Vegetarian Discussion: Bird Flu - Public's Health Threatened By Government's Pro-Industry Stance

Bird Flu - Public's Health Threatened By Government's Pro-Industry Stance
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

George
2006-05-09 07:10:49 EST
Still, after the fiasco of F&M, BSE we pander to the very industry
that is causing these serious global threats to mankind.

Stop molly coddling lazy, fat, selfish farmers.



http://www.animalaid.org.uk/press/0605bflu.htm

Home > Press office > Press release: 08.05.06

Bird Flu - Public's Health Threatened by Government's Pro-Industry
Stance
Animal Aid is demanding answers of the government as to why
information issued about bird flu appears to be aimed at protecting
the poultry industry, rather than the public's health. While assuring
the public that properly cooked chicken is safe to consume, there is a
conspicuous silence about the safety of handling raw and possibly
infected carcasses. The national campaign group's demand comes in the
wake of the announcement that the government has drawn up plans to
suffocate birds to death through "ventilation shutdown" in factory
farm sheds.

In America, citizens are given very different information and advice
from their government. Amid fears of Avian Influenza (AI) arriving in
America, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued
clear guidelines about handling raw poultry products. (1) These
include using bleach to sanitise cutting boards and separating raw
meats from all other foods. The USDA further states that the AI virus
can be transferred on the surfaces of eggshells. The British
government has issued no such warning.

Dodging this issue compounds the health risks created by refusing to
acknowledge publicly the route by which AI spreads - through intensive
farming practices and the worldwide trade in poultry products. While
industry and government spokespeople in Britain are quick to blame
wild birds, the USDA states that 'The spread of avian influenza
between poultry premises almost always follows the movement of
contaminated people and equipment.' The global spread of AI similarly
appears to follow rail and road paths more closely than wild bird
migratory routes, indicating human activity as the principle means of
spreading this disease.

The low pathogenicity forms of AI are common in wild birds, producing
only mild symptoms. However, on entering poultry farms - often filthy
and overcrowded, and housing stressed birds with a diminished immune
response - the virus can and often does mutate to higher virulence.(2)
At this stage, the disease represents a real threat to the health of
birds and people.

Says Animal Aid Campaigner Kate Fowler-Reeves:
'The blithe message touted by government and industry spokespeople
that poultry is safe to eat is reminiscent of John Gummer's
light-hearted approach to the risks posed by British beef. Can chicken
be safe when the US government issues guidelines on how to rid it of
lethal viruses and dangerous bacteria? By refusing to acknowledge
publicly both the potential risks of handling infected carcasses and
the source and transmission routes of the highly virulent bird flu
strains, the government is sending the message that it cares more
about protecting trade than safeguarding the nation's health.'

Bird Flu factfile

Press releases:

Avian flu: call for immediate halt to importation, breeding and
release of game birds
Avian flu - Defra must resist hysteria-led bird massacre

.........................

Notes to Editors

100,000 chickens die every day inside British factory farming sheds.
The cause of death is not routinely investigated or recorded.(3)
For more information, contact Andrew Tyler or Kate Fowler-Reeves on
01732 364 546.
Full background can be found on Animal Aid's fact sheet, "Bird Flu: A
Disease of the Intensive Poultry Industry."
We have ISDN line for broadcast quality interviews.
Reference

Fact sheet No. 0458.05 Questions & Answers: Avian Influenza
Dr Martin Williams, letter to The Independent, 25/4/06
Caroline Le Sueur, senior scientific officer at the RSPCA

Top ^



www.animalaid.org.uk | site map | about us |

Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and
promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by
joining, making a donation, or using our online shop. Contact Animal
Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW, UK,
tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533, email
i*o@animalaid.org.uk



Baal
2006-05-09 16:06:13 EST
At this stage, the disease represents a real threat to the health of
birds and people.


That depends of the virus strain.

