Tuesday, December 3, 2013


#STOPANIMALCRUELTY 
#BANTRAPPING 
#STOPPOACHING 
#STOPTROPHYHUNTING
#CAPTIVITYKILLS 
PETITIONS :

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 19, 2013


Melissa Bachman ~ Official Website


UPDATED : November 27. 2013 
4 Petitions to sign & share
 #STOPTROPHYHUNTING


 REMOVE ALL OF MELISSA BACHMAN'S 
DISTURBING VIDEOS FROM YOUTUBE
http://www.yousign.org/en/melissa-bachman-youtube


END MELISSA BACHMAN'S TELEVISION CAREER. STOP THE KILLING OF INNOCENT ANIMALS!

HELP PROTECT AFRICAN LIONS FROM HUNTERS 


O

This petition is now closed, but I'm leaving the link up so that you can see what you all did.

 Petition closed: With 487, 628 supporters. Go folks, GO!


THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA: DENY FUTURE ENTRY TO MELISSA BACHMAN.

VICTORY! Anti-Hunters Petition; 
Melissa Bachman Cut from National Geographic Show



Lion Huntress Melissa Bachman Under Fire Over Gruesome Photo

Melissa Bachman Twitter Fury: Death Wishes, Vicious Insults Follow South African Lion Hunt

Show presenter Melissa Bachman slammed after posting photo of lion she killed in South Africa 

TV host Melissa Bachman criticized for smiling photograph of herself with dead lion

Big game backlash: Protests against celebrity hunter Melissa Bachman mount



MELISSA BACHMAN'S SPORT KILLING OF A LION SENDS 
THE WRONG MESSAGE
Posted: 11/19/2013 6:35 pm

North American Regional Director, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Jeffrey Flocken 
African Lions, Hunting, Ifaw, International Fund For Animal Welfare, Melissa Bachman, Trophy Hunting, Green News

 Here is a short test -- which of the following items are illegal to import into the United States?

 a). Drugs
b). Lion Carcass
c). Firearms
d). Live Birds

 Actually, they are all illegal, with the exception of the lion carcass -- which is incentive enough for those like television host, Melissa Bachman, to travel to Africa to hunt and kill one of the world's most iconic but also severely imperiled species just for the "sport" of it and a photo op.

 With as few as 32,000 lions remaining in the wild, the once ubiquitous animals are rapidly disappearing from the African landscape. Habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict are the primary reasons, but trophy hunting is responsible for the slaughter of about 600 of the animals each year.

 And, approximately 60 percent of all lions killed for sport are shipped to the U.S. as trophies -- an act made possible by the fact that the African lion is not protected currently by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).

 In fact, lions are the only great cat not protected by this law. However, the U.S. government is currently considering a scientific petition to list African lions as Endangered under the ESA.

 The petition was written by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, along with other animal protection groups like Born Free and Humane Society International, and if it is successful, American trophy hunters will no longer be able to bring lion trophies or parts for commercial sale back into the U.S.

 Which brings us again to Melissa, and the other American hunters who engage in vainglorious trophy hunts.

 The African lion is a species that is experiencing a downward spiral toward extinction. The sport killing of these cats clearly sends a message that these majestic animals are more valued dead than alive, as the much-publicized image of Melissa grinning over the slain great cat certainly echoes.

 We hope that Americans will speak up for lions and let the U.S. government know that lions should be conserved and protected -- not shot for fun. Tell the US Fish & Wildlife Service to list African lions as endangered throughout their range under the ESA.

 This is how Americans can make a real difference in helping imperiled species like lions (helpafricanlions.org) by celebrating their conservation -- not by glorifying their needless slaughter.

 Jeff Flocken is the North American Regional Director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). To learn more about IFAW's work to protect African lions, visit HelpAfricanLions.org.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-flocken/melissa-bachman-lion_b_4303215.html
African Lions, Hunting, Ifaw, International Fund For Animal Welfare, Melissa Bachman, Trophy Hunting, Green News

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, November 17, 2013




U.S. OFFERS REWARD IN WILDLIFE-TRADE FIGHT



By THOMAS FULLER
Published: November 13, 2013
BANGKOK — Taking a page from the battle against international drug cartels, the United States announced on Wednesday a $1 million reward for information to help dismantle one of Asia’s largest wildlife-trafficking syndicates.

