Camilla Long doesn't know the difference between Pen Farthing and Joe Exotic

Camilla Long is a well-known journalist writing for The Sunday Times. She comments on the news and I guess anything that interests her. Today, she has written something which irritates me. I'm sure she doesn't give a damn. In fact it probably pleases her because her provocative articles are meant to irritate and delight at the same time. She is a consummate writer, very bright, Oxbridge educated and blah blah blah. She is talented. But she's got this completely wrong.

Camilla Long. Photo: Twitter.

She is criticising animal lovers and "animal people" who, I presume, are the same species of human. And she can't tell the difference between the behaviour of the well-known animal rescuer, Pen Farthing, who was until the mass evacuation based in Kabul, Afghanistan and the obnoxious but made-for-television personality, Joe Exotic.

I'll tell her what the difference is. Mr Farthing saves the lives of unwanted and discarded animals. He shipped many dogs from Afghanistan to America. This is because American military personnel rescued dogs in Afghanistan and became close to them. When they came to the end of their deployment and returned to America they had to leave their dogs behind. Mr Farthing rectified that problem. He raised considerable funds to ship these dogs to America for a reunion and to allow the dogs to live out their lives happily. He saved lives and did good work. He also ran a vet surgery in Kabul. He founded and ran the best animal rescue organisation in Afghanistan for years. He alleviated pain and distress in animals.

RELATED: Taliban likely to ban dogs but accept cats

He bent over backwards and struggled enormously to save the lives of about 200 cats and dogs during the mass evacuation when the Taliban took over. Camilla Long criticises him for euthanising 32 older dogs at that time because they weren't enough crates to transport them all, she said. She also criticises him for the death of six cats who were tear-gassed after a suicide bomb went off at the airport.

I'm sure Mr Farthing reluctantly euthanised the dogs that she mentions. Sometimes rescue animals have to be euthanised despite best intentions. Under the most dire and critical conditions, Mr Farthing saved lives. If he euthanised these dogs it would have been an absolutely last resort that he was compelled to take. It would have been a humane decision.

RELATED: 25-30 cats at US Embassy Kabul have been abandoned

By contrast, Joe Exotic, for many years, ran the biggest private zoo in America and exploited big cat cubs for financial gain on a treadmill basis. They were used for photo shoots but when they grew up they were redundant. They were surplus to requirements. There were sometimes shot. Basically he was exploiting animals in the most abusive way for many many years. And he is serving a 22-year sentence for plotting to murder Carole Baskin, one of the world's 'animal people'. He is a thoroughly obnoxious individual.

These two individuals are in stark contrast to each other. You cannot say what Camilla Long has written about them which is as follows:

What's the difference between Farthing and the execrable human beings who run roadside tiger parks in America?

Well, I agree about the execrable human beings who exploit big cats and abuse them in the process but as mentioned there is a big difference. There's a big difference between exploitation and saving lives. In fact, they are at the opposite end of the spectrum of our relationship with humans.

Doctor faced 31 counts of animal cruelty and one count of child endangerment

NEWS AND COMMENT-VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA: A qualified doctor (for humans) was facing 21 counts of animal cruelty and one count of child endangerment. However, she has not been charged by the Yolo County District Attorney Office. It is an interesting case because the public does not generally associate doctors (I believe that she is in general practice) and what appears to be animal hoarding resulting in neglect, negligence and abuse. I feel sorry for her. There but for the grace of God go I is what I think when I read these sorts of stories. It's quite easy to get into the situation where you can no longer cope, where you are vulnerable and sinking slightly or greatly.

I suspect that she has not been charged because it wouldn't be helpful. She needs help rather than punishment. I am sure that is the reason why the District Attorney decided not to prosecute. It's a shame in some ways because you end up with animals that suffer and in a strict sense there should be some punishment for that. Her child also suffered it seems. I have to make it clear that these are allegations at the moment because I don't know anything about it other than what is reported on the news media online. Sometimes they can be imprecise and inaccurate.

I had some concerns about publishing a photograph of the woman but I think I have to because her details are spelled-out and therefore it is not difficult to find a photograph on the Internet. She looks entirely normal and pretty happy in the photograph. It's a great shame. There is an argument that cat and animal hoarders should be counselled and treated rather than punished because ultimately it comes down to mental health which is often beyond the control of the person involved.

Keeping deceased cats and kittens in freezers is commonplace for cat hoarders. I don't think there's anything malicious about this behaviour. I think it is probably more to do with wanting to keep the animal close to the person rather than buried or cremated at which point they have conclusively lost the animal.

Her son was removed from her home because the conditions therein were dirty and unsafe. She is no longer seeing patients but she is qualified to do so. Her name is Dr. Rebecca Darsey. Her biography is still out on the Internet. The police found six dead kittens in her freezer. They also found 24 adult cats, six of which were deceased, five dogs and eight exotic birds at her home. 