Avian Influenza (Bird Flu)
Avian influenza in birds
Avian influenza is an infection caused by avian (bird) influenza (flu)
viruses. These influenza viruses occur naturally among birds. Wild birds
worldwide carry the viruses in their intestines, but usually do not get sick
from them. However, avian influenza is very contagious among birds and can
make some domesticated birds, including chickens, ducks, and turkeys, very
sick and kill them.

Infected birds shed influenza virus in their saliva, nasal secretions, and
faces. Susceptible birds become infected when they have contact with
contaminated secretions or excretions or with surfaces that are contaminated
with secretions or excretions from infected birds. Domesticated birds may
become infected with avian influenza virus through direct contact with
infected waterfowl or other infected poultry, or through contact with
surfaces (such as dirt or cages) or materials (such as water or feed) that
have been contaminated with the virus.

Infection with avian influenza viruses in domestic poultry causes two main
forms of disease that are distinguished by low and high extremes of
virulence. The "low pathogenic" form may go undetected and usually causes
only mild symptoms (such as ruffled feathers and a drop in egg production).
However, the highly pathogenic form spreads more rapidly through flocks of
poultry. This form may cause disease that affects multiple internal organs
and has a mortality rate that can reach 90-100% often within 48 hours.

Human infection with avian influenza viruses
There are many different subtypes of type A influenza viruses. These
subtypes differ because of changes in certain proteins on the surface of the
influenza A virus (haemagglutinin [HA] and neuraminidase [NA] proteins).
There are 16 known HA subtypes and 9 known NA subtypes of influenza A
viruses. Many different combinations of HA and NA proteins are possible.
Each combination represents a different subtype. All known subtypes of
influenza A viruses can be found in birds.

Usually, "avian influenza virus" refers to influenza A viruses found chiefly
in birds, but infections with these viruses can occur in humans. The risk
from avian influenza is generally low to most people, because the viruses do
not usually infect humans. However, confirmed cases of human infection from
several subtypes of avian influenza infection have been reported since 1997.
Most cases of avian influenza infection in humans have resulted from contact
with infected poultry (e.g., domesticated chicken, ducks, and turkeys) or
surfaces contaminated with secretion/excretions from infected birds. The
spread of avian influenza viruses from one ill person to another has been
reported very rarely, and transmission has not been observed to continue
beyond one person.

"Human influenza virus" usually refers to those subtypes that spread widely
among humans. There are only three known A subtypes of influenza viruses
(H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2) currently circulating among humans. It is likely that
some genetic parts of current human influenza A viruses came from birds
originally. Influenza A viruses are constantly changing, and they might
adapt over time to infect and spread among humans.

During an outbreak of avian influenza among poultry, there is a possible
risk to people who have contact with infected birds or surfaces that have
been contaminated with secretions or excretions from infected birds.

Symptoms of avian influenza in humans have ranged from typical human
influenza-like symptoms (e.g., fever, cough, sore throat, and muscle aches)
to eye infections, pneumonia, severe respiratory diseases (such as acute
respiratory distress), and other severe and life-threatening complications.
The symptoms of avian influenza may depend on which virus caused the
infection.

Studies done in laboratories suggest that some of the prescription medicines
approved in the United States for human influenza viruses should work in
treating avian influenza infection in humans. However, influenza viruses can
become resistant to these drugs, so these medications may not always work.
Additional studies are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of these
medicines.

Avian Influenza A (H5N1)
Influenza A (H5N1) virus - also called "H5N1 virus" - is an influenza A
virus subtype that occurs mainly in birds, is highly contagious among birds,
and can be deadly to them. H5N1 virus does not usually infect people, but
infections with these viruses have occurred in humans. Most of these cases
have resulted from people having direct or close contact with H5N1-infected
poultry or H5N1-contaminated surfaces.

Avian influenza A (H5N1) outbreaks
For current information about avian influenza A (H5N1) outbreaks, see our
Outbreaks page.