In what officials said was the first time such a reward had been offered, the State Department said it was targeting a syndicate based in Laos, the impoverished and authoritarian Southeast Asian country whose government, investigators say, has been uncooperative in stopping a thriving trade of African ivory, rhino horns, tiger bones and endangered animals harvested by the thousands from Asian jungles.

 In a statement, Secretary of State John Kerry said the syndicate, the Xaysavang Network, “facilitates the killing of endangered elephants, rhinos and other species for products such as ivory.” The network, he said, spans South Africa, Mozambique, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and China.

 Investigators say the syndicate is headed by a Laotian businessman, Vixay Keosavang, who was the subject of an article in The New York Times in March.

 Reached on his cellphone on Wednesday, Mr. Vixay said he was being framed. “There are people slandering me,” he said. “If you want to know the truth, you should ask Lao officials.”

 Asked about rhino horns sent from South Africa and addressed to him personally — evidence that was presented in a trial that concluded last year in South Africa — Mr. Vixay acknowledged that he had received them.

 “I admit that I accepted them in good faith,” he said, adding that Laotian officials were aware of the shipments. But, he said, “I never ordered them.”

 Bouaxam Inthalangsi, an official at the Laotian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, said Wednesday that American officials gave him documents last week related to Mr. Vixay and the Xaysavang Network. But he said it was not enough evidence to arrest Mr. Vixay, who is based in Bolikhamxai Province outside the capital, Vientiane.

 “According to what we know right now, he can walk free in Bolikhamxai because he is not guilty,” Mr. Bouaxam said. “We must act strictly in accordance with the law.”

 Laos, run by an opaque Communist Party, ranks 160th out of 176 countries and territories in the corruption index published by Transparency International, a monitoring group. The authorities in neighboring countries say Laos has increasingly been used as a transit point for trafficked wildlife that is sent to consumers in East Asia, especially China and Vietnam.

 Investigators believe that Mr. Vixay has enjoyed a great degree of protection from the Laotian authorities, and they point to voluminous evidence of Mr. Vixay’s wildlife-trafficking operations. A shipment of ivory and rhino horns intercepted by the Kenyan authorities in 2009 was addressed directly to Mr. Vixay’s company, Xaysavang Trading, in Laos.

 The largest trove of evidence against Mr. Vixay, investigators say, came during the trial in South Africa of Chumlong Lemtongthai, a Thai national who South African prosecutors say was Mr. Vixay’s deputy.

 In the trial, prosecutors laid bare a system in which Mr. Chumlong used Thai prostitutes to pose as rhino hunters, illegally using a loophole in South African law that allows hunters to bring back one horn as a trophy. Prosecutors called this “one of the biggest swindles in environmental crime history.” Mr. Chumlong was sentenced to 40 years in prison, which was reduced to 30 years on appeal.

 Invoices presented as evidence in the trial showed that the rhino horns were in Mr. Vixay’s name and sent to his address in Laos. Mr. Vixay said in an interview that he had quit “a long time ago” what he described as his import-export business.

 Yet Mr. Vixay’s wildlife-trading business is well known in the village along the Mekong River where his large walled compound is. During a visit by this reporter in February, a security guard who answered the door said the compound contained tigers, bears and other endangered animals whose trade is restricted or banned by a United Nations treaty. Villagers reported seeing regular truckloads of pangolins, an animal that resembles an anteater. Trading in pangolins is illegal under the United Nations treaty.

 The United States government has been increasingly aggressive in combating wildlife trafficking, partly out of concern over the slaughter of elephants and rhinos for their tusks and horns. More than 800 rhinos were illegally killed in South Africa this year, far more than in any previous year.

