A DOG NAMED SILVINO SAVES A KINGDOM: DOG KILLING FIELDS AND KOREA´S DOG MEAT INDUSTRY

By Gundhramns Hammer & Salvatore Scimino
July 27, 2013

Source: Cutest Paw

Listen, dear children, our parents used to say, this is "The Tale of Silvino and the King´s Dogs" which goes like this, but pay close attention for there is a lesson to be learned:

Once upon a time there was a very lazy man who came up with the idea that it was easier to dispatch beyond the line of no return all his neighbours´ dogs rather than going to work the farming fields or toiling after the harvest in the city markets, where he was hassled and laughed at because of his big feet.

So he befriended all the canines in his neighbourhood. He lured them with bread spread with butter and honey. All the dogs were tricked but one. This smart dog thought that this lazy man was up to no good. 

So the wise dog kept abreast to whatever the man did. The dog became a tracking dog. He was known as Silvino amongst his canine kind.

One by one the dogs were disappearing. The crooked man had not only tricked the dogs but also the people. 

Everybody in the village started dreaming of dog meat and looking funny at their pet dogs, with a strange suspicious smile on their faces.

Dog eating became the talk of the day in the village, especially after people had tried eating canines since they had noticed some improvements in the section of reproduction in bed at night. 

It was only their imagination nevertheless, caused by the brainwashing of the lazy man´s trickery. 

The dog killer had invented the story that dog meat was an aphrodisiac and people believed him. 

It is said that people can be lead to believe anything as long as they are not content and are full of doubts. 

First give people the dry wood and then the matches and you will have everyone with burning brains in the sack. So simple. So easy.

More than half of the dogs were gone. Their bones piled in the backyard were the only memories of them. Until one day, Silvino discovered that the lazy man had taken his best canine friend to the backyard which had become the dog slaughterhouse. 

When the man was about to strike with an ax his victim on the ground, Silvino ran as fast as he could and grabbed the man by his body´s most cherished part. The man screamed like hell, yelling, twisting and rolling in pain on the ground, enough time for Silvino to untie his dog friend. 

Both dogs did not waste any time and ran up and down giving the alarm about the dog killer, spreading the news on every street in the small village.

There was such a dog turmoil in the village that people thought there was an earthquake approaching. So everyone ran for cover traversing the rice fields at dusk.

It happened that the rice paddies were flooded. The previous night, the river had risen more than normal, so that the crocodiles had invaded the crop fields.

You can imagine what happened to the villagers. They all ended up in the crocodiles´ bellies, including the dog butcher.

The news of the man-eating crocodiles flew fast in the kingdom. And there was an unexpected fact.

Whilst the dogs were barking, at least that is how it sounded to human ears, there was a man from another village who was passing though and saw the running dogs. The man interpreted this as a impending earthquake. He was the King´s Dog Watcher.

The King´s Dog Watcher immediately rushed to tell the king the bad news. Indeed that night there was a huge earthquake that brought down the King´s palace and more that half of the houses in the town. 

Since the king and his family had been saved, the monarch wanted to know where His Majesty´s Dog Watcher had seen the change in dog behaviour which foretold the disaster.

The king was told that the phenomenon had occurred in the village at the foot of the hills, by the river. The gruesome story of the dog butcher in this village and about the fate of the dog eating people also was heard by the king´s ears.

So from that day on, the king declared that all the dogs in his kingdom should be protected so death penalty whoever dared to eat a dog.

This is how a wise dog named Silvino that was not tricked by a crooked lazy man had saved the kingdom. 

And the place where the dog eating villagers had died in the crocodile jaws it became known as the "dog killing fields" in the monarch´s annals.

All the dogs in the kingdom lived happily ever after.


Happily until one day ...

Yes, all dogs lived happily ever after until one day the devil whispered in the ears of some people "It is good to eat your best friend at your feet".

And so it came about that there are now places on this Earth where dogs are treated like kings, whereas in others they are maimed, tortured, cut to pieces or killed for pleasure, such dogs live in hell.

How come is this possible? Because man is so easily corrupted by crooked people, especially when humans want to make a lot of money, to make a killing in business, that is.

It is then that when betrayal and deception come into play as game cards in the lives of humans, bending their souls towards darkness rather than light, the expected outcome will always be hell.

It is up to all of us to decide whether we want to live in a dark cavern or out in the open in the Light.

Which one have you chosen? 

Whichever it is, be prepare to reap what you sow. 

If it is good, be thankful and happy. 

If it is bad, you should eat it yourself. You also must do some self-examination, some soul searching. 

But don´t go about talking of rights or acting like a hypocrite philanthropist because whatever you are doing and preaching is meaningless and only bent to achieve your own selfish goals. 

And thank goodness there are people who question what ought to be questioned. This is the case of some brave Koreans who advocate animal rights.

Let us then travel to Korea, a place where there are both types of people, dog eaters, those who give hell to dogs, and dog lovers and protectors, those humans who treat dogs as kings or persons as themselves, with the rights such creatures deserve. 

This is the story of Korea´s dog killing industry as told by Korea Animal Rights Advocates (KARA):

The History of Korea's Dog Meat Industry 
Source: Korea Animal Rights Advocates (KARA)
View original

Accurate and irrefutable historical dates and figures on dog eating in Korea are hard to come by. Historical records are scant. So, such a paltry legacy hardly supports the notion that dog eating is an integral part of Korean culture. It is hard to accept that a few references here and there constitute something fundamental to cultural tradition.

I. WHAT CULTURAL TRADITION? . . . NO CONSENSUS.

You get foreign, non-Korean journalists who, when writing about the dog-meat issue in Korea, will invariably lapse into convenient cliches by giving it names like "time-honored" or "age-old tradition." What would they know? But these easy cliches help perpetuate notions that not everyone agrees upon.

The traditionalists will come out with stupid, unscientific statements, like "The history that Koreans used dog meat as food was originated from such a long time ago long that it cannot be dated back [sic]." Like that poorly worded statement, assertions that dog meat is an integral part of Korean culture come from contemporary supporters, who come out with non sequiturs like, "'We have 5,000 years of history, and dog eating is part of our culture." Others will insist that it goes back 3000 years.

It is all very vague. Generally, scholars agree that the Chinese have eaten dogs for at least 7,000 years. A Korean tradition? Well, let's say it is a Chinese tradition that was copied by Koreans at some stage. Dog meat has been more popular in Korea's Choong-cheong Province than in other areas, and that is where trade with China was most active in the past.

Human and dog remains that date back 2000 years were found together in the Sacheon area of Gyung-sang Province. After analysis it was found that the dog had been buried after the human, suggesting perhaps that the dog's owner had died and then after the dog died it was buried with him (the dog skeleton is on the left). This far from suggests that dogs were considered as nothing more than food, and it points to domestication and the perception that dogs were a valued part of the family, at least in this instance.

A mural was found in a 4th century tumulus at Go-gu-ryeo An-ak 3 (or one of the tombs at Koguryo) showing a dog slaughtered together with other animals.

Hanging from hooks, from left to right, appears to be a dog, a sheep or deer, and a wild pig.

It is interesting to note, however, that at the bottom of this mural there are dogs roaming free, as if they were separate from livestock.

One source alleges that references to dog meat appear in a Myung era pharmaceutical text, although these were likely copied from Chinese sources. The same source also says that a Chosun period medical encyclopedia refers to dog meat, and some records of eating dog meat are in the book of manners from the same era.

Many old proverbs refer to dogs and some characterize them as worthless, naughty, and ungrateful animals. This is a rather peculiar observation, unless it were made by someone who had never been in contact with a dog other than those treated brutally, raised in misery, and fed on human feces.

To sum up the traditionalist view, then, dogs in Korea were never bred for companionship or work purposes, such as herding sheep. They were often just consumed as food. Dogs were treated more or less as livestock just like pigs and were fed human feces like pigs were.They were not valued very highly and were regarded solely as a food source.

However, a few historical artifacts and references do not stand as proof of a dog eating tradition deeply embedded in Korean culture. As mentioned, dog slaughter appears in murals, but that is about it in terms of art. By contrast, the images of paintings included here from the Chosun period are not of "eating" dogs but are of pet dogs.

The view of dog eating as an important age-old Korean tradition, while upheld by some Koreans is rejected by others, who will insist that it has never been a proper part of their culture. They will say that it became widely practiced only in the twentieth century. Moreover, two main versions of this line of thought exist.

One version is that during the period of Japanese colonial rule (1910-1945) there was widespread famine, and this gave rise to dog-eating. The Japanese exported most of Korea's farming produce back to Japan, leaving Koreans with very little to survive on. The Japanese also slaughtered dogs for their pelts but discarded the meat because they did not eat dog meat. It had been prohibited in Japan, starting way back in AD 675. Since Koreans were starving and dog meat was available, they ate it.

The other version is that dog eating was only practiced widely in Korea at a time of food shortages during World War II. A variation of this places the rise of dog meat eating only around 60 years ago, during and after the Korea War (1950-1953), when many Koreans were faced with starvation.

People had plenty to eat when the country began to prosper, especially after the rapid economic development of the 1970s. However, the health benefits of dog meat were embellished or invented and myths and superstitions were spread to keep the industry going and to make more money.

II. THE MYTHS AND THE IGNORANCE 

Curiously, all of the myths that exist in China surrounding dog meat consumption are also heard in Korea. Dog supposedly increases stamina, it helps you to sweat less in summer, it warms your blood in winter, it aids in healing, and most importantly for certain kinds of Asian men, it makes you more virile. Even if it were not a myth, is torture and murder and the loss of human decency really worth it?

To make dog meat more tasty and to increase it's stamina-giving properties, many dogs are tortured, perhaps hung for a while, beaten, burned with a blow torch, boiled alive, or slowly bled out--it all helps to increase their sheer terror the dog feels and thus boosts the adrenaline in its flesh.

Reportedly, some dog meat traders inject the meat with steroids to add that extra kick. How ironic, since over time, that will do quite the opposite to making men virile. It is also ironic that the injecting of steroids into dog meat is not a time-honored Korean tradition.

But the myths of tradition and medicinal benefits have infiltrated Korean society. Even some doctors recommend that patients who have operations should eat dog meat for quicker recuperation. It is universally regarded as a kind of health food and marketed as such.

Another part of the problem is that tradition, even one as perverted as dog-meat eating, is linked with nationalist sentiment. Dog meat eating is even perceived by some as a defiant act against western bullying and a kind of nationalistic practice, which is all ridiculous. The irony is that if people preaching this strange philosophy really cared about their beloved country, they might think about the shame the dog-meat industry brings to it.

It was once believed, especially in the Chosun period, that those who saw a scratching dog would have good luck. Presumably for some, it wouldn't make sense to kill a good luck charm, let alone one that is also man's best friend.

III. TRADITION JUSTIFIES NOTHING

Enlightened individuals know one indomitable truth that dispels all of the alleged history, the claims of culture, and the superstitions: tradition justifies nothing. The citing of tradition, even if a valid one existed, is no excuse and justification for the brutal dog meat industry. How can you call the deprivation, torture and murder of dogs part of a "food culture?"

It was once a tradition in some cultures to make human sacrifices, in other cultures it was once a tradition to partake in cannibalism. No one in their right mind today would accept the argument of tradition for such practices as these, but rather would see them as acts of criminal insanity.

Why should anyone in this day and age want to follow traditions that were created or passed on by uneducated peasants years ago? Just because something is old doesn't make it right, especially when it is based on past misconceptions, ignorance and causes suffering. This should obvious to anyone with intelligence from any country and culture.

The argument of tradition for the dog-meat industry is a delusion. Dog meat supporters continually miss the point, too busy labelling Western critics as hypocrites and racists. It is not tradition that matters in the debate, it is morality and common decency. These are the only guiding principles with any credibility. The cruelty, brutality and horrendous conditions other sentient beings have to put up with. These issues are way above any tradition.

IV. THE WORLD INTERVENES

In 1988, the Olympic Games were held in Seoul, and the dog meat issue receive unprecedented international publicity and scorn. Even though the Korean government banned the sale and consumption of dog meat (just as China did during the 2008 Olympics), controversy raged. This got the Korean government scrambling to show that Korea was up to international standards. The result was Korea's first animal welfare and protection laws under the Animal Welfare Law of 1991.

However, laws were no more than a face-saving exercise, and there was certainly nothing in them to have any impact on the dog meat industry. So, the global community has continued to put pressure on Korea to truly lift its Animal Welfare Law to international standards. Over the years there have been revisions, but the Law remains weak and extremely limited.

The stumbling block to any real change is the insistence of supporters of the dog meat eating that Westerners were prejudiced and ignorant of the dog meat culture of Koreans and other Asians. Famous Koreans, politicians, and citizens have resisted opposition and held back any substantial and meaningful changes to the Animal Welfare Law.

The dog meat issue eventually died down, as the world's attentions turned elsewhere, although in Korea it was still occasionally in the news:

• 1995 – Dog meat smugglers caught by the Sokcho Customs Office and arrests were made for the illegal smuggling of live dogs.
• 1996 – Prosecuted dog slaughterer given a verdict of not guilty by a judge.
• 1999 – Kim Hong Shin submitted documents to the National Assembly to revoke licensing of a proposed dog slaughter house by northern Jeju Island. Kim Hong Shin, along with Kim Hong Shin, Song Suk Chan, Kim Choon Jin, continued the fight to amend and revise the public Dog meat law.
• 2000 – Thailand’s New Law abolishes dog meat
• 2001 – Taiwan’s New Law abolishes dog meat
• 2001 – Permission granted for exclusive rights to build large scale dog farm in northern Jeju Island.
• 2002 – Germany passes law to protect animal rights.

Then, in 2002, the World Cup came to Korea, and once again a furor erupted over Korea's dog eating industry. Ahead of the competition, the FIFA President, Joseph Blatter called upon FIFA Vice President, Dr. Chung Mong-Joon of Korea to take "immediate and decisive measures to put an immediate end to this cruelty."

In an open letter to Chung, Blatter said the dog trade damaged Korea's international image and that the World Cup was an "appropriate moment for Korea to show the world that it is sensitive to vociferous worldwide public opinion and that it rejects cruelty."

In addition, a coalition of Asian animal welfare and conservation groups from 12 Asian countries asked the South Korean Government to make a clear commitment during the FIFA World Cup to enforce and improve animal protection and to permanently put an end to the dog meat eating industry.

A joint investigation was set up by Korean government officials to try to create a better system to prevent animal abuse. However, as mentioned previously, a number of government officials and politicians support dog eating. One could predict that little would come of it--and little did.

V. NO CHANGE IN KOREA 

For all the efforts of the international community, little has changed in Korea over the years. In fact, international protests might have been counter productive. Inner city dog meat restaurants might have closed down for the 1988 Olympic Games or the 2002 World Cup but often they just popped up elsewhere.

City restrictions simply push the dog meat businesses out into the suburbs and these days it continues to happen at an alarming rate. The government does not do very much to control it.

In 2005, the government began preparations to strengthen the sanitary conditions of the dog meat slaughterhouses and to upgrade the Dog and Animal Protection Act. In response to this, animal welfare organizations in Korea and throughout the world signed petitions that condemned and strongly opposed the legalization of the dog meat industry in Korea.

A revision of the Animal Welfare Law was decided upon in 2006, with no substantial improvements to report.

In 2008, the government continued its push to implement hygiene laws and it announced plans for dog meat sanitary control and management. What the government ultimately wants to do in effect is to legalize the dog meat industry. This is bad news for the dogs and for those of us who seek an end to the industry.

VI. THE BOTTOM LINE

The dirty secret is that, in the end, it really all comes down to money. We want to set the record straight here, regarding the subject tradition, on which there are so few actual records and of which there is so little proof: most Koreans do not want to see the consumption of dogs as a part of Korean culture. Most Koreans would rather that Korea got rid of the whole industry. It is no tradition they want to be associated with.

Nor would anyone in their right mind want to be associated with the disgrace and shame of Korea's dog meat industry.

Source link:
http://animalrightskorea.org/dog-meat-issue/the-history-of-koreas-dog-meat-industry.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To question or not to question, this is the question you have to question. And if you do not question what must be questioned, we as a whole could be out of the question on the question of survival of the most questionable species.

What is questionable must be questioned in order to create a unquestionably fair society, for humans and nonhumans.

The crocodiles have entered the social paddies of humans

This business of dog eating boils down to four questionable reasons: 

First, the belief that eating canines gives men staying power during sexual intercourse for which there is no scientific evidence. 

In some parts of Vietnam, there are people who believe that the skinnier and bony the dog is, the better it will be to revive the bygone sexual heat in men.

Second, dogs are consumed because of their "medicinal and pharmaceutical properties", although there is no scientific evidence to support such beliefs.

Third, sometimes people eat dogs under the spur of starvation.

And fourth, dog eating is a learned habit just like any other humans pick up during their early years or later on in their lives.

The four questionable reasons may combine to give rise to religious beliefs or economic interests. It all depends upon who wields the power and what he wants to do with the gullible believers of his machinations as far as where to guide his human flock, whether into his pocket or into a hole.

The truth of the matter is that if there are beans and rice in the pot and a few radishes, cabbages and other veggies, who needs to eat meat, an unquestioned Pleistocene eating habit, which has now been transformed into a totemic religion by a powerful meat lobby that must be questioned. 

We don´t eat any meat. Do you? 

If you do, then you are still functioning on a dead intelligence software, programmed like a dead robot.

Thus, be careful, because the rivers of vanity, squandering consumption and insanity have flooded the social fields all over the world and the crocodiles have entered into the social paddies of humans and may devour you if you are walking through life like a zombie or are scared by dreadful lies. 

You may then end your last days in the belly of one of these monsters.  

And Silvino will not be there to save your kingdom!

Acknowledgments

Thanks to our parents for having told us animal tales and taught us lessons on how to love and respect Nature when we were children. We owe  to them "The Tale of Silvino and the King´s Dogs", which has been shared above with the readers of this blog.


References

Kim R. E. (2008). Dog Meat in Korea: A Socio-Legal Challenge. Animal Law, 14: 201-236. 

Pettid M. J. (2008). Korean Cuisine: An Illustrated History. Reaktion Books Ltd., London, UK. 223 p. 

Podberseck A. L. (2009). Good to Pet and Eat: The Keeping and Consuming of Dogs and Cats in South Korea. J. Soc. Issues, 65 (3): 615-632.

Yong-Geun A. (1999a). Dog Meat Eating History and Culture in Korea. Korean J. Food Nut., 12 (4): 387-396.

Yong-Geun A. (1999b). Dog Meat Food in Korea. Korean J. Food Nut., 12 (4): 397-408.

Yong-Geun A. (2000a). Korean Recognition on Edibility of Dog Meat. Korean J. Food Nut., 13 (4): 365-371.

Yong-Geun A. (2000b).  The Korean´s Recognition of Dog Meat Food. Korean J. Food Nut., 13 (4): 372-378.

BADGER CULLS DON´T STOP TUBERCULOSIS IN CATTLE: THE EVIDENCE IN CLEAR

European badger (Meles meles). Source: theguardian

Source: From Dusk ´til Dawn

View original

Badger culls increase bovine TB because the surviving, infected, badgers often venture further from their ranges. 

Members of the public who may know little about farming – or wildlife – could be forgiven for thinking that farmers' lives are being ruined by badgers.

It is a message being peddled by the farming press, by some – but not all – farmers, and even by the BBC's Countryfile programme. They say that thousands of cattle are being slaughtered every year (30,000 in 2010) because of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) – an airborne respiratory disease – at enormous cost to farmers and the taxpayer: £100m last year. This much is true. They also say that bTB is being passed to cattle by badgers. This I dispute, based on evidence from those who know better than me – scientists.

Those of us who want to protect badgers from such bad press are forced on to the defensive. Particularly now, as the government has said it is "minded" to authorise a massive cull of badgers in an effort to control bTB.

It wasn't always like this. Bovine TB was almost eradicated by 1970, when there were only about 1,000 cases. Eleven years of localised badger culling failed to reduce the toll further. But the end of annual cattle testing in the mid-80s, and the devastating effects of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease, when testing was abandoned altogether, meant that many farms lost thousands of animals, and afterward there was a rush to restock. Regulations were relaxed, so cattle were bought and sold and – crucially – moved all over the country. Bovine tuberculosis was back. These relaxations of the movement and testing regimes – not badgers – were to blame.

So, to the question of whether badgers are responsible for increasing infection rates in cattle. If they are, how have cattle remained free of bTB in Scotland, where no badgers have been killed? Why do they have it in the Isle of Man, where there are no badgers? And why are bTB rates twice as high in Ireland, where so many badgers have been killed that they are extinct in many areas?

Could it be possible that cattle are infecting badgers? After all, cattle far outnumber badgers – 9 million cattle to, at most, a quarter of a million badgers.

George Pearce, a wildlife consultant, used to be a farmer. In his new book, Badger Behaviour, Conservation and Rehabilitation: 70 Years of Getting to Know Badgers, he explains how his family's farm, which always had badger setts on it, managed to remain free of bTB from 1950 to 2008, when the herd was dispersed.

Since the 1930s, there have been four important measures used to combat bTB: very strict movement controls, thorough cleansing of livestock buildings, good ventilation and double fencing on all boundaries to prevent cattle in adjoining fields from exchanging saliva.

Pearce says that if we want to solve this crisis, we should be talking about cattle, not badgers.

Aside from these measures, he suggests that we look at the bloodlines of our cattle. All bulls, whether used naturally or artificially, should have blood tests to assess their susceptibility to bTB. The reduced gene pool of bulls over the past 60 years could be contributing to the problem.

Cattle that were largely bTB-free in the 60s and 70s, he adds – mostly British breeds – have gradually been replaced by continental breeds. Are they less resistant?

What's more, cattle are bred much more intensively now, and bTB is known to be a stress-related disease.

What about dietary deficiencies? Dick Roper in Gloucestershire was anxious to find out why one of his farms was hit by bTB when his others were not. On the affected farm, the cattle were fed on maize, which badgers also love. But maize lacks selenium, a mineral that – in humans and livestock – is necessary to maintain a strong immune system. So, Roper introduced selenium mineral licks for his cattle, and for the badgers on his land – to the amusement of his neighbours – and cured his problem, despite all the farms around him becoming infected. Are cattle getting bTB because their immune system is compromised?

In the past two years, improved cattle testing, biosecurity and movement controls in England have led to a 15% reduction in the rates of bTB infection. In Wales, during the same period, the number of cattle slaughtered because of bTB has fallen by 36%, and by 45% in Dyfed. The Welsh Assembly Government had proposed a cull, before being forced to drop the plan.

And this, without a single badger being culled – despite the fact that a few rogue farmers have been swapping the ID tags of cattle so that valuable animals with bTB were, illegally, kept on farms, while healthy, but less valuable, ones were sent to slaughter in their place.

David Williams, the Badger Trust's chairman, said in April:

"The effect of these offences is apparent: the guilty parties are harbouring and spreading disease by keeping infected cattle on farms. The cattle-based measures now in place depend absolutely on effective movement controls, honest and accurate record keeping and discipline. They have been producing heartening results without killing a single badger, particularly in Wales. However, if badger culling had been introduced last year, these improvements would have been claimed as 'proof' that culling had been necessary."

Meanwhile, the statistics about the number of cattle slaughtered every year because of bTB, and the amount this costs, have been very visible in the media, but no one mentions the other causes of premature slaughter.

In 2009, 120,000 cattle were slaughtered because they were infertile. In 2008, 75,000 were slaughtered because they were "not in calf"; 50,000 because of mastitis; 25,000 because of lameness; and 7,000 because they were "low yield". Not to mention the male dairy calves that are killed at birth because they are unprofitable. Compare these figures with the 30,000 with bTB that are slaughtered.

No one mentions these because they are not caused by wildlife. Several factors, including bad luck and bad husbandry, are at play. Farmers receive no compensation for these animals. They accept these losses as an unfortunate part of their livelihood – there is no one to blame.

Last year, the government announced a public consultation on whether we should have a cull. It ended in December, but the results had not been made public. Why not? A request for the information under the Freedom of Information Act was turned down because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said releasing the information "would affect their policy". Isn't that what a consultation is meant to do? They have, however, now included the results as part of another consultation, which closes on 20 September. Those figures show that, of those who responded, 69% would not want to cull and 31% were in favour of culling but alongside vaccination. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the government's proposals.

In other polls, too, the public have made their opposition clear: 97% against in a 2007 poll for the Labour government; 68%, both rural and urban, against in a recent BBC poll; 90.9% against in a Guardian poll in July. Even a recent poll by Countryfile, which largely has a farming audience, polled more than 60% against a cull.

Would badger culling help? The answer is no. And to support this conclusion, we need only look back at the evidence of the Krebs trial, a massive pilot cull of badgers over 10 years between 1997 and 2007, overseen by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG). It is a well-worn argument, but it bears repeating: the trial showed that bTB in the culling area was reduced only marginally. Outside the culling area, it actually rose, a result of what is called perturbation, where badgers who have survived a cull spread out to escape danger. This behaviour does not occur in any other species. The conclusion of this massive trial was that "culling can make no meaningful contribution to the reduction of bTB".

In the weeks leading up to the government's latest announcement, seven former members of the ISG wrote a letter to the Times opposing a proposed cull. They included Lord Krebs, who designed the 10-year trial and is now chairman of the House of Lords science and technology select committee, Professor John Bourne, the ISG's chairman, and Dr Chris Cheeseman, the principal scientist for many years at Defra's Woodchester Park study area in Gloucestershire, where farmers themselves were involved in research into badgers, cattle and bTB. They said there was "no empirical data on the cost or effectiveness (or indeed humaneness or safety) of controlling badgers by shooting, which has been illegal for decades".

In early July, Lord Krebs said: "The trial evidence should be interpreted as an argument against culling. You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there."

It seems their arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Make no mistake, this is an argument the government does not want to hear.

If bTB is in decline, why is the government not saying this in public? This lack of openness appears to vindicate those who believe that a decision to cull is a matter of political expediency, to secure the farmers' vote, and is not based on the available evidence.

But those of us who have an interest in all animals, whether wild or farmed, are tired of badgers being the scapegoat.

Source: The Guardian via From Dusk ´til Dawn 

http://www.fromdusktildawn.org.uk/News/2013/june/badger_cull_wont_stop_tb_in_cattle.html

MAN´S BLOODPRINT: FIRST BRING THEM NEAR EXTINCTION AND NEXT WORRY ABOUT SAVING THEM

By Salvatore Scimino & Gundhramns Hammer
July 22, 2013

Source: ISSF

- Dad, can we go to the ocean to see a tuna fish?, asked the 5 year old daughter to her father.

- I´m afraid that this is not possible anymore. There are no more tuna left in the ocean, replied her father. 

The little girl was a little bit confused because when her father talked about tuna fish it sounded to her as if it was just yesterday when he had been working on a giant factory fishing vessel in the Pacific Ocean.

But nevertheless, she asked her father:

- Dad, what happened to the tunas?

- We people exterminated them. We overfished them, he told her with a knot in his throat.

- Why didn´t you leave any?, she queried.

The father feeling somewhat uneasy, with a voice mixed with sadness and anger he exclaimed:

- Because we are stupid. We never learn and never will. 

- Anyway, it´s getting too late. I think it is time for you to go to bed, he hurried her up into bed.

That night, the little girl dreamed of swimming with a school of tuna fish. She found them in the bay near her home and the fish befriended her. She had a long conversation with the fish. Her friends related to her what had happened to the tuna people.

Next morning she woke up sad. She ran to the bookcase downstairs and quickly pulled out a guide of marine fishes. After leafing through a few pages, she came to a stop. There in front of her eyes was a photograph of a beautiful Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). The bottom of the picture said that it was the last one of its kind.

The newspaper her father had just picked up outside was dated Thursday, 23 April 2032.


This fiction could become soon a reality. Man is working on it.

His "sapiens" insapience is such that he exterminates first and then he asks the questions.

First shoot them, kill them, overfish them, bring them close to extinction and next worry about saving them

Man, the biggest predator that has ever walked on Earth is on his way to exterminating the marine fish stocks. The way he is going pretty soon there will not be a single specimen of tuna, shark and any other commercial fishes left in the oceans.

His ambition is limitless but he lacks common sense, and the few of his own kind that have some are seldom or never listened to or are bluntly ignored.

He almost exterminated the American bison (Bison bison) and it was only yesterday that he killed off the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius). A few hundred years ago man hunted the last Dodo bird (Rhaphus cucullatus). The list of animals that he has exterminated is long. 

Man´s bloodprint is long and thick.

Right now in some parts of the world, he is mounting campaigns to exterminate Common Pigeons (Columba livia) and the Common Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) because he considers them pests when the pest is himself! 

First, man makes the stupid mistake of introducing animal species in a different land or country for sports, homesickness or greedy commerce and later on when the animals escape and multiply in the new environment, the so-called "invasive species", he worries about the offset of the natural balance. 

But what´s more invasive on Earth than man, anyway?

Next he gets busy mass killing them (Video 1). In this mass extermination not only fall the "invasive species" but also the unlucky  native animals that get in the way. 

                                Video 1. Operation Bye Bye Blackbird in the United States.

Sturnus vulgaris has been introduced in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and North America. This species is just one of the many that Europeans have taken with them wherever they go.

In the United States this bird is experiencing an overpopulation due to the numerous cattle feed lots (CAFOs) where there is a lot of animal feed waste. 

So the bottom line of this problem is man himself with his massive imprisonment of cattle in mega-farms. 

In other words, his vice for beef consumption has indirectly caused the Sturnus vulgaris population increase.

Man (Homo insapiens) practices a "animal species management philosophy" of first shoot them, kill them, overhunt them, overfish them and next, when they are on the verge of extinction, worry about them. 

Well, worry about some of them, at least those that have some economic value or aesthetic and/or phylogenetic interest to him. The other might as well go to hell!

Some experts point out that planet Earth is in the midst of a sixth mass extinction, as great as the other five or more that occurred in ancient times.

This sixth mass extinction is due to various anthropogenic factors such as:

• Killing
• Overhunting
• Overfishing
• Introduction of exotic or invasive species into new habitats
• Destruction of habitats
• Pollution

No animal is safe. 

African elephants, rhinos and hundreds of other animal species are on his black list of extinction, directly through hunting or illegal poaching or indirectly through habitat destruction, poisoning or chemical pollution.

In the oceans, because of the ever increasing demand for seafood, fishes are being harvested to the last one to feed the overfed humans and pets alike in the "first world" nations.

His sophisticated fishing technology is causing severe damage to marine ecosystems. Fish populations are dropping dramatically. He has put some species on the brink of extinction. 

Is man going to wait until the fish stocks in the oceans are depleted to react and do something sapiens?


End of the line

Man´s negative impact on the world´s oceans is explored and exposed by filmmaker Rupert Murray in his timely documentary "End of the Line" (Video 2).

Text source: YouTube
View original

As the world's demand for fish and other seafood increases and the technology available to commercial fisherman becomes more sophisticated, the annual harvest from global seaports has grown tremendously in recent years. However, the rise of industrialized fishing has not come without consequences, and many environmentalists and oceanographers believe that the current demand for fish and the methods used to fulfill it are taking an irreparable toll on the world's oceans, with some speculating that the seas could be literally fished-out by 2048 if current trends do not change. Filmmaker Rupert Murray offers an in-depth look at the crisis in the world's oceans in the documentary End of the Line, in which experts discuss some of the key factors behind the looming shortage -- increased demand for endangered species, irresponsible methods employed by major fishing lines, lax enforcement of current regulations -- and what can be done to head off the famine before it's too late.

                                                                         SPANISH

                                           Video 2. End of the Line (Salvemos nuestros océanos).


                                                                     ENGLISH:

                                                                    Click HERE

With such a long and thick bloodprint behind him, is man ever going to learn?

References

Kunich J. C. (2006). Killing Our Oceans: Dealing with the Mass Extinction of Marine Life. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, USA. 245 p.

LES PHILIPPINES EXTERMINENT 500 000 CHIENS PAR ANS

Source: Bogartier

Source: 3piliers.co

Voir l´original

L'histoire religieuse et culturel de manger de la viande de chien remonte pour différente raisons à très loin. Outre les Asiatiques, certains peuples d'Amérique latine ont aussi manger de la viande de chien. Les anciens Aztèques du Mexique domestiquaient une race de chien sans poil appelé de nos jour, le chien nus du Pérou (Xoloitzquintli) pour leur consommation alimentaire.

Pour commémorer le 100e anniversaire de l'achat des États-Unis Louisiane à la France. La  ville organisa L’Exposition des Philippines qui attira 1100 Philippins, qui montrèrent leurs coutumes culinaire pour la consommation de viande de chien, qui faisait partie de leur régime alimentaire régulier.

La ville de Saint-Louis s'engagea à leurs fournir un approvisionnement de 20 chiens par semaine. Cela ne sembla pas être suffisant, car l’administration avaient aussi encouragé la population locale à leur apporter des chiens, qu'ils achetaient pour compléter leurs besoins quotidiens d'approvisionnement.

Le braconnage des chiens était devenu si commun dans la zone proche du village d'Igorot, que les quartiers avoisinant étaient prévenus de surveiller leurs chiens, car beaucoup disparaissaient, suscitant la colère et bouleversant de nombreuses personnes. 

Le hot-dog, un des aliments les plus populaires aux USA, semble être un héritage de  la Foire d'Igorot de Saint-Louis (Louisiane).

Au Philippines il y a de ça 6000 à 8000 ans, le rituel consistant à manger de la viande de chien a commencé comme une pratique religieuse. Quand une famille était confronté à la malchance, ou quand quelqu'un était témoin d'un décès, les chiens étaient sacrifiés et leurs viandes consommées.

Les Philippins croient que l'esprit du chien sacrifié protègera et gardera le moral de la famille vivante. Une pratique religieuse peu fréquente, c'est transformer en commerce ou les chiens qui fournissent les marchés et les restaurants sont transportés de tous les coins des Philippines, dans des conditions catastrophiques. Ils sont ramassés dans les zones les plus profondes des Philippines telles que les provinces du sud Tagalog, Visayas, et Mindanao.

Quand ils atteignent leurs destinations, ils sont vendus pour la modique somme d'1.30$ le kilos par rapport au porc et au bœuf qui sont vendus respectivement environ 2,10 $ / kg et 3,00 $ / kg.  C'est l'une des raisons pour lesquelles la viande de chien est devenus si populaire. Une autre raison qui contribue au coût bon marché de la viande, est que les chiens sont facilement disponibles et n'ont pas besoin d'être élever car ils se trouvent à l'état errant en abondance dans les rues de chaque ville.

Plus de 20 ans, avant de la viande de chien a été commercialisé, les chiens étaient traités avec respect et tués de façon plus « humaine ». Aujourd'hui, ils sont torturé, entreposer dans des cages exigus, et sont brutalement tués.

Les méthodes de torture incluent le faite d'attacher avec une corde leurs museaux pour qu'ils ne fassent pas de bruit, les bourrant dans des camions où il y a peu de place pour respirer, les laissant dans les véhicules pendant des jours sans eau ni nourriture dans la chaleur étouffante et les laissant s'entretuer.

La viande de chien il y a longtemps était seulement mangé en certaines occasions tragiques. Aujourd'hui, il n'est pas difficile de trouver la viande de chien dans les restaurants ou dans les marchés publics de certaines villes.

De nos jours, le gouvernement fait très peu de chose pour appliquer la loi en vigueur pour protéger le bien-être des chiens dans les Philippines. La principale raison est la corruption des fonctionnaires de police qui sont en charge de la capture et de l'arrestation de ce commerce illégal. Les trafiquants  de viande de chien soudoient les forces de l'ordre qui dans ces pays ferment allègrement les yeux.

Les commerçants illégaux de viande de chien sont rarement arrêtés car la sanction consiste à payer une somme modique. Si un commerçant illégal est déférer au tribunal, il préfère plaider coupable, car il est moins cher de payer l'amende plutôt que d'engager un avocat.

Bien que la majorité de la population philippine est contre la consommation de la viande de chien. Il y a encore un grand groupe de personnes situées principalement qui participent à la consommation de viande de chien . C'est probablement parce que la viande de chien est échangé ouvertement et parce qu'il y a de nombreuses brasseries et restaurants (environ une soixantaine) qui servent de la viande de chien.
  
Le niveau de vie très bas d'une certaines partie de la population perpétue et entretient cette économie. Il sera toujours possible de louer les services de quelqu'un pour attraper les chiens errants, si ces individus n'ont que ce moyen de subsistance.

Link:

http://www.3piliers.com/le-chien-au-21eme-siecle/les-philippines-exterminent-500-000-chiens-par-ans.htm

  

En savoir plus: Cliquez ICI