Category Archives: Wildfare

Wolf attacked Ursula vd Leyen’s pony

Brussels 02.09.2022 European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s favorite pony died attacked by a wolf, German media reported.

One of the predators attacked von der Leyen’s favorite pony on Friday night, stealing it from a pasture at the official’s estate in Lower Saxony, northwest of the country, just a hundred meters from the family’s home, the Bild newspaper reported.

The deceased pony was discovered in her estate on Friday morning by von der Leyen’s husband. An employee of the agricultural chamber and a veterinarian were dispatched to the scene to collect samples.

“The whole family is terribly upset by this news,” von der Leyen told Bild.

The official has been riding horses since childhood.

EU: ban on trophy hunting imports call

Strasbourg 06.07.2022 137 NGOs around the world call for a ban on hunting trophy imports

BRUSSELS (July 6, 2022)—In a joint position paper, 137 conservation and animal protection organizations from all around the world, including 45 NGOs from African countries, speak out against trophy hunting and urge policymakers to ban imports.

Mona Schweizer, Ph.D., from Pro Wildlife says: “Trophy hunting stands out among the worst forms of wildlife exploitation and is neither ethical nor sustainable. In the face of the man-made global biodiversity crisis, it is unacceptable that exploitation of wildlife simply for acquiring a hunting trophy is still permitted and that trophies can still be legally imported. It is high time that governments end this detrimental practice.”

Between 2014 and 2018 almost 125,000 trophies of species protected under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) were imported globally, with the US and the EU featuring as the biggest importers.

Trophy hunting can adversely affect the survival of species and undermine conservation efforts. Trophy hunters often target rare and imperilled species or animals with impressive physical traits and remove individuals who are essential for reproduction and stabilizing social groups. By targeting such animals, trophy hunters, directly and indirectly, contribute to population declines, disrupted social structure, and reduced resilience. The industry drives demand for parts and products of endangered species and incentivizes and prioritizes their killing through award schemes and other promotions.

Furthermore, shooting animals of protected and endangered species is often a privilege of foreign hunters, while access to wildlife and land is often restricted for locals. This disenfranchisement of local communities coupled with the social destabilising effects of trophy hunting on many species can fuel human-animal conflict rather than mitigate it. Such situations are further exacerbated by the fact that the trophy hunting industry fails to deliver meaningful economic benefits to local communities, contrary to what is claimed by the pro-trophy hunting narrative. In fact, as most hunts are conducted on private land and the hunting sector is plagued with corruption, trophy hunting revenues usually end up in the pockets of hunting operators, private farm owners and local elites.

Mark Jones, Ph.D., head of policy at Born Free, commented: “At Born Free, we have long campaigned for an end to trophy hunting on moral and ethical grounds. In this time of crisis for wildlife and biodiversity, it cannot be right for European hunters to be able to pay to kill threatened wild animals, either within the EU or overseas, and ship the trophies home. Trophy hunting causes immense animal suffering while doing little or nothing for wildlife conservation or local communities. Indeed, in many cases trophy hunters remove key individual animals from fragile populations, damaging their social and genetic integrity. It’s time for the European Union’s policymakers to listen to the overwhelming majority of their citizens, and bring trophy hunting within the EU and the import of trophies to a permanent end, while seeking alternative, more effective ways of resourcing wildlife protection and local community development.”

Trophy hunting not only hampers conservation efforts and generates minimal economic benefits, but also raises ethical and animal welfare concerns. Shooting animals for fun simply to obtain a trophy as a status symbol is ethically unjustifiable, disregards their intrinsic value by reducing them to commodities, and puts a price tag on death reflecting the amount foreign hunters are willing to pay for
the kill. Moreover, trophy hunters frequently employ and incentivize hunting methods that increase the suffering of the animal, such as the use of bows and arrows, muzzleloaders, handguns or dogs chasing animals for hours to exhaustion.

Joanna Swabe, Ph.D., senior director of public affairs at Humane Society International/Europe, said: “Economic benefit – which is minimal at best in the trophy hunting industry – is no excuse to allow the inhumane killing of animals for entertainment or to make up for the often irreversible biological and ecological damages it causes to protected species when there are alternative, more lucrative revenue streams available for development and conservation efforts. As the largest importers of hunting trophies in the world, the US and EU have a moral obligation to stop contributing to this harmful industry through hunting trophy imports and to institute policies that support ethical forms of foreign aid, tourism and industry.”

In many countries around the world, citizens oppose trophy hunting and the import of hunting trophies. Surveys in the EU, Switzerland and the US confirm that between 75% and 96% of respondents oppose trophy hunting and support import bans for trophies. In South Africa, the major African exporter of hunting trophies of protected species, a majority of 64% respondents disapproves of trophy hunting.
Reineke Hameleers, CEO of Eurogroup for Animals, concluded: “With the unethical practice of trophy hunting harming species conservation and the economy for decades, a policy shift is long overdue. Together, with a united voice of 137 NGOs from all around the world, we call on governments to take responsibility for the protection of species and biodiversity–and to ban the import of hunting trophies.”

EU hunting trophy imports florish

Brussels 14.06.2022 Nearly 15,000 hunting trophies of species at risk like elephants, lions, giraffes, polar bears and black rhinos were imported into the EU between 2014 and 2018.

The EU is the world’s second largest importer of hunting trophies of internationally protected species. Trophy hunters kill for fun, and Europeans regularly travel to foreign countries to kill iconic and endangered species to bring home body parts for display and decoration.

We want to stand against hunting trophy imports to the EU. We are determined to slam the door on this gruesome industry.

South Africa is an extremely popular tourist destination. With its beautiful scenery and amazing wildlife, it draws in all kinds of travelers. From nature lovers wanting a safari through Kruger National Park, to hunters eager to see wildlife for a different reason.

Many international hunters travel to the region to participate in “trophy hunting,” from which hunters bring home dead animals as trophies to display on their walls and shelves as souvenirs. Nearly all wild species are available for trophy hunting – even threatened species like African lions and elephants – it is just a question of money.

Home to nearly 300 species of wild mammals, including the “big five” – lion, leopard, elephant, rhinoceros, and Cape buffalo – South Africa also has a sinister captive wild animal industry. This includes an extreme form of trophy hunting known as “canned hunting,” where animals are trapped in fenced areas and simply shot, allowing for an guaranteed and quick trophy.

This so-called “sustainable use” industry breeds animals like lions for cub petting attractions with unknowing tourists, as easy targets in canned hunting, or to be killed and sold as parts for use in traditional medicines in Asia.

Similar to there being more captive tigers living in America than remain in the wild, there are an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 captive lions in South Africa. Bred on over 300 farms, this number far exceeds the estimated 3,000 wild lions that live in nature reserves and national parks in the country.

For the thousands of captive-bred African lions, their life of suffering begins shortly after birth. Before becoming a trophy, lions are bred and raised on breeding farms. On these farms, cubs are quickly removed from their mothers and used as photo props for tourists or raised by volunteers who mistakenly believe they are contributing to the conservation of lions in the wild. The cubs are frequently ill due to stress brought on by constant contact with humans, poor nutrition, and terrible living conditions, which can lead to behavioral disorders as well as dangerous interactions with the public.

Being raised by hand, the lions hardly demonstrate any shyness or fear of humans, making them easier to shoot. After roughly four years, the lions reach the desired trophy age and are offered elsewhere to hunters for shooting or simply killed for their bones.

By participating and paying for these activities – like cub petting or taking walks with lions – volunteers and tourists unknowingly support the inhumaneness of forced lion breeding and the canned hunting and lion bone trade industries.

EESC opinion on 5G

Brussels 22.10.2021 EESC urges Commission to further assess impact of 5G on human health and the environment
The October plenary of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted an opinion recognising the value of electronic communications infrastructure while highlighting the potential risks.

The European Commission should move forward in the process of assessing the multi-sectoral impact of new 5G and 6G technologies. Tools and measures are needed to address risks and vulnerabilities. In the opinion drafted by Dumitru Fornea and adopted by the assembly in the October plenary session, the EESC takes a firm stand, and notes that social, health and environmental issues need to be examined, involving citizens and all relevant actors, in spite of the fact that the debate on the deployment of 5G networks has turned into a controversial, political discussion.

“Rapid digitisation and development of electronic communications has a strong impact on the economy and society at large. Through the responsible use of these technologies, humanity has a historic chance to build a better society. Nevertheless, without due diligence and democratic control, our communities might face serious challenges in the administration of these technological systems in the future” said on sidelines of the plenary, Mr Fornea.

The pandemic has shown that electronic communications infrastructure plays an important role in society and can greatly improve citizens’ quality of life, with a direct impact on fighting poverty. For example, 5G technology presents an enormous opportunity to improve human health services through the development of telemedicine and by improving access to medical care.