In July, the Obama administration issued an executive order calling wildlife trafficking an “international crisis” and instructing law enforcement agencies to “promote and encourage” actions against trafficking in other countries.

 Brooke Darby, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, said the trafficking reward program, which in the future could also be used for trafficking in arms, people and counterfeit currency, was modeled on a narcotics reward system that began in 1986 and has given out more than $87 million to informants.

 “We want to go after everyone in this process,” she said. “The people who ordered that the poaching be done, the people who accept bribes along the way, the people who forge customs documents, the people who receive the products.”

 Ms. Darby would not comment on the specifics of how the United States would try to dismantle the trafficking network in Laos, where security agencies are secretive and where cooperation with foreign governments has been highly circumscribed in other matters. One example of the limited cooperation is what appeared to be the abduction of an American-trained agronomist last December who was last seen at a police checkpoint. Despite numerous requests for information by foreign diplomats in Laos, the police have never fully explained his disappearance.

 News of the award came as a surprise both to Mr. Bouaxam, the Laotian official, and to Mr. Vixay.
Steven Galster, the executive director of Freeland, a countertrafficking organization based in Bangkok that has been instrumental in tracking Mr. Vixay, described the reward as a “great development.” “In the world of wildlife trafficking and corruption, you gotta fight money with money,” he said in an email.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/world/asia/us-to-offer-reward-in-wildlife-trafficking-fight.html?_r=0
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 17, 2013


Sign-on Letter – To Kill A Mourning Dove
Please circulate widely
by Exposing the Big Game

 From Barry Kent MacKay,  
Born Free USA's Canadian Representative  

 http://www.bornfreeusa.org/

 Below is a sign-on letter to encourage individuals to send comments opposing the recreational hunting of Mourning Dives and Barrow’s Golden-eye – listed ‘at risk’.

Even if you are skeptical as to whether the letter will make any difference in reversing a ‘political’ decision, please sign-on. If enough of us send the letter, it will likely guarantee that these sorts of political decisions regarding wildlife will not be made easily in the future.

Please free feel to change the letter as necessary.
Detailed background information is below.

To: Stephen Harper; Prime Minister

<mailto:pm@pm.gc.ca>; pm@pm.gc.ca

CC. Jack Hughes, Canadian Wildlife Service : <mailto:jack.hughes@ec.gc.ca>; jack.hughes@ec.gc.ca

Environment critics: Megan Leslie (NDP) megan.leslie@parl.gc.ca and Micheal Harris (PC) michael.harris@pc.ola.org

Kathleen Wynne Ontario Premier premier@ontario.ca

Dear Prime Minister,

I wish to express my strong opposition to the decision by the Conservative government to allow Mourning Doves and Barrow's Goldeneye - a species at risk - to be hunted in Ontario. It has been reported that this decision was made very quietly, so as to restrict public input.

Hunters form a very small minority of Canadians, yet the wildlife they are permitted to kill are part of our shared natural heritage. Therefore it is shameful to deny the majority of us a chance to respond before the final decision was made. We are the people who enjoy the environment in a peaceful and non-destructive way, and wish to continue doing so.

Mourning doves are part of our everyday environment and a symbol of peace, and do not appear to be a migratory species in southern Ontario. Are other small, sociable birds to be the next target?

This appears to be a purely political decision aimed at throwing a "bone" to the sport hunting lobby as you shop for voters.

Most Canadians are not hunters and do not want to see sport hunting promoted to our youth.

The recreational killing of wildlife in no way reflects my/our history, traditions or future.
This is not subsistence hunting, which I can respect, or an economic driver and never was.

In any case, these small birds provide at best a minor source of food delicacies, but are primarily useful for target shooting – a total waste of life.

I am asking that you act quickly to prohibit entirely the killing of Barrow's Goldeneye in all jurisdictions, and also cancel the Mourning Dove hunt in Ontario. I shall also request that the provincial government take appropriate action to bring this to a speedy end.

I look forward to your reply.

