Australia took a decisive step to protect whales, filing a suit in the International Court of Justice against Japan’s “scientific whaling” in the Southern Ocean. The suit seeks an injunction to bar Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary a 50-million square kilometer area surrounding the continent of Antarctica, where the IWC has banned all types of commercial whaling.
This news comes as the International Whaling Commision meet to discuss a possible compromise with whaling nations that would allow them to resume commercial whaling with the understanding that they abide by quotas. The IWC is the body responsible for the management of whaling and its main purpose is to regulate the whaling industry. Established in 1946, in 2008 it has over 79 member countries.
Australia claims that Japan has abused its right to conduct scientific research whaling under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which provides for a scientific exemption. They also assert that Japan has breached the terms of CITES by hunting endangered whale species. In 2008-09 Japan killed 1,004 whales, including 681 in the Southern Ocean. Since the moratorium came into effect, more than 33,000 whales have been killed under the scientific exemption clause.
The Australians are willing to call Japanese whaling what it is — a mockery of science and a crime against nature. Lets hope the rest of the international community back them up on this one!
Firstly, apologies for my lengthy absence from this e-zine. I was in Sulawesi, Indonesia for 2 months volunteering at an animal rescue centre. Then upon my return I was mentally and physically exhausted and spent the last few weeks sleeping metaphorically and physically. However with a rising mojo I am back! Sometimes we all just need a little time out, especially in fields where you care deeply about issues that are so wide-spread and commonplace that it can tie you up in knots trying to figure out where to begin.
I digress, back to April when I went to volunteer at Tasikoki Animal Rescue Center. Now despite my passion for animal welfare, up until this point I had never volunteered in the ‘field’ unless you count my local RSPCA cat shelter. It was a total shock to the system which wasn’t helped by the severe sun burn and heat stroke that struck me on my stop-over in Singapore.
The first night there was unbearably hot and I didn’t sleep a wink. So I was up and showered by the time the alarm clock went off at 5.30 am! Simon took us on our first day to show us the ropes. It was hot and tiring. There are a lot of hills in Tasikoki. I was also terrified of the Macaques. They were stressed and scared – much like myself. I was shocked by the conditions that they were living in. I thought to myself that their enclosures wouldn’t pass a lab inspection back in the UK. Aside from two release groups in Large open enclosures, the other macaques were kept either in solitary cages and slept on bars or in what I called cell block H where they live in small concrete enclosures with chicken wire walls. I couldn’t decide which was worse, the macaques in solitary looked worse off because of the bars and isolation but they were a lot calmer than those in cell block H. I think this was because in the cell block the macaques had no visual escape from each other, which caused a lot of stress and aggression. (more…)
Ok, so bad news first – the Conservative party are the largest party in British government with 307 seats. The good news is that they needed at least 323 to form a majority government and therefore had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Why is this good news? Well, because the Conservatives and Liberals couldn’t be further apart ideologically. The conservatives look after the landed classes and people with money in general, wanting to lower taxes on the rich, cut back on public spending and most importantly to me, repeal the fox-huting ban – favourite past time of the ‘old money’ landowners. On the other hand the Liberal Democrats care about people and to some extent animals too.
Unfortunately as part of the coalition agreement, on page 18 it states, ”We will bring forward a motion on a free vote, enabling the House of Commons to express its view on the repeal of the Hunting Act.” So it appears likely that a vote on the issue will come up in parliament at some point in the next five years – provided the coalition makes it that far. However the Liberals are anti fox-hunting and don’t have to vote with the conservatives to repeal the ban. Labour brought the ban in to place and won’t want to see it repealed either. Hoever there may be other marginal parties that will side with the conservatives on the issue and it could be a very close contest.
As luck would have it a timetable for such a vote failed to materialise in the Queen’s Speech, effectively indicating that it was no longer a priority and had been shelved! This is possibly because they would be heavily criticised for prioritising a law that affects few people and is effectively about a past-time when the country is facing a massive financial deficit and their are more universally important issues to address. It also might cause unnecessary friction with the Liberals.
So, it looks like the foxes are safe to live another day – for now! But we must not get complacent and we must continue to show that many more people oppose fox-hunting than support it. The country-side alliance is making more noise on the issue because they don’t have their way, we must not let them manipulate the issue. So 4000 members of the country-side alliance want fox hunting back – there are 70 million people in the UK!
Christian was a lion cub born in to a life of captivity and sold to the exclusive department store Harrods, for sale in their pet department back in 1969! John Rendall and Ace Bourke purchased him and what happened next became a beautiful story of friendship that ultimately saw Christian return to his rightful place in the wilds of Africa.
At first he lived with John and Ace in their London home and went to work with them at their furniture store but they soon came to realise that he was getting too big and growing to love him, they now wanted a better- more natural life for Christian!
Luckily for Christian, Virginia McKenna (founder of Bornfree) happened to visit their furniture store and suggested that Christian go to live with conservationist George Adamson in Kenya, where he could hopefully be rehabilitated back in to the wild.
Christian went to Africa to start a new life and joined 2 other rescued lions, Boy and Katania, forming a close bond with the older lion, Boy. When Boy later died Christian sat by his grave for days.
In 1972, Rendall and Bourke went back to visit Christian after a year apart. They were prepared for him not to remember them at all. What happened that day was caught on film and with the explosion of video sharing became the most watched video on Youtube in 2008. The film shows the lion at first cautiously approach and then quickly leap playfully onto the two men, standing on his hind legs and wrapping his front legs around their shoulders, nuzzling their faces. The documentary also shows the female lions, Mona and Lisa, welcoming the two men.
Rendall and Bourke returned to see Christian again in 1973. They had been told not to bother coming because Christian hadn’t returned to the reserve for 9 months and they probably wouldn’t see him. As fate would have it, Christian returned to the reserve the day before their arrival and they were reunited for a final time.
‘We called him and he stood up and started to walk towards us very slowly. Then, as if he had become convinced it was us, he ran towards us, threw himself on to us, knocked us over, knocked George over and hugged us, like he used to, with his paws on our shoulders.’
This renunion lasted all night with the men drinking beer and Christian lounging around and playing with them. The next day he left and never returned to the reserve.
If you are interested in reading more about Christian’s life, there are several films, biographies and even a children’s book about this incredible true story, demonstrating the power of friendship and importance of animal conservation.
The infamous monks of the tiger temple in Thailand are sueing three prominent members of animal rescue organisations for daring to tell the truth about them. You may think this is not very monk like behaviour but then neither is animal explotation and cruelty and turning a profit through the deception of naive tourists.
Edwin Wiek, founder and director of Wildlife Friends of Thailand, Sawan Sangbunlang of the Thai Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Dr. Surapon Duangkae of the Wildlife Fund Thailand have been charged over remarks in an April 2009 article published in the “Thai Post,”. In the report, accusations were made concerning illegal possession of and trade in tigers at the temple, and abuse of the animals. If convicted, they could face jail sentences.
Hundreds of foreign tourists daily visit the Tiger Temple to see and take pictures with the tigers. It is a lucrative business. The entrance fee is 500 baht (US $15) per person while making “special photos” costs 1,000 baht (US$30) extra. For a morning experience, people pay 4,500 baht (US$120) per person to feed the cubs and watch the cub exercise session.
The Tiger Temple’s success is based around claims that its tigers were rescued from poachers and live and move freely and peacefully amongst the temple’s monks, who are actively engaged in conservation and rescue work.However, undercover investigations by the British wildlife charity Care for the Wild International, conducted from 2005-2008, revealed evidence of tigers at the facility being regularly beaten with wooden sticks and clubs, being forced to sit in direct sunshine for hours, and being kept in poor conditions with inadequate food.The CWI investigators observed that when tigers are not obedient before, during or after the photo-sessions they are sprayed by the keepers with urine from bottles in their eyes and faces and/or hit with wooden sticks on their backs and heads.Tigers are reported to be extremely lethargic during photo sessions, leading to concerns they may be drugged. I think it is highly likely they are drugged. It would not be safe to beat a tiger with a stick unless it had no means of defending itself.It is truly disgusting self deception that people think that the tigers would behave that way without being drugged – tigers don’t just sit there so limp and lifeless even if they are in the ‘calming presence of monks’.
When I visited Thailand in 2006 I was offered a trip to the tiger temple by a travel agent on Khao San Road. I have to admit for a second I considered it. Who wouldn’t want to touch a tiger and have their photo taken with one? However, I didn’t go because I knew that whilst I would enjoy the experience very much – the tiger would not. I think we forget all too often that other animals are not here for our convenience. I also know somebody that did go there and he said that the tigers were controlled by suddenly opening umbrellas in their faces to scare them and he observed them licking white powder off the floor. He instantly regretted going, as do many tourists, but by that point the monks already have your cash.
Any dangerous wild animal that is been cared for properly with respect to it’s natural behaviour and instincts will not be available for a photo opportunity or petting time. Apart from the animal welfare considerations, a conservation organisation that is to be taken seriously will know that human contact will not do the tigers any good. It is important that they are fearful of people, so that they don’t stray near human settlements and cause conflict and also to avoid poachers. It is also important to maintain the behavioural integrity of the animal when breeding for conservation. If you domesticate them, they will not know how to behave like tigers and they won’t be able to pass information on to the next generation. If you selectively breed animals for tameness or the ability to deal with captivity, you are already changing the gene pool and it is too late to save them. If we only breed tigers in captivity that can’t fend for themselves – we will be creating living fossils. They will look like tigers but they will not be tigers.
Please don’t visit any tourist attractions that use animals for entertainment. As a hard and fast rule – if you are allowed to touch the animals, it is not a good thing for animal welfare or conservation, particuarly with wild predatory animals. It is also very unsafe for you. You better hope they are drugged, de-toothed and de-clawed to within an inch of their lives or you probably wouldn’t escape with yours! You never know when natural instincts will kick in or even when the animal will lose it’s temper and snap! We saw an example of this all too recently when Tilly, the Orca at Seaworld, drowned her trainer.
If you are interested in learning more about the tiger temple – please visit this website
Rules designed to make animal snares less cruel will come into force today, despite a widespread campaign to have the devices banned outright. Used predominantly to trap foxes who may prey on farm animals, new laws set mean the traps will now have to be checked once a day. Nooses will no longer be allowed to tighten beyond a certain point and the traps will need to be fixed down to ensure they cannot be dragged by injured animals. The Scottish Government measures will also make it illegal for snares to be set to trap and suspend or drown creatures.
Supporters of the measures insist snares are a vital conservation tool and key for managing pests such as foxes. However, opponents say that they are a crude measure and should be banned outright.
Louise Robertson, from the League Against Cruel Sports, said: “These regulations are a complete whitewash and will go no way towards reducing the huge level of suffering caused by such a basic wire trap. The government based its decision purely on the financial gain to be made from commercial shooting and with complete lack of regard for animal welfare. As long as snares are legal, animals will continue to suffer horrific injuries and slow, agonising deaths.”
However, the government insists it has not stopped one step short. The Snares (Scotland) Order amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and MSPs say the changes were agreed following wide public consultation.
Contributed by, Nicola Gothard
