tricks, often through harmful training methods, are the main reasons why many people prefer to visit all-human circuses. Please click here for Animals Count’s response to DEFRA’s consultation.

A widely-criticised DEFRA Circus Working Group report published at the end of 2007, concluded ‘there was insufficient scientific evidence to conclude that circuses could or could not meet the needs of animals and that any future bans would be a political, rather than scientific, decision.’

DEFRA’s online questionnaire can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/circus-wild-animals/

You can also submit your comments in writing, by email or post:

Rebecca Kenner, Defra, Animal Welfare Act Implementation Team, Area 8B, No 9 Millbank, c/o 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR or email:

animalwelfarecircusconsultation@defra.gsi.gov.uk  clearly stating the name of the consultation in the subject header eg: Wild Animals – Circuses

The consultation applies to the wild animals in travelling circuses in England only.

Please also ask your MP to sign Early Day Motion EDM 2179 WILD ANIMALS IN CIRCUSES

Are wild animals suited to a travelling circus life?

A recent study published in the journal ‘Animal Welfare’ by researchers from the University of Bristol, concluded that ‘non-domesticated animals, suitable for circus life, should exhibit low space requirements, simple social structures, low cognitive function, non-specialist ecological requirements and an ability to be transported without adverse welfare effects. None of the commonest species exhibited by circuses, such as elephants and large felids, currently meet these criteria. We conclude that the species of non-domesticated animals commonly kept in circuses appear the least suited to a circus life.’ (Iossa, G.; Soulsbury, C.D. and Harris, S., 2009)

25-01-2010 Animals Count welcomes the Government’s opposition to ivory trade

Yesterday, Animals Count called on the Government to oppose the proposed ivory trade and today we learned that the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, has indeed made the position of the UK Government to oppose the ivory trade clear.

26 January 2010

Animals Count calls upon the UK Government to strongly oppose the proposal by Tanzania and Zambia to allow a resumption in the ivory trade.  The UK Government needs to demonstrate leadership on this issue and affirm that any weakening of the moratorium on the ivory trade represents a failure to ensure the protection of the wild elephant population.

The evidence from the two previous “one off” ivory sales in 1997 and 2008 shows clearly that any resumption in this trade immediately and tragically leads to an increase in “black market” ivory sales, with greater numbers of elephants being killed by poachers, thereby having a severe impact on the remaining wild elephant population numbers (tragically elephants are now extinct in Sierra Leone because of poaching).

Animals Count demands that the UK Government uses its position as a standing member on the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) committee to oppose the sale in the strongest possible terms.  The scientific evidence tells us everything we need to know about the rich emotional, social lives of these extraordinary animals and the protection of the remaining wild populations in their natural habitat should be a foremost consideration for all Governments, and should certainly take precedence over any temporary financial considerations – the lives of these elephants are worth more than any fiscal trade in their body parts.

Political leadership urgently needs to be brought to bear on this issue if we are not to see the complete collapse of elephant populations until all that are left are a few “exhibits” in zoos and safari parks. It is time for the UK Government to take a stand and show the same courage as the Governments of Kenya and Mali, in leading the call from the majority of African States, in opposing yet another “one off” ivory sale. Animals Count urges the UK Government to prove that it does have the political will to take a stand on the world stage and call for upholding and indeed extending the moratorium on ivory sales, and put animal welfare where it belongs on the political agenda.

14-01-2010 Review of pedigree dog practices calls for changes

A new inquiry into problems around pedigree dogs, led by Cambridge University professor Sir Patrick Bateson, has called for changes in breeding practice and legislation. The report was commissioned by the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust in response to last year’s documentary on BBC demonstrating serious animal welfare and health problems in a range of pedigree dogs.

Animals Count welcomes the report, and particularly the recommendations, some of which are policy ideas that Animals Count also proposes. In addition, Animals Count has the following specific policies:

• With regard to the breeding and use of dogs as ‘weapons’ or status symbols, Animals Count believes that a wider social approach is required to address such antisocial behaviour, including making humane education courses part of the solution. We also seek a compulsory identification and registration scheme, tougher penalties for animal abuse and strict enforcement, and more local council animal welfare officers on the street. Breeders need to be regulated too. Human and animal agencies need to collaborate to tackle these issues.

• With regard to the Dangerous Dog Act, Animals Count believes that the specific breeds mentioned are arbitrary. Whilst it may be true that the breeds listed are more frequently owned by people more likely to engage in unacceptable social behaviour – leading to safety risks to other animals and the public, other dog breeds may bite as well. Rottweilers, for example, may be high up in the bite index. In fact, any breed can be selectively bred to become more aggressive. A breed-specific ban is undesirable. However, compulsory individual aggressive dog behaviour tests, and a ban on breeding dogs that do not meet certain criteria (e.g. dogs that fail behaviour tests), are likely to be more effective.

• Compulsory registration and a licensing system would need to be in place. Veterinarians encounter deficiencies in basic, responsible pet care on a daily basis. To help encourage responsible pet care, a companion animal licensing system should be established. Mandatory requirements would include increasing the minimum age of licence-holders, and the successful completion of a responsible animal care certificate, appropriate to the species in question. Annual maintenance of the licence would require mandatory neutering of all companion animals by sexual maturity or earlier, other than in very special circumstances; compliance with basic preventative healthcare measures such as vaccination and parasite control; annual veterinary checkups; mandatory identification and registration, through both externally-visible identification and microchipping. Maintenance of companion animal insurance designed to fund unexpected medical or surgical expenses should be encouraged. Limitations would be imposed on numbers of animals that may be kept at each address, related to type of housing.