Human health risks during the H5N1 outbreak
Of the few avian influenza viruses that have crossed the species barrier to
infect humans, H5N1 has caused the largest number of detected cases of
severe disease and death in humans. In the current outbreaks in Asia and
Europe more than half of those infected with the virus have died. Most cases
have occurred in previously healthy children and young adults. However, it
is possible that the only cases currently being reported are those in the
most severely ill people, and that the full range of illness caused by the
H5N1 virus has not yet been defined. For the most current information about
avian influenza and cumulative case numbers, see the World Health
Organization (WHO) avian influenza website.

So far, the spread of H5N1 virus from person to person has been limited and
has not continued beyond one person. Nonetheless, because all influenza
viruses have the ability to change, scientists are concerned that H5N1 virus
one day could be able to infect humans and spread easily from one person to
another. Because these viruses do not commonly infect humans, there is
little or no immune protection against them in the human population. If H5N1
virus were to gain the capacity to spread easily from person to person, an
influenza pandemic (worldwide outbreak of disease) could begin. For more
information about influenza pandemics, see PandemicFlu.gov.

No one can predict when a pandemic might occur. However, experts from around
the world are watching the H5N1 situation in Asia and Europe very closely
and are preparing for the possibility that the virus may begin to spread
more easily and widely from person to person.

Treatment and vaccination for H5N1 virus in humans
The H5N1 virus that has caused human illness and death in Asia is resistant
to amantadine and rimantadine, two antiviral medications commonly used for
influenza. Two other antiviral medications, oseltamavir and zanamavir, would
probably work to treat influenza caused by H5N1 virus, but additional
studies still need to be done to demonstrate their effectiveness.

There currently is no commercially available vaccine to protect humans
against H5N1 virus that is being seen in Asia and Europe. However, vaccine
development efforts are taking place. Research studies to test a vaccine to
protect humans against H5N1 virus began in April 2005, and a series of
clinical trials is under way. For more information about H5N1 vaccine
development process, visit the National Institutes of Health website.




--
I smile and go off waving
(Amiably) - for that's my way

Baal

http://www.helden.org.uk
"George" <george12za@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:446078b9$0$74023$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Still, after the fiasco of F&M, BSE we pander to the very industry
that is causing these serious global threats to mankind.

Stop molly coddling lazy, fat, selfish farmers.



http://www.animalaid.org.uk/press/0605bflu.htm

Home > Press office > Press release: 08.05.06

Bird Flu - Public's Health Threatened by Government's Pro-Industry
Stance
Animal Aid is demanding answers of the government as to why
information issued about bird flu appears to be aimed at protecting
the poultry industry, rather than the public's health. While assuring
the public that properly cooked chicken is safe to consume, there is a
conspicuous silence about the safety of handling raw and possibly
infected carcasses. The national campaign group's demand comes in the
wake of the announcement that the government has drawn up plans to
suffocate birds to death through "ventilation shutdown" in factory
farm sheds.

In America, citizens are given very different information and advice
from their government. Amid fears of Avian Influenza (AI) arriving in
America, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued
clear guidelines about handling raw poultry products. (1) These
include using bleach to sanitise cutting boards and separating raw
meats from all other foods. The USDA further states that the AI virus
can be transferred on the surfaces of eggshells. The British
government has issued no such warning.

Dodging this issue compounds the health risks created by refusing to
acknowledge publicly the route by which AI spreads - through intensive
farming practices and the worldwide trade in poultry products. While
industry and government spokespeople in Britain are quick to blame
wild birds, the USDA states that 'The spread of avian influenza
between poultry premises almost always follows the movement of
contaminated people and equipment.' The global spread of AI similarly
appears to follow rail and road paths more closely than wild bird
migratory routes, indicating human activity as the principle means of
spreading this disease.

The low pathogenicity forms of AI are common in wild birds, producing
only mild symptoms. However, on entering poultry farms - often filthy
and overcrowded, and housing stressed birds with a diminished immune
response - the virus can and often does mutate to higher virulence.(2)
At this stage, the disease represents a real threat to the health of
birds and people.