We are told that her home was a mess which goes with the territory of being an animal hoarder and out-of-control. Her son was unable to sleep in his room because it was used to house animals.

Sadly, Dr. Rebecca Darsey was self-medicating for anxiety and depression. She was taking prednisone, Effexor and Maxalt. The last drug is used for the treatment of migraine headaches. Effexor is an antidepressant of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor class. It can also be used for chronic pain. And it is used to treat generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and social phobia. It seems that she didn't have her own doctor.

Her medical license is valid. News media reached out to the medical board for comment without success at the time of the report. The doctor's medical license expires at the end of 2021.

Report fake animal rescue videos to YouTube administrators

You may have heard about fake YouTube animal rescue videos. To the best of my knowledge these videos emanate from Asia. What happens is this. Because people want to make a lot of money through advertising on YouTube, they target the sort of video that is attractive. Animal rescue videos are attractive. It is impossible, almost, to make a genuine animal rescue video because these events are so rare and you've got to be in the right place at the right time.

Because of these factors, unscrupulous people are creating fake animal rescue videos. So, what they do is they take an unwanted stray kitten, of which there are many in Third World countries, and they place that kitten in a precarious, life-threatening situation such as very near a snake pit or the kitten or cat is dumped into a deep pool of mud. Or they might put a jar or can over the cat's head which temporarily blinds them.

Fake animal rescues of YouTube. This one has been on their website for 2 years. Screenshot.

The next step then is to approach the animal with a smartphone in one hand recording the rescue, while the other hand is used to rescue the animal by taking off the can over their head or extricating them from a pool of mud and so on.  You can tell the video is fake partly because only one hand is used when two would be far more effective. They publish the video as genuine and many of them get a good number of hits which enhances their prospects of earning a decent amount of money from Google AdSense advertising.

One major thing wrong with this exercise is that the animals are the victims. They are the unwitting players in these mini-films. They gave no consent to be abused like this. It is a straight case of cat or dog abuse. And of course, they are deceiving the public. They are immoral and they should be deleted from YouTube. When you complain to YouTube administrators they might be deleted.

It has to be said that the YouTube administrators are very reluctant to delete anything on their platform. They believe in free speech which is great but arguably they give too much leeway and so free speech becomes hate speech and animal rescue becomes animal cruelty. It appears to me that YouTube is managed by left-wing liberals. That is not a bad thing per se. It's just that they are snowflake types. They are woke and there is little robustness about their decision-making. That's my personal view.

CLICK THIS FOR MANY PAGES ON CAT VIDEOS WHICH I USUALLY CRITIQUE

You will find that reporting a video to them which is unacceptable may be fruitless. They may delete the video a long time after receiving the report. They may not delete it. And the whole process of reporting is very opaque. There is no feedback, there is no response from them. You click your report through and it goes into a black hole. No light emanates from that hole. It is hit and hope. YouTube are not good at communicating. They do their best to not communicate.

The reason for that is because they simply don't have the manpower to deal with the plethora or flood of problems and reports. They can't manage the videos themselves so they rely on users to report problematic videos. That in itself as a model is a poor one. It is abdicating one's responsibility to ensure that all the videos on their platform are decent and will not corrupt minds or promote animal abuse or human abuse. I'm moaning about YouTube and they may punish me for it. They can be vindictive as well.

Notwithstanding all these issues, if you do bump into a video which you think is a fake animal rescue then please report it to the administrators as it might help to save lives and prevent animal cruelty.

Do veterinarians have to report animal abuse in the USA and UK?

Until April 24, 2020, the state of Kentucky was the odd man out in terms of veterinarians having a duty to report animal abuse to the authorities. On that date Kentucky governor Andy Beshear signed Senate Bill 21 into law which empowers veterinarians to report suspected animal cruelty.

Tabby cat at vet. Pic: Pixabay.

And so, in the US, veterinarians in all 50 states have a mandatory duty to report animal abuse if they have reasonable cause to know or suspect that the animal has been subjected to cruelty or animal fighting and they shall report the matter to local law enforcement or bureau of animal protection.

In the UK, there is currently no mandatory reporting by veterinarians of animal abuse. It is obviously a difficult subject and there are privacy issues and I guess difficulties in making an accurate decision. There is an article on the BMJ website which states that UK veterinarians need special training to report cases of suspected animal abuse and neglect as per research published online in Vet Record. The purpose would be to boost confidence and skills in this difficult task.

There is a fear that the veterinarian will be breaching client confidentiality unjustifiably resulting in a loss of earnings. You could foresee the potential damage being incurred by the veterinarian's practice if they get it wrong. It could also leave the vet exposed to a claim in defamation.

A study found that in the UK around one third of veterinarians said that they had seen a case of suspected animal abuse in the past year but only 46% of these veterinarians had reported it to the authorities.

There is a known link between animal abuse leading to human abuse and violence against people. Therefore, it is clearly important to report animal abuse to the authorities. The recommendation to train veterinarians on this topic appears to have been mooted in late 2019.