However, potential danger needs to be continuously assessed. For this reason, the EESC recommends allocating European and national funds to more in-depth multidisciplinary research and impact studies focused on both humans and the environment, and to disseminating these results in order to educate the public and decision-makers.

In addition, the Committee proposes that the European Commission consults citizens and civil society organisations and, through the involvement of all relevant public institutions, feeds into the decision-making process with respect to the societal and ecological impact of mobile electronic communications.

In the EESC’s view, the EU needs an independent European body with up-to-date methodologies, in line with the current technological context and adopting a multidisciplinary approach, in order to establish guidelines for the protection of the general public and workers in the event of exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation.

All radio frequency transmission stations and the frequency bands on which they operate should be inventoried and this information published for better territorial management and the protection of citizens’ interests, particularly those of vulnerable groups, such as children, pregnant women, chronically ill persons, the elderly and electro-hypersensitive people.

Electromagnetic pollution should be monitored on the basis of a rigorous interinstitutional and interdisciplinary scientific approach, supported by modern measuring equipment that properly highlights and evaluates the cumulative effects over longer periods of time. Although there is no recognised scientific data showing a negative impact of 5G on human health, there should be constant monitoring of social, health and environmental aspects, in line with the precautionary principle.

Bardot defends N.Karabakh animals

Brussels,1.12.2020 Legendary French animal welfare defendant Brigitte Bardot, President of the Foundation bearing her name, addressed an open letter to the attention of the Presidents of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, regarding the dramatic situation of the abandoned animals of Nagorno-Karabakh. The thousands of abandoned animals of Nagorno-Karabakh were left behind after the military operations in disputed territory led to the massive exodus of Armenians.
In her letter Mme Bardot has drawn the attention of Presidents to the situation in the region, where the animal welfare activists were eager to come to rescue thousands of animals, mainly dogs and cats, but they are kept away from dangerous areas by the military, who conduct necessary works to remove munition, and explosives. The abandoned cats, dogs, and other domestic animals who suffer without care, deprived of water and of food, doomed to die painful death.

The animal welfare activists report about tens of thousands of abandoned animals, dying in absence of food and water. There are mutes of dogs, who are looking for food in vain in deserted villages in the regions around Nagorno-Karabakh. The only solution for the problem, is the inclusion of care for the abandoned animals into humanitarian missions, conducted by the Russian peacekeepers, and Azerbaijan regular army.

“Open letter to the attention of the Presidents
of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev

Dear Presidents,

I appeal to you not to forget about the abandoned animals of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The activists are eager to rescue them, but they are being kept away from the dangerous areas where military experts are working, and where there are thousands of dogs, cats and other abandoned domestic animals who are suffering without care, deprived of water and food.

Confronted with such a situation which could go on for some time and leave no chance of survival for the animals, I call you to include the caretaking of the abandoned animals in the humanitarian missions.

This dramatic situation of suffering of animals abandoned by people, mainly dogs and cats who have been our most faithful companions since the dawn of time, is a matter of great concern but trust in your good will to provide an exceptional aid during this transitional period after the entry into force of the ceasefire agreement inspires the hope that I place in you.
Caring for animals suffering along with humans from the consequences of conflicts and wars can only help to heal recent and old traumas that haunt humanity and, in this particular situation, would contribute significantly to the appeasement of the Nagorno-Karabakh region by encouraging people to build a better future for all.

The humanitarian and charitable missions towards the animals of Nagorno-Karabakh carried out under your orders, dear Presidents, are among the keys to this much desired peaceful future, which animal welfare groups are ready to support.

I look forward to receiving your positive response to my urgent appeal.

Please accept, dear Presidents, the assurance of my highest consideration”.

WOLF: Swiss victory of biodiversity

More than half of Swiss voters (51.9%) have rejected changes to the hunting laws, proposed by the Parliament. The regulation of the wolf population as protected species, has been in the focus. (Image: @nywolforg courtesy).

The outcome clearly demonstrated that the Swiss wish to strengthen and not weaken species protection, pointed out Gabor von Bethlenfalvy, large carnivore specialist at WWF Switzerland, in a press release on Sunday, September 27.

He added that by saying no to the revised law, voters were saying yes to a compromise between hunting, regulation and protection. His group was one of many conservation and animal welfare groups to launch the referendum challenging Swiss lawmakers’ revisions to the law.