• Animals Count agrees with the report’s conclusions on puppy farming. ‘Puppy farms’ are establishments where bitches are continuously bred, which often impairs their health. Living conditions and preventative healthcare standards are often poor. Animals Count would seek to:

1. Introduce an effective and humane stray animal management action plan.
2. Ensure that local authorities are fully equipped to house and adequately care for abandoned animals. Each area should have at least one Animal Protection Officer with expertise in animal welfare and powers of seizure, who can investigate complaints, and enforce the licensing system.
3. Regulate breeders and breeding facilities.
4. Ban the sale of puppies and kittens in shops of any kind in order to avoid impulsive purchasing decisions.
5. Strengthen the Animal Welfare Act, improve Border control (on animals traded into the UK), carry out spot checks, and increase penalties for offenders.

• Animals Count also supports the report’s views on restricting the breeding of dogs with particular features and specifically proposes that the breeding of companion animals to meet breed standards, or for other purposes, that result in hereditary anatomical, physiological or other impairments likely to be contrary to good welfare, must always be prohibited. Whilst pet overpopulation and mass euthanasia of companion animals continues, all breeding, and establishments in which breeding occurs, must be independently inspected and tightly regulated.

Animals Count seeks and welcomes expert opinions from a wide range of disciplines, including veterinarians, animal welfare scientists, canine experts, policy-makers and other stakeholders that put animal welfare interests first, ahead of commercial or economic gain.

• The provision of a basic animal health care system comparable to the NHS should be established. The system would seek to utilise existing private veterinary clinics and hospitals, and charities, by providing government funding to extend the provision of basic healthcare and emergency services. Rescue centres, rehabilitation and re-homing facilities for domestic and wild animals would also receive subsidies.

• To millions of households, companion animals matter. Some people, for example elderly people, may have reduced social networks, and their companion animal is extremely important to them. Yet sadly, many social housing corporations and care homes do not allow companion animals. This should change.

• There is evidence of a link between domestic violence and cruelty to animals, which needs to be addressed effectively by all relevant stakeholders (animal protection, social and child care, police, prosecution, etc.).

• Legislation and regulations against animal neglect and abuse should be strengthened, through a range of measures, including:
  • increased powers of inspection and seizure for police and licensed inspectors,
  • mandatory completion by offenders of a responsible animal care certificate (see above) appropriate to the species in question, regardless of any prior certification,
  • increased penalties for offenders.

• Resources for the implementation and enforcement of such legislation and regulations against animal neglect and abuse should be increased.

• Organisations and animal shelters that conduct inspections, animal seizures, provide shelters for animals, or prosecute animal abusers, should receive adequate government funding. Statutory regulation of animal sanctuaries should be introduced.

• Establishments selling animals should be subjected to mandatory regulation in accordance with best practice principles, including with respect to stocking densities, health and husbandry standards, independent, unannounced inspections, and a range of penalties that could include revocation of licences, fines and custodial sentences, where violations are apparent.

Andrew Knight, BSc., BVMS, CertAW, MRCVS, FOCAE

Spokesperson, Animals Count

January 2010

09-01-2010 Winter warmer fundraiser party in SW London on 22 Jan

06-01-2010 Job vacancy (voluntary – expenses covered): 2010 Election Campaign Coordinator

Job vacancy (voluntary – expenses covered): 2010 Election Campaign Coordinator

Animals Count will contest the 2010 General Elections and we are looking for a professional Campaign Coordinator. Below are more details about the position.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

• Responding to enquiries, liaising with members/supporters of Animals Count, and communicating with members of the public, other political parties, government officers, NGOs, etc.

• Pro-actively contacting a range of relevant people and organisations, which may include media contacts.

• Acting as a liaison between the Chair, Treasurer, Secretary, the 2010 General Elections Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) and the Election Committees (Events/Campaigns; Manifesto; Expenses).

• Maintaining the Animals Count website(s).

• Identifying relevant events/festivals where Animals Count could have a presence, arrange stalls, make payments (in collaboration with Treasurer) etc.

• Any other relevant duties assigned by the Chair or Treasurer.

EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS:

• Educated to degree level

KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE:

• At least two years relevant professional experience.

• Management experience of: managing a staff team, budget management and project/programme management or campaigning.

• Political knowledge and experience • Practical experience in any animal field.

• Knowledge or experience of working within the voluntary/political sector.

• A good understanding of issues affecting animals, the environment, and politics.

SKILLS

• Team skills.

• Strong motivational and co-ordination skills.

• Strategic planning/management skills.

• Excellent communication skills, both written and spoken.

• Ability to inspire and motivate others.

• Ability to get along with a wide range of people.

• Good organiser.

• Competent IT skills.

OTHER:

• A demonstrably deep commitment to the protection of animals.

• Willing and able to travel to London frequently, particularly during March, April and early May.

TO APPLY: If you are interested and got what it takes, please contact Animals Count Leader, Jasmijn de Boo, at info@animalscount.org for more information.

04-01-2010 Animals Count to contest a London constituency in 2010 elections

Animals Count will contest a London constituency during the General Elections. Please download our latest newsletter here for more information.

To order merchandise, including several new and exciting items, use this form.