buylotrogold

the vast majority of animal death and suffering is indirect, collateral. The chemicals alone used to fertilize, protect from pests and weeds cause far more harm to animals and far more painfully than the animals we actually directly kill to be used. Really! Any facts and figures? I agree all *cides should be banned. What do you do to avoid wildlife deaths, or are you just blowing off?

Burger King Adopts New Industry-Leading Animal Welfare Policies http://www.peta.org/about/victoryItem.asp?Victoryid=496 In 2001, PETA ended its Murder King campaign against fast-food giant Burger King after the company agreed to adopt a series of animal welfare guidelines. Since then, PETA has continued to hold behind-the-scenes discussions with Burger King about how the company could further improve its animal welfare requirements. In March 2007, after nearly six years of discussions with PETA, Burger King announced a groundbreaking new plan, placing it at the forefront of the fast-food industry with regard to animal welfare. Learn more about PETA's ongoing work with Burger King to reduce some of the worst abuses suffered by chickens, pigs, and cows in factory farms and slaughterhouses. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claimed victory last June after more than [800] 'Murder King' protest rallies spread over five months prompted Burger King, the world's second-largest fast-food chain, to announce new guidelines for its meat and egg suppliers, including extra water, wing room, and fresh air for egg-laying hens and mandatory stunning of pigs and cattle prior to slaughter. Surprise inspections by Burger King auditors will help to ensure that suppliers treat animals humanely right up to the end. McDonald's established similar guidelines a year earlier, following a PETA campaign that included distribution of 'Unhappy Meals' with ['wounded,'] ['bloody'] farm-animal toys. —Discover Magazine, Jan. 2002 Victory: PETA Wins 'Murder King' Campaign! On June 28, 2001, PETA called off its Murder King campaign, which involved provocative ads; celebrity support from Alec Baldwin, James Cromwell, and Richard Pryor; and—with the help of activists—more than 800 protests at Burger King restaurants worldwide. Since the campaign ended, Burger King has continued to lead the fast-food industry toward improving animal welfare. PETA called off its Murder King campaign when the company agreed to do the following things: Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses, including chicken slaughterhouses, and take action against facilities that fail inspections Establish animal-handling verification guidelines for all the slaughterhouses of its suppliers Confine no more than five hens in each battery cage, require that the birds be able to stand fully upright, and require the presence of two water drinkers per cage (although confining five hens to a tiny cage is still horribly cruel, this number is two less than the industry standard and represents a marked improvement for animals) Stop purchasing from suppliers who force-molt hens (i.e., starve them for up to two weeks in order to force them to lay more eggs) Develop auditing procedures for the handling of broiler chickens Institute humane handling procedures for chickens at slaughterhouses Begin purchasing pork from farms that do not confine sows to stalls Burger King also petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce the Humane Slaughter Act. Update: Burger King Adopts New Industry-Leading Animal Welfare Policies in 2007 In the years following PETA´s successful “Murder King” campaign, PETA continued to hold behind-the-scenes discussions with Burger King about how the company could further improve its animal welfare guidelines. In March 2007, Burger King announced a groundbreaking new plan, placing it at the forefront of the fast-food industry with regard to animal welfare. The company committed to the following: Immediately begin purchasing some pig flesh from suppliers that do not use cruel gestation crates—_meta_l enclosures that confine mother pigs and are so restrictive that the animals cannot even stretch a limb or take a step—and double that amount by the end of 2007 Immediately begin purchasing some eggs laid by hens who are not confined to tiny wire “battery cages,” and more than double that amount by the end of 2007 Issue a statement to its egg suppliers stating that it will give purchasing preference to those that do not use battery cages Issue a statement to its chicken flesh suppliers stating that it will give purchasing preference to those that use or switch to “controlled-atmosphere killing” (CAK), the least cruel method of chicken and turkey slaughter in existence PETA applauds Burger King for this groundbreaking step and will continue to work with the company to improve its animal welfare requirements. Tragically, some of the biggest fast-food companies, like KFC, have refused to make even minimal animal welfare changes. For information about PETA’s current campaign against KFC—urging it to eliminate the worst abuses suffered by the more than 850 million chickens killed for its buckets each year—visit www.KentuckyFriedCruelty.com. Change is slow, but sure.