Name

Address


Band-tailed pigeon photo ©Jim Robertson
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 3, 2013
This was first posted by our friend in Activism, Martha Magenta.
Please visit her blog here: http://marthamagenta.blogspot.co.uk/
Thursday, 19 September 2013



HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS





PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE 
THE ANIMAL BILL OF RIGHTS 
 THANK YOU!



How do we know what is right? How should other people be treated? There are debates going on in society about many issues, so obviously there is no easy answer to these questions, even where humans are concerned.
In the case of humans, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights sets out a list of rights that people should have. These include:

 *Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

 *No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

 *No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 According to the United Nations, a person may not be killed, exploited, cruelly treated, intimidated, or imprisoned for no good reason. Put another way, people should be able to live in peace, according to their own needs and preferences.

 Who should have these rights?
Do they apply to people of all races? Children? People who are brain damaged or senile? The Declaration makes it clear that basic rights apply to everyone. To make a slave of someone who is intellectually handicapped or of a different race is no more justifiable than to make a slave of anyone else.

 The reason why these rights apply to everyone is simple: regardless of our differences, we all experience a life with its mosaic of thoughts and feelings. This applies equally to the princess and the hobo, the brain surgeon and the "dunce". Our value as individuals arises from this capacity to experience life, not because of any intelligence or usefulness to others. Every person has an inherent value, and deserves to be treated with respect in order to make the most of their unique life experience.

 The idea of human rights and inherent value has not always been accepted.
In previous centuries Africans were captured and taken as slaves to American plantations. They were cruelly treated, and many died or were killed. Families were split apart forever. Slaves were considered to be savages without souls. They were treated as objects to be exploited, with no regard for their feelings or their lives.

 During the Second World War, Nazis not only killed millions of Jews in concentration camps, they also carried out scientific experiments on them. Jews were considered to be undesirable and not real humans deserving of respect.

 In each case the perpetrators of these atrocities singled out groups that were in some way different, and claimed that they were inferior. This inferiority supposedly justified the appalling treatment. Both slave traders and Nazis denied the inherent value of their victims, and instead treated them as objects to be exploited or destroyed at will.

 What about animals?
Do they have inherent value?
Do they, like humans, deserve respect?
There is no doubt that animals experience a life, certainly the vertebrates (animals with backbones), and possibly others. Like us, animals can feel pain and fear, but also excitement and satisfaction. Close contact with animals shows that they look forward to some events, and can clearly get a lot of enjoyment from their lives, be it from basking in the sun, exercising, eating favourite food, or interacting with others, as in playing and mutual grooming.

 Certainly animals don't have the same abilities as humans. They can't talk, write books or drive cars, but neither can some humans. Do we say that humans who lack these abilities have no value and no rights? Certainly not, because those people still experience a life which can be filled with positive or negative events.

 We don't ask how intelligent a person is before we decide whether to eat them or experiment on them. Regardless of intelligence, their life still has value to them!
Exactly the same is true of animals!

 In spite of species differences, we have in common the capacity for experience. As philosopher Tom Regan has said in his argument for animal rights:

 ”We are each of us the experiencing subject of a life, a conscious creature having an individual welfare that has importance to us whatever our usefulness to others. We want and prefer things, believe and feel things, recall and expect things. And all these dimensions of our life, including our pleasure and pain, our enjoyment and suffering, our satisfaction and frustration, our continued existence or our untimely death -- all make a difference to the quality of our life as lived, as experienced, by us as individuals. As the same is true of those animals that concern us (the ones that are eaten and trapped, for example), they too must be viewed as the experiencing subjects of a life, with inherent value of their own."
If the inherent value of humans means that they have the right to be treated with respect, then the same applies to animals.

 The points made earlier about human rights can be rephrased:

 Animals may not be killed, exploited, cruelly treated, intimidated, or imprisoned for no good reason. Animals should be able to live in peace, according to their own needs and preferences.

 Animal rights and experimentation




If each individual has inherent value, is it justifiable to harm one individual for the benefit of others? Is the evil of violating the rights of that individual outweighed by the good result that may come of it?

 The Nazis experimented on Jews, and were condemned for it in the Nuremberg war crime trials. It is accepted that individual humans may not be forced to take part in harmful experiments, even though there is no doubt that better medical knowledge would be gained in this way than by experimenting on other species. This end (better medical knowledge) does not justify the wrong that is done to the individuals that are experimented on. The same principle applies to all people, including those that are brain damaged, senile or mentally ill. They have value in themselves, and are not objects to be used for the benefit of others.

 The same is also true of animals. Using them as objects in experiments ignores their right to be treated with respect. To quote Tom Regan again:

 ”Lab animals are not our tasters; we are not their kings. Because these animals are treated routinely, systematically as if their value were reducible to their usefulness to others, they are routinely, systematically treated with a lack of respect, and thus their rights routinely, systematically violated. This is just as true when they are used in trivial, duplicative, unnecessary or unwise research as it is when they are used in studies that hold out real promise of human benefits. We can't justify harming or killing a human being just for these sorts of reason. Neither can we do so even in the case of so lowly a creature as a laboratory rat."

 Humans like to think of themselves as the most important and valuable species on earth. Mostly they don't give reasons for this belief, but if pressed might say humans are more intelligent than other animals. We have already seen that intelligence is not what guides our behaviour towards other humans - we don't experiment on the "mentally sub-normal". Philosopher Peter Singer points out the contradiction in many people's thinking:

 ”Why do we lock up chimpanzees in appalling primate research centers and use them in experiments that range from the uncomfortable to the agonizing and lethal, yet would never think of doing the same to a "retarded" human being at a much lower mental level? The only possible answer is that the chimpanzee, no matter how bright, is not human, while the "retarded" human, no matter how dull, is. This is speciesism pure and simple, and it is as indefensible as the most blatant racism.
The way animals are exploited and treated without respect is a prejudice like racism. It is saying that some individuals don't count simply because they are of a different race (racism), or a different species (speciesism).

 Prejudices have changed slowly over the centuries - it is no longer acceptable to say that people of other races, women, or the handicapped don't count. It is also not acceptable to say that animals don't count. As Peter Singer has said:
"Any being capable of feeling anything, whether pain or pleasure or any kind of positive or negative state of consciousness, must therefore count."

 But if it is wrong to violate the rights of individuals by harming them in experiments, how can the suffering caused by diseases be lessened? Here Peter Singer has said:

 "If in our present situation we find ourselves faced with the dilemma of inflicting harm on an animal in an experiment, or allowing harm from a disease to go unchecked, the best possible solution is to find a way around such a dilemma."

 Medical research would not stop without animals. There is already valuable research going on that doesn't cause harm in the process. For examples see Research without animals and the work of the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research.

 This is the way around the ethical dilemma, and the way of the future.

 DON'T DE-CLAW CATS!
It is cruel and it HURTS!

 The facts about declawing cats:
http://marthamagenta.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-facts-about-declawing-cats.html






References:

 1.Tom Regan, “The case for animal rights”, in Peter Singer (ed), In Defence of Animals , Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1985

 2.Peter Singer, “Ethics and the new animal liberation movement”, in Peter Singer (ed), In Defence of Animals , Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1985

 Source: Animal Liberation
http://animalliberation.org.au/animal-liberation/human-and-animal-rights/
In addition: See the Peta website: Alternatives to Animal Testing
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-to-animal-testing.aspx
♥
A.Walker quote 

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

FACTORY FARMING PRACTICES TO BE BANNED IN THE ACT



20 September 2013 ~ Have your say
The ACT Government is standing up for animals, with three of the cruelest factory farming practices ever inflicted on animals set to be outlawed.
If we had the chance to start over again... would we do things differently? Right now the ACT has a blank slate when it comes to factory farming — its last battery egg facility has shut down and no pigs are currently factory farmed there — so its government is making the most of this opportunity to ensure factory farming cruelty is gone for good.
Next month the ACT Assembly is due to vote on a Bill, introduced by Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury, that will ban three of the cruellest factory farming practices. This is a major precedent — and a major blow to factory farming. And, in even better news, the Bill is expected to pass!
What will pigs and chickens in the ACT be protected from?