I need some help on this because I do not see any search results indicating that the recommendation has been carried through to fruition. What I am thinking about it this: if veterinarians are trained on spotting animal abuse, they could adopt the US mandatory requirements if they have reasonable cause.

I don't have info on the rules on this topic in other countries. I'd expect there to be the same sort of ambivalence and difficulties. It is a very tricky topic. In the world of humans, there are many incorrect diagnoses of child abuse leading to parents losing their children for months and longer and being ostracised highlighting the difficulties.

Decriminalising possession of all drugs, prostitution and minor crime to improve animal welfare

Baltimore in the USA had done something radical. Baltimore's top prosecutor has decriminalised the possession of all drugs, along with prostitution and other minor street crimes. The objective: to improve public safety in what was one of America's most dangerous cities. I say "was" because it has worked. In this city the drug war is over said Marilyn Mosby. They have, in the words of the mayor, "reimagined public safety". In other words they have taken a completely different position on how to improve public safety. And I'm going to argue in this post that if you improve the safety of the public you also improve the safety of companion animals who live with the public.

Baltimore, USA. Image by emitea from Pixabay 

And the safety of companion animals, particularly domestic cats, is my overriding concern. Baltimore won't even prosecute criminals who possess heroin. They don't prosecute for non-violent crimes of attempted drug distribution, possession of drug paraphernalia, trespassing and minor traffic offences and, as mentioned, prostitution. These infractions are now dealt with as community health problems and the perpetrators are redirected to social services or other sections of Baltimore's public health system.

Over the past year, during the coronavirus pandemic, many American cities have experienced a spike in violence whereas violent crime in Baltimore has fallen by 20%. Property crime has dropped by 36%. The number of prisoners has fallen by 18% and there has been a fall in the number of people entering the criminal justice system by 39%.

In Baltimore they measure public concern by the number of emergency calls about drug use and sex work. Between March and December 2020 these calls dropped by one third with respect to drug use and by one half with respect to sex work.

They are going to focus on violent offences like armed robbery and carjacking together with drug distribution organisations. These are the underbelly of violence in Baltimore.

I think this story need to be digested by anybody who is considering how to improve public safety and reduce levels of crime in their city or municipality. It's a good test case. It has probably released some of the tension in Baltimore. If law enforcement is constantly cracking down on petty crime there is a constant level of tension between the authorities and the citizens. 

I don't know for sure because I am not an expert but to try and help drug takers through social services and health systems is far more ameliorative and palliative and therefore more gentle than cracking down on these people who certainly need help.

Perhaps that attitude from the authorities has feed through to society, making these perpetrators less aggressive and with less aggression you are less likely to have incidents of violence against animals. Often animals are the victims of spontaneous acts of aggression from citizens either on drugs or alcohol. Alcoholism is  an outlet for aggression and anger. If you reduce the level of anger in society you should reduce the level of animal abuse and cruelty. I'm thinking aloud so I don't know for sure but it makes sense to me.

Coronavirus pandemic should stop unregulated cat and dog meat businesses

Just a quick note on the grisly and sad topic of cat and dog meat. It is still big business in Vietnam and Southern China and elsewhere in Asia. At one stage Vietnam had a rat infestation problem and believed that the cat meat industry was allowing rat numbers to increase so they introduced a government directive to end 'cat-meat eateries' (Directive No.09/1998/CT-TTg). That law was revoked a year ago. It failed clearly.

The sad and disgusting cat meat trade can expose people to zoonotic diseases.
Pic in public domain in my view.

So there appears to be rumblings in parts of Asia on the subject of how to change people's habits in eating people's pets. It is deeply engrained. How it got to that stage is beyond my comprehension. It is obviously immoral. 

But a reason to stop eating people's pets goes well beyond morality. It is all about human health and wellbeing. The coronavirus pandemic tells us that when humans slaughter animals in an unregulated way in open markets they expose themselves to being infected by zoonotic diseases present in those animals.

Cats are the number one vector for toxoplasmosis for instance. I am sure a lot of Chinese and Vietnamese have caught toxoplasmosis from the domestic cats that they have eaten. They might not know it. They might feel a bit ill persistently. They have no idea that their low level illness is due to their careless approach to animal welfare and their unthinking habit of eating cats, sometimes pet animals.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that another zoonotic coronavirus-type disease could be transmitted from domestic cats slaughtered for human consumption in a seedy market in the south of China. Surely the coronavirus pandemic must be a lesson to these people to be far more careful to avoid zoonotic diseases?

The Chinese conurbation of Shenzhen banned cat and dog meat because of the coronavirus pandemic. Clearly the authorities are concerned. Their eyes are open to the inherent dangers of unregulated slaughter and consumption cat and dog meat. Others need to follows asap.