Says Animal Aid Campaigner Kate Fowler-Reeves:
'The blithe message touted by government and industry spokespeople
that poultry is safe to eat is reminiscent of John Gummer's
light-hearted approach to the risks posed by British beef. Can chicken
be safe when the US government issues guidelines on how to rid it of
lethal viruses and dangerous bacteria? By refusing to acknowledge
publicly both the potential risks of handling infected carcasses and
the source and transmission routes of the highly virulent bird flu
strains, the government is sending the message that it cares more
about protecting trade than safeguarding the nation's health.'

Bird Flu factfile

Press releases:

Avian flu: call for immediate halt to importation, breeding and
release of game birds
Avian flu - Defra must resist hysteria-led bird massacre

.........................

Notes to Editors

100,000 chickens die every day inside British factory farming sheds.
The cause of death is not routinely investigated or recorded.(3)
For more information, contact Andrew Tyler or Kate Fowler-Reeves on
01732 364 546.
Full background can be found on Animal Aid's fact sheet, "Bird Flu: A
Disease of the Intensive Poultry Industry."
We have ISDN line for broadcast quality interviews.
Reference

Fact sheet No. 0458.05 Questions & Answers: Avian Influenza
Dr Martin Williams, letter to The Independent, 25/4/06
Caroline Le Sueur, senior scientific officer at the RSPCA

Top ^



www.animalaid.org.uk | site map | about us |

Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and
promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by
joining, making a donation, or using our online shop. Contact Animal
Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW, UK,
tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533, email
i*o@animalaid.org.uk




*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Ptarmigan
2006-05-10 11:27:42 EST
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/birdflupandemichype26apr06.shtml





George
2006-06-08 08:40:02 EST
I see Animal Aid have been busy as ever.

It's important we don't let the pro animal abuse loons take over the
helm trying to keep this covered up.


http://www.animalaid.org.uk/

New NHS funded study shows up animal testing shambles
A just released survey of animal research funded by the NHS provides
damning evidence - says national campaign group Animal Aid - that
animal experiments aren't just cruel, they don't appear to work. The
report (see link below) shows that:

animal researchers don't talk to hospital doctors about their work
clinical trials with human patients get underway even before the
animal research is completed
drugs that fail in animals are used in humans anyway
a drug that increased overall mortality in animals was, nonetheless,
used in people
most of the animal research that was analysed was poorly conducted and
gave conflicting results
The survey compared the clinical (i.e. human) outcome of six medical
treatments with the results obtained from experiments on animals. The
areas of research related to head injuries, blood clotting, stroke,
disease in premature babies and osteoporosis. Each of the six topics
was analysed by systematic review. A systematic review is 'a summary
of the medical literature that uses explicit methods to perform a
thorough literature search and critical appraisal of individual
studies and that uses appropriate statistical techniques to combine
these valid studies'. In other words, systematic reviews normally
represent the best available data.

One systematic review looked at the use of steroids in treating people
with severe head injuries. The NHS study showed that, whereas the
animal experiments had provided mixed results, the drug clearly
increased the risk of death in patients and had to be discontinued.

Two other studies examined the effect of new drugs for the treatment
of stroke. In both cases, the animal experiments showed that the drug
improved the animals' condition after being deliberately brain
damaged. In human patients, however, the drugs increased the risk of
death, and one of them increased the risk of disability.

Yet another systematic review looked at what effects steroids - given
to pregnant animals - would have on the unborn. The aim of the
experiments was to see whether the drug, given to pregnant women,
could reduce the risk of mortality in premature babies whose lungs had
not yet fully developed. Experiments conducted on monkeys, cattle and
rabbits showed the drug treatment to have a positive effect on the
lungs of the unborn. This outcome was also seen in the offspring of
pregnant women. However, while the drug increased the risk of death in
the unborn animals, it did not produce the same disastrous
consequences in the developing human foetus.

Says Andre Menache MRCVS, Scientific Consultant to Animal Aid:
'This high-quality survey is very significant in the debate about
whether or not animal experiments have any relevance to human
medicine. The answer provided by this NHS-commissioned report is that,
across a range of important human ailments, animal research provides
misleading and conflicting information and is therefore dangerously
unreliable.'

.........................