“Now parliament gets the chance to draft a progressive hunting and protection law that will continue to protect threatened animals such as lynx and beavers and not put them under even greater pressure,” von Bethlenfalvy underlined.

“With this decision, the voters have missed the opportunity to strengthen animal and species protection and to set clear rules for the coexistence of wolves and farm animals,” stated the Swiss farmers’ and hunters’ associations and the committee for mountain regions in a joint press release.

Wolf: Swiss referendum

“To kill or not to kill?” That is the questions the Suisse will answer tomorrow in a referendum on hunting.
If the law is revised in the terms proposed by the Swiss Parliament, the cantons, which today can only authorise shooting at a wolf in the event of ‘significant damage’, will now be able to act in a preventive manner.

If the Swiss accept the revision of the law, the gamekeepers will be able to shoot isolated individuals who have lost their fierce character. They will be able to kill wolves living in a pack before damage occurs. however, cannot be shot if they keep away from herds and populated areas.

“The aim is to protect farm animals, farmed landscapes and human beings,” explains the committee supporting the law. They assure that the new text is more protective since “only three species can still be regulated, against nearly 300 previously: the wolf, the ibex and the mute swan”.

Why are conservationists against it?
Nature conservation associations, including Pro Natura, WWF Switzerland, BirdLife Switzerland, Zoosuisse and the Loup Suisse group, opposed the reform and obtained this referendum. According to the Swiss Greens, “it would then be possible to shoot protected animals when there is only a probability that they will cause damage and not in the event of actual damage, which removes any incentive to take preventive measures to protect the herds “.
Environmentalists believe that “preventive measures – not ‘preventive fire’, such as supporting herd protection, should be stepped up to avoid conflict with predators.”

On this side of the border too, the revision of the law is the subject of debate. It must be said that wild animals in general and wolves in particular do not care about the demarcation lines drawn by men.

Wildlife photographer from Haut-Doubs now living in Switzerland, Alain Prêtre denounces, for example, “a law of slaughter” which threatens both the lynx and the ibex.

Twenty-five years after his official return to Switzerland, the wolf has settled down for a long time. On September 27, 2020, the Swiss population is called upon to vote on the revision of the hunting law, following a referendum launched by Pro Natura, WWF, Birdlife, the Swiss Wolf Group and Zoosuisse. The latter might facilitate, among other things, the conditions for regulating firing.

“It is a real disaster: the revision of the hunting law (LChP) is totally inappropriate and endangers the protection of the species as a whole”, the WWF said. “Animals like the lynx, beaver, gray heron and wolf, which have always been found in Switzerland, could be shot without ever having done any damage – simply because they exist. This is why Pro Natura, WWF Switzerland, BirdLife Switzerland, the Swiss Wolf Group and the zoos of Switzerland have launched a referendum”.

The revision of the law no longer does justice to the balanced compromise between protection, regulation and hunting, but above all proposes a unilateral change which operates to the detriment of endangered species. Protected species such as the lynx, beaver and mute swan can be placed on the list of species that can be regulated at any time, along with the wolf and ibex. Thus, these animals can be shot simply as a preventive measure, that is to say without even damage being attributable to them. With this new law, it is no longer mandatory to take precautionary measures (such as protecting herds in areas where wolves live), before having the right to slaughter animals. Many protected species are likely to come into conflict with certain human interests and therefore constitute potential candidates for the list of species that can be regulated.

Dealing with such conflicts of interest between conservation of species and interests of use is a delicate business. This new law is in no way fair to face this challenge. It serves a unilateral interest: during the revision of the law, the positive impact of protected species on the ecosystem was completely obscured. Wolves and lynxes, for example, improve the health of wildlife, and grazing damage in nurseries has also decreased. In addition, these species offer new prospects for tourism.

In short, this new law poses a fundamental societal question: how much space are we prepared to give nature?
The vote of May 17, 2020 has been postponed, the new date is September 27, 2020 due to the pandemic restrictions.

Belgium: Fourth wolf missing

Belgium Institute for Nature and Forest Research (INBO) has released images of three cubs of wolves, concerned that the fourth cub went missing for several weeks.

In late April or early May this year, four wolf cubs were born in the north of the Limburg province, where wolves Noëlla and August have been staying for some time now.

FINLAND: husky at risk of cull

In Lapland (Finland) husky dogs culling are ahead if the post-coronavirus situation continues to degrade, said Pasi Ikonen, an entrepreneur from Hetta Huskies in Enontekiö, in an interview with Helsinki Sanomat newspaper.