A study found an association between Toxoplasma gondii infection and psychiatric disorders in Zhejiang, Southeastern China. This is not far from the epidentre of the cat and dog meat industry in China as I understand it. Is there a link between the conclusion of this study and eating cat meat?

Nature has a way of 'punishing' animal abusers. The pandemic is the paradigm example. Abuse nature and nature will strike back. If they can't stop eating cat and dog meat for reasons of morality then do it in the interests of human health.

Nature has taught humankind a lesson. Some Asians refuse to learn the lesson and digest it.

Trusting friendly domestic cats tortured by US Government in experiments

OPINION AND COMMENT: I am referring to animal testing, specifically cruel experiments on friendly domestic cats in a government facility. Animal cruelty funded by American taxpayers' dollars. The research was carried out by the Department of Veteran's Affairs at three labs one of which is in Los Angeles.

Cat used in animal testing in a US gov facility for VA
Photo: CBS LA.

The Metro online newspaper refers to one friendly little cat, Artemis, who was aged one at the time; a young cat with his life ahead of him. He was inexperienced and expecting his humans around him to be as friendly as him. 

The cruel so-called scientists, more like torturers and abusers, drilled holes in his head to implant electrodes to analyse sleep patterns. He endured three years of tests and was killed at the end and dissected. Difficult to comprehend how educated people could do this. 

Other cats were kept in small cages, it is reported and injected with chemicals. They were eventually asphyxiated and killed. Animal advocates argue that the experiments were pointless and useless in terms of understanding human physiology. 

Madeleine Bernstein of the LA Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said: "It blows my mind that we can fight a pandemic with a code, but they have to bash a cat in order to come up with some sleep pattern. It really doesn’t make sense in 2021."

The experts say that experiments on cat's brains don't really assist humans. In 2020 the LA lab spent $5 million on torturing cats in experiments.

The Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) claim, as expected, that the experiments were designed to improve treatments for veterans injured in combat.

They say they'll end the experiments in 2021 but there seems to be some distrust over their word. White Coat Waste Project (a taxpayer watchdog group) say the VA can't be trusted.

A bill is in Congress appropriately called CATS. It will end the torture if and when it is passed into law. 

I have written about this sort of thing before on another website. Click here to read it if you wish.

Teenage woman allegedly tried to poison housemates because they mistreated her kittens she claimed

COMMENT AND NEWS: This is a story from Brisbane Australia. Te Raukura Anahera Alexander, 19, clearly loves cats. She adopted two kittens. She lived in what appears to be a house which he shared with housemates. There appears also to have been some sort of dispute between her and the housemates which was simmering in the background and which came to a head when her kittens or a kitten wandered into one of the housemaid's rooms and scratched the person in the room.

Te Raukura Anahera Alexander, 19, outside the magistrates court. She refused to
talk to the media. Photo: Daily Mail.

It is claimed that a kitten or kittens were thrown across the room as a consequence. This is an allegation of animal abuse. Alexander became enraged and allegedly tried to take the law into their own hands by poisoning her housemates. She reportedly admitted to placing a teaspoonful of mosquito repellent into milk and yoghurt. The repellent is called Mortein Peaceful Nights.

My research indicates that if ingested this insecticide can cause serious harm in people. It may be fatal in a large enough dosage. Skin can become sensitised to it and it is very dangerous to aquatic animals. It should be handled with caution and with rubber gloves.

Nobody ate the yoghurt or drank the milk and therefore nobody was poisoned. The police came to the property when allegedly Alexander slashed all four tyres of a vehicle outside the house. It appears that she admitted the alleged crime at that time to the police. She's appeared before the magistrates court and is on bail pending the next hearing and ordered to live with her father and not to return to the home where she lived or approach the housemates. She will reappear before court on March 29.

She was provoked. She did something very stupid. She will no doubt be imprisoned if convicted. If that happens she will be without her kittens. She made a terrible mistake. Any number of alternative solutions would have been better including removing herself from the house with her kittens.

She could have reported the alleged abuse of the kitten(s) by her housemates or housemate to the police because on the face of it this might constitute animal abuse under Australian animal welfare law. That would have given her the high moral ground.

The story highlights the dangers of living in a home of multiple occupation if you own a cat, cats or a kitten. The animals are thrust into a home where their safety cannot be ensured. The cat owner does not know whether her housemates will treat her cat with care. She doesn't know whether they like or dislike cats. She doesn't know whether they are scrupulous about animal welfare.

But if a dispute arises, as appears to be the case in the story, one person may take out their anger on the cats. Cats are always vulnerable to animal abuse because of their immediate presence. They are an outlet for angry people.

I hope that the judge is lenient if she is convicted and that her sentence is light. Although she is on a charge which sound serious namely attempting to injure by noxious substances, assault and wilful damage (reference to the slashing of the car tyres).

Have they found that narcissistic Asian woman who killed her cat in a washing machine?