Notes to Editors

For more information contact Andre Menache on 01732 364546
View the full report. http://tinyurl.com/mzk2w




www.animalaid.org.uk | site map | about us |

Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and
promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by
joining, making a donation, or using our online shop. Contact Animal
Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW, UK,
tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533, email
i*o@animalaid.org.uk





A*@aol.com
2006-06-08 18:45:10 EST
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:40:02 +0100, George <george12za@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I see Animal Aid have been busy as ever.
>
>It's important we don't let the pro animal abuse loons take over the
>helm trying to keep this covered up.

Very good! I have passed this on to a number of others.




>
>
>http://www.animalaid.org.uk/
>
>New NHS funded study shows up animal testing shambles
>A just released survey of animal research funded by the NHS provides
>damning evidence - says national campaign group Animal Aid - that
>animal experiments aren't just cruel, they don't appear to work. The
>report (see link below) shows that:
>
>animal researchers don't talk to hospital doctors about their work
>clinical trials with human patients get underway even before the
>animal research is completed
>drugs that fail in animals are used in humans anyway
>a drug that increased overall mortality in animals was, nonetheless,
>used in people
>most of the animal research that was analysed was poorly conducted and
>gave conflicting results
>The survey compared the clinical (i.e. human) outcome of six medical
>treatments with the results obtained from experiments on animals. The
>areas of research related to head injuries, blood clotting, stroke,
>disease in premature babies and osteoporosis. Each of the six topics
>was analysed by systematic review. A systematic review is 'a summary
>of the medical literature that uses explicit methods to perform a
>thorough literature search and critical appraisal of individual
>studies and that uses appropriate statistical techniques to combine
>these valid studies'. In other words, systematic reviews normally
>represent the best available data.
>
>One systematic review looked at the use of steroids in treating people
>with severe head injuries. The NHS study showed that, whereas the
>animal experiments had provided mixed results, the drug clearly
>increased the risk of death in patients and had to be discontinued.
>
>Two other studies examined the effect of new drugs for the treatment
>of stroke. In both cases, the animal experiments showed that the drug
>improved the animals' condition after being deliberately brain
>damaged. In human patients, however, the drugs increased the risk of
>death, and one of them increased the risk of disability.
>
>Yet another systematic review looked at what effects steroids - given
>to pregnant animals - would have on the unborn. The aim of the
>experiments was to see whether the drug, given to pregnant women,
>could reduce the risk of mortality in premature babies whose lungs had
>not yet fully developed. Experiments conducted on monkeys, cattle and
>rabbits showed the drug treatment to have a positive effect on the
>lungs of the unborn. This outcome was also seen in the offspring of
>pregnant women. However, while the drug increased the risk of death in
>the unborn animals, it did not produce the same disastrous
>consequences in the developing human foetus.
>
>Says Andre Menache MRCVS, Scientific Consultant to Animal Aid:
>'This high-quality survey is very significant in the debate about
>whether or not animal experiments have any relevance to human
>medicine. The answer provided by this NHS-commissioned report is that,
>across a range of important human ailments, animal research provides
>misleading and conflicting information and is therefore dangerously
>unreliable.'
>
>.........................
>
>Notes to Editors
>
>For more information contact Andre Menache on 01732 364546
>View the full report. http://tinyurl.com/mzk2w
>
>
>
>
>www.animalaid.org.uk | site map | about us |
>
> Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and
>promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by
>joining, making a donation, or using our online shop. Contact Animal
>Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW, UK,
>tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533, email
>*o@animalaid.org.uk
>
>
>
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Halmyre
2006-06-08 18:45:14 EST
George wrote:
> I see Animal Aid have been busy as ever.
>
> It's important we don't let the pro animal abuse loons take over the
> helm trying to keep this covered up.
>
>

Dug up anyone's grandmother lately?

--
Halmyre

ceci, n'est pas un signature

George
2006-06-20 11:55:12 EST
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=165866

Hedgehog cull decision “flies in face” of scientific evidence



30 March 2006

Scottish Natural Heritage have come under renewed criticism from
leading animal welfare groups and mammal experts for ignoring new
scientific findings that show Uist hedgehogs can be successfully
translocated to the mainland.