Badger culling is meaningless, report scientists 18/06/07 Badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain, the Governments Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on bovine tuberculosis (T said today, in its final report [1] which has been welcomed by the Badger Trust. Instead, the scientists advise that: [TB] can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-_base_d control measures alone. The report is the culmination of ten years of scientific research, costing 50 million. Almost 11,000 badgers were killed in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), also known as the Krebs trial after Professor Sir John Krebs who proposed it. The team of scientists, from Britains top universities, concludes that although badgers contribute to cattle TB, [culling] policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. The scientists point out that only 14 new cases of TB were prevented in herds, despite five years of coordinated and sustained badger culling across 1,000km2 [1, p21] that removed approximately 73 per cent of the badgers [1, p69]. The small beneficial effect on the incidence of TB results in a cost-benefit analysis which shows that it seems unlikely [that culling] would be worthwhile under any economic conditions [1, p159]. Instead, the ISG advises that substantial reductions in TB can be achieved by improving cattle-_base_d control measures: Such measures include the introduction of more thorough controls on cattle movement through zoning or herd attestation, strategic use of the IFN [gamma interferon blood] test in both routine and pre-movement testing, quarantine of purchased cattle, shorter testing intervals, careful attention to breakdowns in areas that are currently low risk, and whole herd slaughter for chronically affected herds [1, p21 and Chapters 7 and 10]. Trevor Lawson, spokesperson for the Badger Trust, said: Killing badgers is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, doing far more harm than good. A less brutish approach to the small role played by badgers, such as electric fencing around farm buildings, might well yield greater benefits at a fraction of the cost. Controlling TB in cattle will reduce TB in badgers, further reducing the risk to cattle [1, p21]. These are constructive, win-win solutions that are good for farming, for wildlife and for tax payers. The challenge now is for farmers and vets to see the sense of implementing them. The Government now has the sound science that it promised to _base_ its TB policy on. The ISGs research has been rubber-stamped by the worlds leading scientists in the worlds leading peer-reviewed journals. The challenge for David Miliband is to implement effective TB controls on cattle without plunging farmers into bankruptcy. Constructive support measures for farmers will be essential, because there are thousands of undiagnosed, infected cattle out there. Removing them will mean medium-term pain for the Treasury and significant difficulties for a minority of farmers. But the science is crystal clear: that is the only way forwards. Notes: 1. Bourne, J. et al (2007), Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence - A Science _base_ for a Sustainable Policy to Control TB in Cattle; An Epidemiological Investigation into Bovine Tuberculosis, Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB Defra, London. The report is available online here

The Wildlife Trusts welcome report’s rejection of badger culling 18th June, 2007 The Wildlife Trusts today welcomed the findings of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) report which state unequivocally that badger culling provides ‘no meaningful contribution’ and is ‘not cost effective’ as a control measure for combating bovine tuberculosis (bT. Stephanie Hilborne, Chief Executive, The Wildlife Trusts said: ‘We now have a definitive scientific statement that says badger culling is not the way forward for bovine TB, and Government can draw a line under any consideration of a cull. Now is the time for all parties to throw their weight behind cattle-to-cattle control measures and improved biosecurity to deal with this disease.’ The report states that the rising incidence of bovine TB can be reversed and its spread contained by the rigid application of cattle-_base_d control measures alone. The Wildlife Trusts believe that the following measures are required: • Improved cattle testing (including use of the gamma interferon test) and monitoring of testing • Stricter movement restrictions including pre and post-movement testing • Improved husbandry and biosecurity on farms • Continued research and trials for vaccine development The Wildlife Trusts hope this report will now provide the basis for the farming community, conservation organisations and the Government to work together to confront this disease which can cause great economic hardship to cattle farmers. (The full report is available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/pdf/final_report.pdf)

Cats could be scaring birds out of our cities 19 June 2007 NewScientist.com news service http://tinyurl.com/3ym3jq ARE cats frightening birds so much that they don't breed? Andy Beckerman and colleagues from the University of Sheffield, UK, think fear of cats may explain the ongoing fall in urban bird numbers. Many accusatory fingers point to the cat, and in areas of high cat density, predation may indeed be the sole reason for the decline. It might not be cats' only effect, however. Beckerman's team built a model that took both kills and the fear factor into account, and found that apprehension could explain the decrease even where predation is low. A reduction of just one chick per breeding pair per year per cat can lead to a fall in bird numbers of up to 95 per cent (Animal Conservation, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00115.x). What's cool about the model is that with no mortality you still get a large decline through mechanisms of fear, says Beckerman.

Battery cows – the true price of cheap milk  02 March 2007   http://www.ciwf.org/home/news_2012Ban.shtml  Compassion in World Farming’s film, Britain's Battery Cows, http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/video/zerograzing.wmv  exposes the shocking truth behind many intensive dairy farms. It reveals stark images of ‘battery’ cows crowded together in barren sheds behind bars with nothing but dirty and slippery concrete to stand on. In the most intensive zero grazing systems, cows are often confined to cubicles that are too small for them to stand and lie comfortably. This can result in cows standing with their hind feet in their own excrement. This can cause painful foot infections. In some cases the cows are not even provided with bedding material and are forced to lie on bare concrete. As dairy farmers struggle to meet consumer/supermarket demand for increasingly cheaper milk, they have to make a difficult choice: intensify farming to produce higher milk yields to break even; or shut down completely. As parts of the UK dairy industry become more intensive, year round housing systems for cows and the use of high yielding breeds such as Holstein cows are likely to become more predominant. And we all know the fate of male Holstein dairy calves – either shot at birth or exported live to continental veal farms – because they’re no good for milk or beef. Milk yields from cows in UK farms have risen in the last decade by more than 20%, with one intensive farm quoting an 80% increase from around 5,000 litres per cow per year to nearer 9,000 litres. Meanwhile, the amount farmers are paid has dropped by around 36% from 24.5 to 18 pence per litre. More than one dairy farm closes a day: over 2,000 farms have closed in England since 2002. We are in danger of mirroring the United States' dairy industry, where zero grazing is endemic; where three out of four dairy cows never graze in pasture; and where many are not provided routine access of any kind to the outdoors. CIWF is already in high-level dialogue with politicians, farmers and supermarkets to find viable alternatives to zero grazing and high-yield single purpose breeds. We are seeking fairer milk prices for the farmers, so that they don’t have to take the intensive farming route; we are lobbying for dual purpose breeds that can be economically reared for both dairy and beef production. We urgently need your support to raise public awareness about the true price of cheap milk. If you can, please make an online donation to support our work today. Your support will give us the resources to stand up to those who would put profit before animal welfare. Telephone us on 01483 521 953 if you require further information. Thank you so much.