In Oct 2017 I wrote about a pretty, young, narcissistic Asian woman who killed her pretty but not narcissistic white cat in her washing machine (click here to read it). I figured that she lives in the south of China where they have a dubious relationship with cats as they like to eat them en masse for superstitious reasons. Horrible. Mad.

Narcissistic Asian woman who killed her cat on social media for fame. Her social media page.

But have they caught this mad, pretty woman? Probably not. She committed a crime by normal standards. She should be arrested and punished. The trouble is that in China they don't have any meaningful animal welfare laws so she has not committed a crime in her country. Even if she had she'd get away with it because of police apathy.

She had the temerity to post her film of her killing her cat online, on social media. That is why I say she is narcissistic. It is that self-indulgent desire for 15 minutes of fame. Some youth of today can't bear to be anonymous. They want to be someone and they'll do anything even animal cruelty of the most henous kind to achieve those ends.

You know that one in fourteen (more than 7% actually) of British children have tried to kill themselves! Astonishing. It shows a deep malaise in the minds of British kids. They are suffering but why? Where does this mental health issue come from? 

It has been made worse by Covid-19. They don't see a future. The future is harder for kids today than it was in my day. I agree that. But it is not that bad. I think it is linked to expectation. Unrealistic expectations which are generated through using social media.

Back to the Asian woman. It is the same problem. She wants fame even if it is a negative version of fame: notoriety. Infamy. It is all the same to her. As long as she is not anonymous. This is part of the reason why British kids sometimes want to end their lives. They can't become famous. There is nothing worse for them than being ugly and invisible. An empty, meaningless future.

PETA's horrific outside cat stories should shock but no pictures please

PETA has to force change to improve animal welfare. They set out to shock people to achieve this goal. They want to force reality down the throat of the complacent public. There is apathy and ignorance about a lack of animal welfare in society. People live blinkered lives and PETA wants to open their eyes.

I agree with their philosophy but personally I cannot look at the photographs which accompany their 'horrific outside cat stories' on their website. These are photographs of cats that are truly suffering with terrible injuries and illnesses. They are normally feral or stray cats.

PETA is against the existence of feral cats. I get that too. They don't want to see feral cats suffering and in the past it seems to me that they have recommended that all feral cats be trapped and euthanized. There was uproar in some quarters about that and this philosophy does not seem to be universally accepted among all senior PETA staff.

I digress...because this your post is about forcing people to accept failure in animal welfare while at the same time not putting people off reading PETA articles. Personally I will not click on a link which describes 'horrific outside cat stories' on the PETA website and which are thrown up in Google search results. This is because I know there are likely to be photographs of badly injured cats

I cannot look at these photographs any more. They damage me. I cannot get them out of my head. I would ask PETA to use words as effectively as possible to describe the plight of these cats but to restrict the use of gory photographs because if I am being put off by them them I expect other people are too.

Elizabeth Bartlett is a cruel woman. She put her cat in a sealed box in a dumpster.

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN, UNITED STATES-ANALYSIS: I am not going to pull any punches. I'm going to speak the raw truth which is why I have spelt out this person's name in the title. Her name deserves to be spelled-out because Elizabeth Bartlett who lives in Wisconsin is a very cruel woman. And that is not a slanderous statement because it is a statement of the truth.

Elizabeth Bartlett, a very cruel person. Police photo.

Elizabeth Bartlett has been convicted of a criminal misdemeanour of intentionally mistreating an animal, abandoning an animal and intentionally failing to provide food and drink to an animal. That sounds pretty cold and scientific. The actual facts of the crime are much more horrendous in my view. Her behaviour has been described as despicable by the judge.

She put her microchipped, tabby cat in a bag and then put the bag into a box which was sealed closed with tape. She then placed the box in a dumpster in Aswaubenon. The intention was clearly to let her cat, which she had adopted last February, to die of starvation and lack of water and perhaps oxygen too. The death would have been very painful and very distressing for this cat.

Fortunately, a man was checking the dumpsters for things that people throw out and heard meowing coming from it on May 14, 2019. He saw that the box was taped shut so he opened it and released the cat. The cat's name is Spencer.

Elizabeth Bartlett was sentenced to 90 days in jail and two years probation. She is banned from owning an animal while on probation. Comment: that last part of the sentence is far, far too lenient. She should have been banned from having an animal perhaps for the remainder of her life in my book. Anybody who can do that to their cat must be terminally unsuited to be a cat or dog owner.

Bartlett kept quiet throughout the entire proceedings but did not contest them. Source: Fox 11 News.

Social media giants delete evidence of criminality

The story relates to extremists avoiding justice because the tech giants fail to archive social media posts of violence but I would like to extend that to animal abuse and cruelty which is so bad that it is a crime. I have bumped into examples of animal abuse on social media websites which is evidence for a potential successful prosecution under animal welfare statutes. It is not uncommon but the criminals are becoming more savvy.

Image in the public domain

A report by Human Rights Watch found that social media websites were removing violent imagery without preserving a copy which denies future prosecutors the chance to access vital evidence in potential future prosecutions.