They have also come under fire for not engaging in constructive
dialogue with researchers despite repeated attempts to work together
to find a humane solution to the cull.

Research published in Biological Conservation in March 2006 showed
that hedgehogs were ideal candidates for translocation to mainland
Britain, providing they spent a short period of time in captivity and
care.

Yet Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have decided to continue with
their lethal culling programme beginning this April – despite
assurances they would consider the new scientific evidence “quite
seriously”.

The study, funded by Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital and the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), used radio monitoring to
compare the survival of hedgehogs translocated from the Uists with
those released from wildlife hospitals, wild hedgehogs at the release
sites and wild hedgehogs at a nearby site where no releases took
place.

Josey Sharrad, campaigner for the International Fund for Animal
Welfare (IFAW), said: “This decision is irrational. Sixteen
fieldworkers will be employed this spring to catch the hedgehogs using
lamping and trapping techniques. The public will and infrastructure
exists to turn this from a killing spree into a rescue operation, and
we urge SNH to reconsider its position immediately.”

Les Stocker MBE at St Tiggywinkles said: “It is unbelievable that the
Scottish Government have failed to show common sense and accept an
olive branch. They have chosen to ignore Bristol University’s
irrefutable evidence that the hedgehogs of Uist can be safely
relocated on the mainland. After all, most of Britain is crying out
for hedgehogs, elected their most favourite animal.”

Despite repeated attempts to engage in constructive dialogue with SNH
over the past 9 months, the researchers are dismayed their offers for
open consultation on the study methodology and objectives were
ignored. This resulted in a misleading report, which questioned the
validity of translocation research findings, being presented to the
SNH Board. The Board subsequently rejected the use of non-lethal
methods of hedgehog control.

Environmental Scientist Professor Stephen Harris, who coordinated the
Bristol University study, has sent a detailed response to SNH. He
said: “The research has been peer-reviewed by four independent,
international experts who concluded it was well-designed and the
findings were sounds and their conclusions justified.

“The panel who dismissed the research clearly lack an understanding of
sound science. We are both surprised and disappointed that our efforts
to engage constructively with SNH have gone unheeded,” Professor
Harris concluded.

IFAW and St Tiggywinkles are now calling for SNH to immediately
reassess their approach, call off this year’s cull and join in their
detailed plans for relocating the hedgehogs.



Ends.



Notes to Editors



A copy of the full text of the letter from Professor Harris to the
Chairman of the SNH Board is available on request.


The authors of the study “The effect of translocation and temporary
captivity on wildlife rehabilitation success: an experimental study
using the European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus)” were Susie Molony,
Claire Dowding, Phil Baker, Innes Cuthill and Stephen Harris of the
School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol.


The Uist Wader Project comprises Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), The
Scottish Executive and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds
(RSPB).
Animal welfare campaigners are urging the RSPB to engage
constructively with the groups and seek humane solutions to save the
hedgehogs from an unnecessary cull.





For media-related inquiries, contact:
Rosa Hill
email: rhill@ifaw.org
phone: 020 7587 6700













Over 100 hedgehogs were monitored during IFAW's study, which found
that hedgehogs are ideal candidates for translocation. Photo: © St
Tiggywinkles
















George
2006-06-20 11:56:33 EST
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4763242.stm
Hedgehog cull strategy disputed
Claims that culling island hedgehogs is more humane than moving them
to the mainland have been disputed by experts.
Hedgehogs taken from the Outer Hebrides did not adversely affect
mainland populations, according to a study.

Bristol University scientists said the animals could be relocated
successfully after rehabilitation.

Environmental body Scottish Natural Heritage said it was taking the
study "quite seriously" and would discuss it at a forthcoming board
meeting.

The culling programme is run in the Uists by SNH, RSPB Scotland and
the Scottish Executive to combat the threat posed by hedgehogs to rare
wading birds and their eggs.