Ikonen explained that the assessment is based on his own situation being an owner of 250 dogs.

“We basically don’t kill dogs. If the situation gets so bad that the number needs to be reduced, we try to get their elder to find homes for them. We already have a fairly extensive adoption program. ”

IKOSEN’s food costs for dogs are about 50,000 euros a year and veterinary costs less than 20,000 euros. The dogs are guided by two salaried employees. The total cost is about 120,000 euros per year.

“According to the law, the owner can abandon his dog whenever he wants, there is no obstacle, but it is certainly morally questionable to do so. If there is an emergency situation and there is no other solution, then dogs cannot be kept if they cannot get food and care for them. ”

Ikonen reminds that putting down dogs can be short-sighted. An ordinary draft dog costs 300-400 euros, but a top-class guide dog can cost thousands of euros.

“If the company’s goal is to continue the dog business, then stopping the dogs is a bad idea. Getting a working group of dogs back is difficult. For many, it is a way of life and not a business and the decision to put down dogs is a tough one.”

TRAVEL COMPANY Harriniva’s CEO Niina Pietikäinen says that in her company the number of dogs will be reduced by one hundred dogs in two years. This is accomplished by interrupting puppy production.

The company has 500 sled dogs in two kennels in Muonio. The natural elimination is about 50 dogs a year, Pietikäinen says.

“It’s the only measure right now. Of course, we are already thinking about the next season, ie winter 2021–22. Dogs are as important to us as human workers. They then suddenly do not appear anywhere: they are long-educated, valuable animals. ”

According to Pietikäinen, it is now assumed that this year’s expenses will be covered.

“It’s more than half a million euros. The big question is who would get us here to move them. The inherent feature of a sled dog is to pull and run. It could run a hundred miles a day. ”

PIETIKÄINEN thinks that the worst situation is for a company that only has a dog sled business. He also hopes that Finns will find the dog sled hobby a nice way to move around in nature now that the share of foreign tourists is collapsing.

However, Harriniva plans to continue the dog business.

“But I’m genuinely worried about the thousands of sled dogs in Lapland. It is the kind of breed that is not brought but adopted as a domestic dog. It’s such an energetic dog.”

Poland Animal Welfare crisis

Brussels 18.09.2020 Poland’s governing alliance appeared to be in disarray on September 18, as a dispute over animal rights measures highlighted divisions in the ruling camp, raising the possibility of early elections if differences cannot be resolved.

Tensions within the alliance led by the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party came into the open after some members did not support the measures, which passed in parliament with opposition support.

The dispute over changes to animal rights laws, which are seen as an appeal to younger voters, halted talks on overhauling ministries and raised risks of problems for the coalition.

The new rules, which would ban fur farming and curb the slaughter of animals, were opposed by all lawmakers from the ultra-conservative United Poland party, some other lawmakers in doubt have abstained.The legislation aligns situation with the Lisbon Treaty of EU, stating that animals are “sentient beings” and animal welfare is a European value.

PiS lawmaker and Agriculture Minister Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski, who had openly criticized the bill, voted against it.

Opponents of the bill within the ruling alliance said it would alienate voters in PiS’s rural heartlands and hurt farmers.

Poland produces millions of furs a year, and the sector employs about 50,000 people. The country is also one of Europe’s biggest exporters of halal and kosher meat, with 2017 shipments of more than 70,000 tons.

“Negotiations … have been suspended due to the situation we have in the Sejm,” or parliament, PiS lawmaker and Deputy Parliament Speaker Ryszard Terlecki said before the vote.

Asked about ruling as a minority government, Terlecki said this would not be possible.

“If that happens, we’ll go to elections. Alone, of course.”

In 2007, PiS decided to go for early elections and lost power, making the party well aware of the risks of such a move.

Back in 1991, Compassion in World Farming NGO submitted a petition to the European Parliament, calling for animals to be recognised as sentient beings, capable of suffering. This was accepted as a ‘Treaty declaration’ which is not legally binding, but nonetheless a significant first step. Then, in 1997 with the Treaty of Amsterdam, it became a Protocol, with legal status. The new Lisbon Treaty, in force from December 1st 2009, includes animal sentience as an Article, meaning that recognition of animal sentience is now in the main body of the Treaty and carries considerably more weight.

« Older Entries