Human Rights Watch's report is called Video Unavailable and it was published yesterday. They want social media websites to archive imagery which can be used as evidence. Social media website were indeed caught flat-footed when terrorist organisations promoted their objectives through video and still images. They social media sites reacted quite strongly partly because advertisers were distraught at the fact that their adverts were being associated with violence of the worst kind.

Algorithms perhaps driven by artificial intelligence nowadays are used to pick out these images and videos and delete them. I am a great fan of artificial intelligence but they need refining currently and they need rewriting to preserve evidence. I don't know whether these algorithms are written to detect animal abuse and animal cruelty images and videos. I would hope that they are. Apparently some algorithms are programmed to filter out posts and images before the content is published. This, too, is detrimental in terms of accruing evidence against criminals.

We all know, including the FBI in America, that animal cruelty is linked to a progression to violence against people. Therefore it is an important part of the criminal world and the investigation of serious crime.

Social media posts have helped to convicted war criminals. These posts have also helps human rights groups and investigative journalist to highlight abuse.

A Week in the Life of Wanderers' Rest Animal Shelter, Canastota NY

It has been one of those weeks at the Wanderers' Rest animal shelter. It probably isn't all that different from normal though.

Firstly, a lady saw someone throw a garbage bag from the window of a moving car. You can guess what was inside the back, can't you? Yes, you're right, the bag contained 12 kittens and cats, of which 2 had died.  The lady who watched this despicable act recovered the bag and found homes for 5 of the cats. She gave the remaining 5 to the shelter. We read quite a few stories about kittens and cats being thrown out of the window of moving cars. It is totally beyond my comprehension how anybody can do it. The people must be totally desensitised to any form of decent behaviour.

On the same day a woman who appears to be a serial cat hoarder received a visit from animal control who remove 15 cats from her home. The year before 20 cats were removed from her home.  Eight cats remained. No doubt something similar will transpire in another 12 months. The humane educator at the shelter says something that we probably already know, namely that cat hoarding is a mental illness so there is not much point being very critical of the cat hoarding lady. She needs treatment rather than punishment.

In the same week on July 18 a dog control officer discovered a cage in bushes outside his home. Inside the cage were 12 cats. Somebody appears to have abandoned the 12 cats in a rather peculiar way but in an equally abusive and callous way.

The week appears to have been a bit unusual due to the nature of the abandonments but I suspect not that unusual because the shelter housed almost 1000 cats over the past year and about 600 dogs. They are stretched to capacity and make the usual plea, “We need foster homes desperately".

Source story.

Investment in TNR In Yonkers, NY After Animal Cruelty

After what has been described as the worst case of animal cruelty in the history of Westchester when the dead bodies of 25 cats and kittens were found in black plastic bags hanging from a tree in a wood, the city of Yonkers has acted constructively and proactively in allocating $15,000 towards trap-neuter-release programs to help reduce the number of homeless cats which are ultimately potential victims of the nasty people who like to abuse animals.

The city of Yonkers deserves to be applauded because this is a very constructive and an enlightened decision.  It also promotes the concept of TNR as a means of controlling stray and feral cat populations humanely.

An organisation called Animal Defenders of Westchester are delighted because the decision sends the right message about dealing with community chats: humanely and compassionately.  It sends the message that the city of Yonkers, New York cares about the vulnerability of community cats and wishes to do the right thing for them.

There is, I believe, a very gradual acceptance that TNR is the way to go in the long-term to control homeless cat populations but it will not work on its own. There needs to be a parallel changing of behaviour by the less responsible cat owners to slow the creation of unwanted cats.

One last point: I don't believe $15,000 is enough but we can't be critical.

Story.

 

Cyprus: Hotel Employees Chuck Dog Into Rubbish Crusher

This is a gross example of animal cruelty admitted by the hotel management. Richard Chadwick who commented on this story on Facebook says the following about the owner of the hotel:

She is the owner of the Anastasia Hotel in Southern Cyprus. It is her, and her alone no matter how much she wants to blame the staff, who is responsible for the horrible treatment of a puppy.

This is a photograph of who he was referring to:

In response Penny Smith says:

This was on FB a couple of weeks ago. The owner of the hotel issued a statement saying she had asked two of her employees to take it to a local vet as it was sick. Instead they threw it into a crusher. To give her her due, she did make sure the puppy was being cared for at the vets, sadly too late, and claimed to have sacked the two emplyees. Maybe someone should establish the exact facts before we blame the wrong person.

It appears that a 7 month old stray, sick poodle was wandering around the hotel irritating hotel management and the hotel manager asked an employee to take the dog to the vet. That is the official story but what happened is that two employees threw the dog into a hotel rubbish compacter. The dog suffered a broken back, broken bones, brain damage and an inability to breathe and later died despite imaginary intervention.