PIG CRATES — BANNED 

 Imagine being confined to your bathtub, unable to exercise or even turn around. Every day, this level of extreme confinement is a reality for countless pregnant pigs in factory farms. These sensitive and intelligent animals suffer horribly in tiny metal and concrete crates, before being moved to even smaller cages to give birth.



BATTERY CAGES— BANNED 

 Crammed into a wire cage with several others, a battery hen in Australia lives in a space smaller than an A4 piece of paper. She is unable to stretch her wings, move freely or perform natural behaviours like building a nest or dustbathing.




DEBEAKING HENS BANNED 

 Hens kept in factory farmed conditions often suffer from severe stress, which can lead to cannibalism. The obvious solution to this problem would be to give these sensitive birds more space; but, instead, factory farmed hens often have the tips of their beaks cut off. Birds' beaks are filled with nerves, and cutting off the tip is like slicing off your fingertips. It hurts — a lot.

 A KINDER FUTURE

 The cruelty of factory farming has only been able to continue because it has been hidden from the eyes of the public. But as more and more political leaders like those in the ACT represent the views of caring people, a world without factory farming comes ever closer.

 You can help!
We don't have to wait for governments to free animals from factory farms — or for a 'blank slate' — you can start creating a kinder world with your choices today!
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/factory-farming-practices-to-be-banned-act.php

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 29, 2013

HUMANS BANNED FROM USING BRIDGES
FOR ANIMALS IN GERMANY


Germany is building some new bridges, but don’t even think about traveling over them. These cool passageways are designated for animals only, a method of both protecting and enhancing the lives of creatures whose territories have been interrupted.

 When humans build roads, highways and canals, they set up unnatural barriers that divide animals in their own habitats. The consequences are more far-reaching than restricting the creatures’ mobility. In the long-term, not only does species diversity drop, but the limited mating prospects also inevitably decrease a species’ genetic diversity, meaning the animals live for shorter periods of time.

 Last year, after a decade-long crusade, forester Gerhard Klesen finally secured the $6 million (US) necessary to build an animal bridge in Schermbeck, Germany. Klesen was inspired to construct the bridge after seeing the same idea thrive throughout the Netherlands.

 Generally, creatures are wary of bridges of this ilk built near their habitat. As a result, few dare to cross them for the first year after construction. In the case of the Schermbeck bridge, however, the animals took to it immediately. After just three days, deer started utilizing the bridge, with boars doing the same by the end of the week. Scientists have since witnessed foxes, rabbits and bats travel over the bridge, as well.

 The bridge doesn’t cater to just larger creatures, though. Smaller critters enjoy the structures, too. Bushes and grasses are planted to offer tiny animals both shelter and food. Some of the mice like the bridge’s dual-side access so much that they make their homes on the bridge on a permanent basis.

 As tempting as it may seem, humans are banned from utilizing the bridge in order to keep animals feeling secure about crossing the structure. People caught defying this law will be fined nearly $50 (US).

 Although, with just 35 in existence, animal bridges are fairly uncommon in Germany, the country is looking to change that in the near future. Over the next decade, Germany has allocated millions to add more than 100 more animal bridges in order to allow animals a safe method of traversing human-created obstacles.

 Bearing in mind the steep cost, it’s a nice, environmentally friendly gesture to help animals live better and healthier lives. Here’s hoping that there are more efforts to protect animal habitats even in the face of human construction and expansion.
http://www.care2.com/causes/humans-banned-from-using-bridges-for-animals-in-germany.html

GERMANY SPENDS MILLIONS 
ON ANIMAL - ONLY BRIDGES




Published: 18 Sep 2013 16:32 CET 

 Germany is living up to its environmentally-friendly image by spending millions of euros on building bridges just for animals. Humans caught crossing them face a €35 fine. More than a hundred wildlife bridges are to be built in the next decade.

 Gerhard Klesen, a forester employed by the Ruhr Regional Association, spent a decade campaigning for an animal-only bridge to be built over a motorway in the town of Schermbeck in North Rhine-Westphalia. 
Man-made barriers such as roads and canals restrict animals' natural movement, he said. That limits genetic diversity, which in turn leads to an increase in disease and shortened lifespans. The ‘Green Bridges’ are designed to counteract this effect. 

 "The area of land east of the motorway at Schermbeck is much smaller than that on the western side," Klesen told The Local. That's led to a decrease in species diversity on the eastern side, prompting Klesen to launch his ten-year campaign, which culminated in the opening of the "green bridge" - Germany's 35th - exactly a year ago.

 But it was not always an easy sell. "Bridges cost a lot of money," Klesen said. However the determined forester persisted in his campaign, which got a financial boost from the Netherlands in 2005, where such bridges are relatively commonplace. "They're way ahead of us there," Klesen told The Local.

 Both federal and EU funding followed and in September 2012, the €4.5 million, 2,700 square-metre bridge opened to animals.

 "It usually takes a year before an animal dares to cross the green bridge," Klesen said. But the animals of Schermbeck are a plucky bunch. "One red stag traversed the bridge just three days after it was opened," Klesen said. Others followed suit and within a few days, boars were making the journey too.

 Cameras set up along the bridge have captured a variety of creatures, including rabbits, foxes and bats, making their way across the specially-designed terrain.

 "There are strips of sand just for insects, as well as grass, shrubs and other vegetation providing food and shelter to some of the smaller creatures," said Klesen. 

 Some animals, like mice, take to life in transit so much that they set up their permanent homes on the bridge. Others travel back and forth. Stags in particular often make the journey in search of a mate. 

 Although it will take decades to assess whether the bridge is managing to promote genetic diversity and health among bigger animals, the effects on smaller animals with shorter lifespan could be studied soon. 

 http://www.thelocal.de/national/20130918-51975.html
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 22, 2013



THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT


photo courtesy of the Nonhuman Rights Project


The Nonhuman Rights Project is the only organization working toward actual LEGAL rights for members of species other than our own. Our mission is to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals from mere “things,” which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to “persons,” who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them. Our first cases are being prepared for filing in 2013. Your support of this work is deeply appreciated.
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/?gclid=CI_6zeCR4LkCFepFMgod7EYA1Q

THE CASE FOR NON HUMAN ANIMAL RIGHTS
http://www.lifeaftercapitalism.info/downloads/read/Ecology-and-Environmentalism/Veganism/Tom%20Regan%20-%20The%20Case%20for%20Animal%20Rights.pdf


 ANIMAL RIGHTS: WHAT IS THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT?
http://freefromharm.org/animal-rights/what-is-the-nonhuman-rights-project/


ANIMAL RIGHTS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

PERSONHOOD ~ NON-HUMAN ANIMALS 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human

A CLOSER LOOK AT 'NON - HUMAN PERSONHOOD" AND ANIMAL WELFARE
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/a-closer-look-at-nonhuman-personhood-and-animal-welfare/?_r=0

ETHICS GUIDE - ANIMAL RIGHTS
This article discusses whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS
http://www.cultureandanimals.org/pop1.html
THE 10 RIGHTS FOR DOLPHINS AS 'NON-HUMAN PERSONS'
http://www.takepart.com/photos/declaration-rights-cetaceans/dolphin%20rights%20intro%20size

 DO NON-HUMAN ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS?
http://www.debate.org/opinions/do-non-human-animals-have-rights


 PRIMER ON ANIMAL RIGHTS
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, July 19, 2013

BEES ~MONSANTO ~NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES ~CHEMICAL ARMEGEDDON FOR BEES





























USA: SAVING AMERICA'S BEES FROM CHEMICAL ARMAGEDDON : Please Sign and Share, thank you!



Monsanto Hope to Win Beekeepers Over with a Cure


Monsanto buys leading bee research firm after being implicated in bee colony collapse ~ Article from 2010 

Seed Savers 

image via wonderopolis~dot~org 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)