Hedgehogs are ideal candidates for translocation and if released at
carefully selected sites do extremely well
Les Stocker
Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital

Previous research suggested that moving the creatures to the mainland
could have a damaging effect on them, but this is disputed by the
eight-strong team of Bristol scientists, who monitored 109 hedgehogs
for the study.

The study, funded by Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital and the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), used radio monitoring to
compare the survival of hedgehogs taken from the Uists with those
released from wildlife hospitals and other wild hedgehogs nearby.

The survival of the Uist hedgehogs proved to be very similar to the
resident hedgehogs with the new animals quickly integrating into the
population.

Fresh data

Professor Stephen Harris, who co-ordinated the study, said: "This has
been an area of disagreement between welfare groups and SNH for some
time and SNH said they would like to see some fresh data.

"They have said they will look at it and we are hopeful this means an
end to culling and we can move forward."

Les Stocker, of Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital, said the study had
confirmed what anti-cull campaigners had long argued.

"Hedgehogs are ideal candidates for translocation and if released at
carefully selected sites do extremely well," he said.

"It is a crying shame that Scottish Natural Heritage has needlessly
killed 535 hedgehogs over the last three years."

'New science'

An SNH spokesman said: "We have seen the report and we are taking it
quite seriously. We are always open to new science on this matter.

"The project has drawn on previous research which has highlighted
serious welfare issues for translocated hedgehogs."

A paper on the study will be published in the journal Biological
Conservation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/4763242.stm

Published: 2006/03/01 16:02:51 GMT

© BBC MMVI


George
2006-06-20 12:03:12 EST
Hedgehog cull decision “flies in face” of scientific evidence





30 March 2006





Scottish Natural Heritage have come under renewed criticism from
leading animal welfare groups and mammal experts for ignoring new
scientific findings that show Uist hedgehogs can be successfully
translocated to the mainland.










They have also come under fire for not engaging in constructive
dialogue with researchers despite repeated attempts to work together
to find a humane solution to the cull.

Research published in Biological Conservation in March 2006 showed
that hedgehogs were ideal candidates for translocation to mainland
Britain, providing they spent a short period of time in captivity and
care.

Yet Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have decided to continue with
their lethal culling programme beginning this April – despite
assurances they would consider the new scientific evidence “quite
seriously”.

The study, funded by Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital and the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), used radio monitoring to
compare the survival of hedgehogs translocated from the Uists with
those released from wildlife hospitals, wild hedgehogs at the release
sites and wild hedgehogs at a nearby site where no releases took
place.

Josey Sharrad, campaigner for the International Fund for Animal
Welfare (IFAW), said: “This decision is irrational. Sixteen
fieldworkers will be employed this spring to catch the hedgehogs using
lamping and trapping techniques. The public will and infrastructure
exists to turn this from a killing spree into a rescue operation, and
we urge SNH to reconsider its position immediately.”

Les Stocker MBE at St Tiggywinkles said: “It is unbelievable that the
Scottish Government have failed to show common sense and accept an
olive branch. They have chosen to ignore Bristol University’s
irrefutable evidence that the hedgehogs of Uist can be safely
relocated on the mainland. After all, most of Britain is crying out
for hedgehogs, elected their most favourite animal.”

Despite repeated attempts to engage in constructive dialogue with SNH
over the past 9 months, the researchers are dismayed their offers for
open consultation on the study methodology and objectives were
ignored. This resulted in a misleading report, which questioned the
validity of translocation research findings, being presented to the
SNH Board. The Board subsequently rejected the use of non-lethal
methods of hedgehog control.

Environmental Scientist Professor Stephen Harris, who coordinated the
Bristol University study, has sent a detailed response to SNH. He
said: “The research has been peer-reviewed by four independent,
international experts who concluded it was well-designed and the
findings were sounds and their conclusions justified.

“The panel who dismissed the research clearly lack an understanding of
sound science. We are both surprised and disappointed that our efforts
to engage constructively with SNH have gone unheeded,” Professor
Harris concluded.