The bin that they threw the dog into was fitted with an electrically powered motor that I presume compacted (crushed) hotel rubbish.

The dog was found by holidaymakers at the bottom of the machine, barely alive.  Tourists called the local veterinary clinic but as mentioned the dog died eventually within days.

The veterinary clinic called out was MedVets. A spokesman for the surgery said that:

When we went to the hotel, he was already in a coma. We were shocked and it was even more of a shock when we were told he was put into this bin.

There's been a mass protest by British tourists and expat British outside the Anastasia hotel. The Brits are very angry and there appears to be a difference in the relationship between British people and Cypriot people towards their companion animals. I say that without being in any way overly critical of Cypriots.

The general mood amongst expats and tourists is that a country which is part of the Eurozone and the European Union should have standards of animal care equal to other members of the union. They state that this is not the case and they are shocked and disgusted by the incident.

It is interesting to note that the president of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, condemns what has happened and says the incident is a disgrace for his country.

The incident is horrible and very distressing but I agree with the tourist who says that there is a huge discrepancy with respect to animal welfare laws and the relationship between people and animals across the European Union. In Eastern and Southern Europe there is more animal cruelty than in northern Europe

In Eastern European countries, often the laws are badly formulated and hardly enforced.  In Greece the stray cats are used as tourist attractions but once the tourists season is over they are killed with poison, we are told.

It is a disgrace that the institutions of the European Union allowed these countries to join the EU without first ensuring that they met the standards for becoming members. There has been an overeagerness of the European commission to expand the European Union.  The Eurozone financial crisis is another example of how it can go wrong when you allow countries to join which are not ready.

Story.

USDA Too Slow to Shut Down Dodgy Zoos

Great Cats of Indiana has been closed. Hurrah! It took about ten years to do it. In the meantime the great cats inside were turned into cats that weren't so great; just depressed, underweight tigers and lions with medical problems, and in poor health and condition.

I have written about the dodgy private zoos of America before. There have been some high profile cases, which have resulted in deaths.

Lion at Great Cats of Indiana - I don't the name of the photographer, sorry.

Apparently the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had filed a complaint about Great Cats of Indiana in 2007 and there have been breaches of regulations going back to 2002. A court application was filed by the USDA, as I understand it, in 2007 but the place was still open until now.

Earlier inspections revealed negligent medical treatment of a cougar, leopard and lion. For example, the cougar had half a tail and a bloody open would where it had been severed.

I am informed that the USDA often make cursory inspections of private zoos that are poorly managed to avoid having to report animal abuse as it reflects badly on the them. Also it takes at least 6 years normally for cases to be heard at court (src: Big Cat Rescue).

Then recently the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Law Enforcement received a complaint about the Great Cats of Indiana. They investigated on May 23rd. Corporal Todd Pekny went around to the place and saw emaciated animals in very poor conditions, which demonstrated neglect by the director of the place Rob Craig.

On May 29th they removed seven cats from the facility and they are now at a undisclosed USDA facility.

There it is. Neglect by a private zoo keeper and a government department that might also be accused of neglect. The losers? Of course it has to be cats.

Animal Testing and European Directive (Directive 2010/63/EU)

I have seen the petition on the Care2 petition website. It is headlined, "Stop the UK Government from legalising the use of stray pets in lab experiments!" The petition basically says that the new legislation (law) created by the Commission of the European Union (EU) will have a detrimental impact on stray pets, and on animals generally, who are used in animal testing in the UK.

The new law is in the form of a directive. This is legislation that the institutions of the EU create and then hands out to members of the European Union who are then obliged to incorporate what is European law into national law. The UK is part of the EU.

When Europe creates new law on animal testing it is important for people who are concerned about animal welfare. Most of these people want animal testing stopped completely or a least controlled and restricted more severely and efficiently. It is an opportunity to improve animal welfare law. By "improve" I mean to reduce and restrict animal testing.

My personal view is that animal testing should be stopped completely. We have no right to harm animals and cause pain and suffering to them for our benefit. If stopping animal testing results in more humans suffering health problems, then I accept that.

EU directives are complicated and I am not sure that the author of the petition has it correct. In any case I have checked Directive 2010/63/EU and the section that refers to stray and feral cats. It is reproduced below and you can make your own minds up. I think the problem is that the new law does not go far enough to protect animals used in laboratories.

However, in general the declared purpose of Directive 2010/63/EU is to update the previous directive (1986 Directive 86/609/EEC). They say the aim is:

 "to strengthen legislation, and improve the welfare of those animals still needed to be used, as well as to firmly anchor the principle of the Three Rs, to Replace, Reduce and Refine the use of animals, in EU legislation."

Both directives are concerned with the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

Some selected sections are:

Principle of replacement, reduction and refinement

1. Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.

2. Member States shall ensure that the number of animals used in projects is reduced to a minimum without compromising the objectives of the project.

And for stray and feral cats the directive states:

Article 11

Stray and feral animals of domestic species

1. Stray and feral animals of domestic species shall not be used in procedures.

2. The competent authorities may only grant exemptions from paragraph 1 subject to the following conditions:

(a) there is an essential need for studies concerning the health and welfare of the animals or serious threats to the environment or to human or animal health; and

(b) there is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure can be achieved only by the use of a stray or a feral animal.

I think the problem that concerns people is:

1. That the introduction of new EU legislation was an opportunity to curb animal testing and the opportunity has been missed despite the fact the legislators say they have tightened the law and;
2. The implementation of this EU law is down to the governments of the countries in the EU. How it is done concerns people because there appears to be a certain amount of leeway. Big business will take the opportunity to loosen control of animal testing where possible. There is considerable lobbying going on because the big companies are eager to retain animal testing and to stop further restrictions being implemented.

You can read more on these pages if you wish:

• Animal Welfare in UK Laboratories Under Threat
• European Commission Environment
• The new directive referred to on this page (PDF file will download).

Veterinarians Dealing With Animal Abuse

Forty-eight percent (48%) of a sample of 1000 veterinarians in the United Kingdom stated in a survey (2001) that they had suspected or seen cases of "non-accidental injury". This is a euphemism usually for animal abuse. The breakdown was 243 dogs and 182 cats. To me, that seems like a very high percentage.

In the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) says that in relation to animal abuse and neglect, the veterinarian has an obligation to report the matter to the authorities as soon as possible and to keep accurate records. The association also says that it is the responsibility of the veterinarian to "educate clients" with respect to the humane treatment of animals.

I wonder then why nearly all the veterinarians in the United States declaw cats when it is inhumane to declaw a cat 99.9% of the time. I am being generous in that figure. You could argue that it is inhumane 100% of the time.

I never read about vets educating cat owners on the subject of declawing alternatives. I am sure some do, but they will be few and far between. Why don't we see veterinarian websites with a page on alternatives to declawing? It would be in compliance with the obligations of a vet in the United States.

Associated: Vets in the USA who never declaw. Declawing cats.

Animal Care Depends On Money

It nearly always comes down money in the end. This is being dramatically highlighted in Great Britain. Apparently, the country is not so great in respect of animal care when things get a tougher, financially.

The RSPCA say they are at breaking point. I suppose this means in terms of funding and facility space (shelters) to house abused and abandoned animals.

There was a step rise last year (2011) in the number of prosecutions as a result of animal cruelty cases dealt with through the courts by the RSPCA - almost 25% - up a quarter.

The spokesman says that it is due to the financial recession which encourages people to abandon animals, particularly those that are expensive to keep, such as horses.

I don't believe that it is the recession that is causing increased animal cruelty and abandonments. It is a bl**dy poor attitude by some people who decided to adopt an animal but who failed to commit to the process and make proper provision for it, through thick and thin. It is part of the fickle, feckless, short term modern way of life. Britain is changing for the worse.  There are also a lot failed homes and families in Britain these days. It is part of what David Cameron, the prime minister, called, our "broken society". There are some genuine cases of hardship but there are too many people using the "recession" as a smokescreen to abandon their animals. Fortunately, most people really care about their companion animals. And when you care it is impossible to abuse or abandon them.

The RSPCA is appealing for funding.  It is going broke unless it makes changes and that entails 130 redundancies. Prosecutions cost the RSPCA £4.7m last year and they recovered less than half of that in court costs. Does that imply that some of the prosecutions failed? If so, perhaps the legal department needs to reflect on what they are doing.

This is depressing because animal welfare legislation has been tightened up. You have to be able to enforce legislation to make it stick and that costs money, which is running out.

Associated: How to tell cat abuse.

Men are animal abusers and women are hoarders

Men are far more likely to abuse animals than women.  Cat hoarders are usually women. Here are some percentages from the Pet-Abuse.com website.

The figures show the percentage of perpetrators of the specified crime who are men:

• Shooting an animal: 92% of perpetrators are men.
• Mutilation and/or torture: 88%
• Burning and/or fireworks: 89%
• Beating the animal: 95%
• Poisoning: 100%
• Drowning: 87%
• Bestiality: 85%

These are extraordinarily high percentages.

Of all the recorded animal cruelty cases (720) a breakdown by the gender of the person who perpetrated the crime is as follows:

• Only male perpetrator: 66%
• Male and female perpetrators: 12%
• Only female perpetrator: 22%

So why are men far more likely to commit animal abuse crimes than women? Answers in comments please! I am not sure of the reason. One obvious possibility is that men are more naturally aggressive than women. So if a man is depressed and agitated he is more likely to hit something than a woman. That may be too simplistic. It would seem that men are more likely to hate cats. I don't have figures but I suspect that something in the order of 90% of cat haters are men. Another element may be that men are more likely to be arrogant and feel superior to animals. They have less empathy for animals in general perhaps.

Associated page: Looking into the mind of a cat killer