IFAW and St Tiggywinkles are now calling for SNH to immediately
reassess their approach, call off this year’s cull and join in their
detailed plans for relocating the hedgehogs.



Ends.



Notes to Editors



A copy of the full text of the letter from Professor Harris to the
Chairman of the SNH Board is available on request.


The authors of the study “The effect of translocation and temporary
captivity on wildlife rehabilitation success: an experimental study
using the European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus)” were Susie Molony,
Claire Dowding, Phil Baker, Innes Cuthill and Stephen Harris of the
School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol.


The Uist Wader Project comprises Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), The
Scottish Executive and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds
(RSPB).
Animal welfare campaigners are urging the RSPB to engage
constructively with the groups and seek humane solutions to save the
hedgehogs from an unnecessary cull.





For media-related inquiries, contact:
Rosa Hill
email: rhill@ifaw.org
phone: 020 7587 6700







George
2006-06-20 12:03:17 EST
Hedgehog cull decision flies in face of scientific evidence





30 March 2006





Scottish Natural Heritage have come under renewed criticism from
leading animal welfare groups and mammal experts for ignoring new
scientific findings that show Uist hedgehogs can be successfully
translocated to the mainland.










They have also come under fire for not engaging in constructive
dialogue with researchers despite repeated attempts to work together
to find a humane solution to the cull.

Research published in Biological Conservation in March 2006 showed
that hedgehogs were ideal candidates for translocation to mainland
Britain, providing they spent a short period of time in captivity and
care.

Yet Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have decided to continue with
their lethal culling programme beginning this April despite
assurances they would consider the new scientific evidence quite
seriously.

The study, funded by Tiggywinkles Wildlife Hospital and the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), used radio monitoring to
compare the survival of hedgehogs translocated from the Uists with
those released from wildlife hospitals, wild hedgehogs at the release
sites and wild hedgehogs at a nearby site where no releases took
place.

Josey Sharrad, campaigner for the International Fund for Animal
Welfare (IFAW), said: This decision is irrational. Sixteen
fieldworkers will be employed this spring to catch the hedgehogs using
lamping and trapping techniques. The public will and infrastructure
exists to turn this from a killing spree into a rescue operation, and
we urge SNH to reconsider its position immediately.

Les Stocker MBE at St Tiggywinkles said: It is unbelievable that the
Scottish Government have failed to show common sense and accept an
olive branch. They have chosen to ignore Bristol University?s
irrefutable evidence that the hedgehogs of Uist can be safely
relocated on the mainland. After all, most of Britain is crying out
for hedgehogs, elected their most favourite animal.

Despite repeated attempts to engage in constructive dialogue with SNH
over the past 9 months, the researchers are dismayed their offers for
open consultation on the study methodology and objectives were
ignored. This resulted in a misleading report, which questioned the
validity of translocation research findings, being presented to the
SNH Board. The Board subsequently rejected the use of non-lethal
methods of hedgehog control.

Environmental Scientist Professor Stephen Harris, who coordinated the
Bristol University study, has sent a detailed response to SNH. He
said: The research has been peer-reviewed by four independent,
international experts who concluded it was well-designed and the
findings were sounds and their conclusions justified.

The panel who dismissed the research clearly lack an understanding of
sound science. We are both surprised and disappointed that our efforts
to engage constructively with SNH have gone unheeded, Professor Harris
concluded.

IFAW and St Tiggywinkles are now calling for SNH to immediately
reassess their approach, call off this year?s cull and join in their
detailed plans for relocating the hedgehogs.


A copy of the full text of the letter from Professor Harris to the
Chairman of the SNH Board is available on request.


The authors of the study "The effect of translocation and temporary
captivity on wildlife rehabilitation success: an experimental study
using the European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus)" were Susie Molony,
Claire Dowding, Phil Baker, Innes Cuthill and Stephen Harris of the
School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol.


The Uist Wader Project comprises Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), The
Scottish Executive and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds
(RSPB).
Animal welfare campaigners are urging the RSPB to engage
constructively with the groups and seek humane solutions to save the
hedgehogs from an unnecessary cull.







Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron