Animal Rights

Animal rights Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.[2] Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions but agree that animals should be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community, not property, and that they should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.[3][4] The idea of awarding rights to animals has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School,[5] while Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby argues that the movement has reached the stage the gay rights movement was at 25 years ago.[6] Animal law is taught in 132 out of 180 law schools in the United States, in seven law schools in Canada, and is routinely covered in universities in philosophy or applied ethics courses.[7][6][8] In June 2008, Spain became the first country to introduce animal rights, when a cross-party parliamentary committee recommended that rights be extended to the great apes, in accordance with Peter Singer's Great Ape Project.[9] Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only human beings have duties, and that, "[the] corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights."[10] A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources if there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position.[11] There has also been criticism, including from within the animal rights movement itself, of certain forms of animal rights activism, in particular the destruction of fur farms and animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front.

Development of the idea [edit] Moral status of animals in the ancient world Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. The Book of Genesis echoed earlier ideas about divine hierarchy, and that God and humankind share traits, such as intellect and a sense of morality, that non-humans do not possess. The idea that the use of animals by human beings—for food, clothing, entertainment, and as research subjects—is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the theological concept of "dominion," from Genesis (1:20-28), where Adam is given "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Although the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership.[12][10] There is also the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack rationality and language, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings, or even

none.[12][10] Springing from this is the idea that individual animals have no separate moral identity: a pig is simply an example of the class of pigs, and it is to the class, not to the individual, that human responsibility or stewardship applies. This leads to the argument that the use of individual animals is acceptable so long as, for example, the species is not threatened with extinction. The 21st-century debate about these ideas can be traced back to the earliest philosophers and theologians.

Late 20th century: Emergence of an animal liberation movement Further information: Animal liberation movement, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, Animal Welfare Act, and List of animal rights groups

[edit] 1960s: Formation of the Oxford group and the first wave of writers A small group of intellectuals, particularly at Oxford University — now known as the Oxford Group — began to view the increasing use of animals as unacceptable exploitation.[68] In 1964, Ruth Harrison published Animal Machines, a critique of factory farming, which proved influential. Psychologist Richard D. Ryder, who became a member of the Oxford Group, cites a 1965 Sunday Times article by novelist Brigid Brophy, called "The Rights of Animals," as having encouraged his own interest. He writes that it was the first time a major newspaper had devoted so much space to the issue.[54] Robert Garner of the University of Leicester writes that Harrison's and Brophy's articles led to an explosion of interest in the relationship between humans and non-humans, or what Garner calls the "new morality."[69] Brophy wrote:

“

The relationship of homo sapiens to the other animals is one of unremitting exploitation. We employ their work; we eat and wear them. We exploit them to serve our superstitions: whereas we used to sacrifice them to our gods and tear out their entrails in order to foresee the future, we now sacrifice them to science, and experiment on their entrail in the hope — or on the mere offchance — that we might thereby see a little more clearly into the present ... To us it seems incredible that the Greek philosophers should have scanned so deeply into right and wrong and yet never noticed the immorality of slavery. Perhaps 3000 years from now it will seem equally incredible that we do not notice the immorality of our own oppression of animals.[70]

”

Ryder had been disturbed by incidents he had witnessed as a researcher in animal laboratories in the UK and U.S., and in what he calls a "spontaneous eruption of thought and indignation," he wrote letters to the editor of The Daily Telegraph about the issue, which were published on April 7, May 3, and May 20, 1969. Brophy read them, and put Ryder in touch with Oxford philosophers Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch, and John Harris, who were working on a book of moral philosophy about the treatment of animals.[54] Ryder subsequently became a contributor to their

highly influential Animals, Men and Morals: An Inquiry into the Maltreatment of Nonhumans (1971), as did Harrison and Brophy.[71] Rosalind Godlovitch's essay "Animal and Morals" was published in the same year.

[edit] 1970: Coining the term "speciesism" In 1970, Ryder coined the phrase "speciesism" in a privately printed pamphlet — having first thought of it in the bath — to describe the assignment of value to the interests of beings on the basis of their membership of a particular species.[72] Peter Singer used the term in Animal Liberation in 1975, and it stuck within the animal rights movement, becoming an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1989.[73]

Peter Singer's Animal Liberation, published in 1973, became pivotal.

[edit] 1975: Publication of Animal Liberation Further information: Animal Liberation (book) It was in a review of Animals, Men and Morals for the The New York Review of Books on April 5, 1973, that the Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, first put forward his arguments in favour of animal liberation, which have become pivotal within the movement.[74] He based his arguments on the principle of utilitarianism, the view, broadly speaking, that an act is right insofar as it leads to the "greatest happiness of the greatest number," a phrase first used in 1776 by Jeremy Bentham in A Fragment on Government. He drew an explicit comparison between the liberation of women and the liberation of animals. In 1970, over lunch in Oxford with fellow student Richard Keshen, who was a vegetarian, Singer first came to believe that, by eating animals, he was engaging in the oppression of other species by his own. Keshen introduced Singer to the Godlovitches, and Singer and Roslind Godlovitch spent hours together refining their views. Singer's review of the Godlovitches' book evolved into Animal Liberation, published in 1975, now widely regarded as the "bible" of the modern animal rights movement.[75] Although he regards himself as an animal rights advocate, Singer uses the term "right" as "shorthand for the kind of protection that we give to all members of our species."[76] There is no rights theory in his work. He rejects the idea that humans or non-humans have natural or moral rights, and proposes instead the equal consideration of interests, arguing that there are no logical, moral, or biological grounds to suppose that a violation of the basic interests of a human being — for example, the interest in not suffering — is different in any morally significant way from a violation of the basic interests of a non-

human. Singer's position is that of the English philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1838– 1900), who wrote: "The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view ... of the Universe, than the good of any other."[77] The publication of Animal Liberation — in 1975 in the U.S. and 1976 in the UK — triggered a groundswell of scholarly interest in animal rights. Tom Regan wrote in 2001 that philosophers had written more about animal rights in the previous 20 years than in the 2,000 years before that.[78] Robert Garner writes that Charles Magel's extensive bibliography of the literature, Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal Rights (1989), contains 10 pages of philosophical material on animals up to 1970, but 13 pages between 1970 and 1989.[79]

[edit] 1976: Founding of the Animal Liberation Front Main articles: Animal Liberation Front, Timeline of ALF actions, Anarchism and animal rights, and Veganarchism

In parallel with the development of the Oxford Group, grassroots activists set up the Animal Liberation Front in 1976. In parallel with the Oxford Group, grassroots activists were also developing ideas about animal rights. A British law student, Ronnie Lee, formed an anti-hunting activist group in Luton in 1971, later calling it the Band of Mercy after a 19th-century RSPCA youth group. The Band attacked hunters' vehicles by slashing tires and breaking windows, calling their brand of activism "active compassion." In November 1973, they engaged in their first act of arson when they set fire to a Hoechst Pharamaceuticals research laboratory near Milton The people who Keynes. The Band claimed responsibility, identifying run this country, itself to the press as a "nonviolent guerilla organization they have shares, dedicated to the liberation of animals from all forms of they have cruelty and persecution at the hands of mankind."[80] investments in pharmaceutical In August 1974, Lee and another activist were sentenced companies ... who to three years in prison. They were paroled after 12 are experimenting months, with Lee emerging more militant than ever. In on animals, so to 1976, he brought together the remaining Band of Mercy think that you can activists, with some fresh faces, 30 activists in all, in write to these order to start a new movement. He called it the Animal people, and say Liberation Front (ALF), a name he hoped would come "we don't like to "haunt" those who used animals.[82][80] what you're doing, we want The ALF is now active in 38 countries, operating as a you to change," leaderless resistance, with covert cells acting on a need and expect them to do so, it's not going to happen. — Keith Mann, ALF.[81]

“

”

“ to know basis, often learning of each other's existence only when acts of "liberation" are claimed. Activists see themselves as a modern Underground Railroad, the network that helped slaves escape from the U.S. to Canada, passing animals from ALF cells, who have removed them from farms and laboratories, to sympathetic veterinarians to safe houses and finally to sanctuaries. Controversially, some activists also engage in sabotage and arson, as well as threats and intimidation, acts that have lost the movement a great deal of sympathy in mainstream public opinion. The decentralized model of activism is intensely frustrating for law enforcement organizations, who find the cells and networks difficult to infiltrate, because they tend to be organized around known friends.[84] In 2005, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security indicated how seriously it takes the ALF when it included them in a list of domestic terrorist threats.[85] The tactics of some of the more determined ALF activists are anathema to many animal rights advocates, such as Singer, who regard the animal rights movement as something that should occupy the moral high ground, an impossible claim to sustain when others are bombing buildings and risking lives in the name of the same idea.

My secretary called me to say that I had to contact ... the Metropolitan police ... to receive a fax of a press release that I was going to be murdered if an animal rights activist (Barry Horne on hunger strike) died. ... It's very difficult for [the children] to understand that Daddy goes to work every morning, and, you know, whether he's going to come back. — Clive Page, professor of pulmonary pharmacology, King’s College, London.[83]

”

ALF activists respond to the criticism with the argument that, as Ingrid Newkirk of PETA puts it, "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out."[86]

[edit] Early 21st century: First animals to be granted legal rights

[edit] Spain becomes the first to grant rights to non-human primates On June 25, 2008, Spain became the first country to extend rights to the great apes. An all-party parliamentary group advised the government to write legislation giving chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans the right to life, to liberty, and the right not to be used in experiments, in accordance with Peter Singer's Great Ape Project (GAP).[87][88][89] Pedro Pozas of GAP in Spain called it "a historic day in the struggle for animal rights ... which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity."[87] The New York Times reported that the proposed legislation will make it illegal to kill apes, except in self-defense. Torture, including medical experiments, and arbitrary imprisonment, such as for circuses or films, will be outlawed.[90]

[edit] Main philosophical approaches [edit] Overview Further information: Consequentialism, Deontological ethics, and Teleological ethics

There are two main philosophical approaches to the issue of animal rights: a utilitarian approach and a rights-based one. The former is exemplified by Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, and the latter by Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University. Their differences reflect a distinction philosophers draw between ethical theories that judge the rightness of an act by its consequences (called consequentialism, teleological ethics, or utilitarianism, which is Singer's position), and those who judge acts to be right or wrong in themselves, almost regardless of consequences (called deontological ethics, of which Regan is an adherent). A consequentialist might argue, for example, that lying is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that lying is wrong in principle (though one need not be an absolutist, maintaining that one must never lie, as a pluralist position may be taken instead). Within the animal rights debate, Singer does not believe there are such things as natural rights and that animals have them, although he uses the language of rights as shorthand for how we ought to treat individuals. Instead, he argues that, when we weigh the consequences of an act in order to judge whether it is right or wrong, the interests of animals, primarily their interest in avoiding suffering, ought to be given equal consideration to the similar interests of human beings. That is, where the suffering of one individual, human or non-human, is equivalent to that of any other, there is no moral reason to award more weight to either one of them. Regan's philosophy, on the other hand, is not driven by the weighing of consequences. He believes that animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life," who have moral rights for that reason, and that moral rights ought not to be ignored.

[edit] Utilitarian approach: Peter Singer Further information: Act utilitarianism, Animal language, Animal Liberation (book), and Preference utilitarianism

[edit] Equal consideration of interests Singer is an act utilitarian, or more specifically a preference utilitarian, meaning that he judges the rightness of an act by its consequences, and specifically by the extent to which it satisfies the preferences of those affected, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. (There are other forms of utilitarianism, such as rule utilitarianism, which judges the rightness of an act according to the usual consequences of whichever moral rule the act is an instance of.) Singer's position is that there are no moral grounds for failing to give equal consideration to the interests of human and non-humans. His principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment, but equal consideration of interests. A mouse and a man both have an interest in not being kicked down the street, because both would suffer if so kicked, and there are no moral or logical grounds, Singer argues, for failing to accord their interests in not being kicked equal weight.[91] Singer quotes the English philosopher Henry Sidgwick: "The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view ... of the Universe, than the good of any other."[77] This reflects Jeremy Bentham's position: "[E]ach to count for one, and none for more than one."

Unlike the position of a man or a mouse, a stone would not suffer if kicked down the street, and therefore has no interest in avoiding it. Interests, Singer argues, are predicated on the ability to suffer, and nothing more, and once it is established that a being has interests, those interests must be given equal consideration. The issue of the extent to which animals can suffer is therefore key.

[edit] Animal suffering Singer writes that commentators on all sides of the debate now accept that animals suffer and feel pain, although it was not always so. Bernard Rollin, a philosopher and professor of animal sciences, writes that Descartes' influence continued to be felt until the 1980s. Veterinarians trained in the U.S. before 1989 were taught to ignore pain, he writes, and at least one major veterinary hospital in the 1960s did not stock narcotic analgesics for animal pain control. In his interactions with scientists, he was often asked to "prove" that animals are conscious, and to provide "scientifically acceptable" evidence that they could feel pain.[92] Singer writes that scientific publications have made it clear over the last two decades that the majority of researchers do believe animals suffer and feel pain, though it continues to be argued that their suffering may be reduced by an inability to experience the same dread of anticipation as human beings, or to remember the suffering as vividly.[93] In the most recent edition of Animal Liberation, Singer cites research indicating that animal impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, pointing out that this region is well developed in mammals and birds. [94] Singer also relies on the work of Richard Sarjeant to support his position. Sarjeant pointed out that non-human animals possess anatomical complexity of the cerebral cortex and neuroanatomy that is nearly identical to that of the human nervous system, arguing that, "[e]very particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own. To say that they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more acute than ours."[95] The problem of animal suffering, and animal consciousness in general, arises primarily because animals have no language, leading scientists to argue that it is impossible to know when an animal is suffering. This situation may change as increasing numbers of chimps are taught sign language, although skeptics question whether their use of it portrays real understanding.[citation needed] Singer writes that, following the argument that language is needed to communicate pain, it would often be impossible to know when human beings are in pain. All we can do is observe pain behavior, he writes, and make a calculated guess based on it. As Ludwig Wittgenstein argued, if someone is screaming, clutching a part of their body, moaning quietly, or apparently unable to function, especially when followed by an event that we believe would cause pain in ourselves, that is in large measure what it means to be in pain.[96] Singer argues that there is no reason to suppose animal pain behavior would have a different meaning.

“ [edit] Equality a prescription, not a fact Singer argues that equality between human beings is not based on anything factual, but is simply a prescription. Human beings do, in fact, differ in many ways. If the equality of the sexes were based on the idea, for example, that men and women are in principle capable of being equally intelligent, but this was later found to be false, it would mean we would have to abandon the practice of equal consideration. But in fact, equality of consideration is based on a prescription, not a description. It is, Singer writes, a moral idea, not an assertion of fact.[98] He quotes President Thomas Jefferson, the principal author in 1776 of the American Declaration of Independence: "Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or persons of others."[99]

They talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? ["Intellect," whispered someone nearby.] That's it. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full? — Sojourner Truth[97]

”

Tom Regan argues that animals are "subjects-of-a-life," and as such are rights-bearers.

[edit] Rights-based approach: Tom Regan Tom Regan argues in The Case for Animal Rights and Empty Cages that non-human animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life," and as such are bearers of rights. He argues that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some nonhuman animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients." Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action. Animals for Regan have "inherent value" as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end. This is also called the "direct duty" view. His theory does not

extend to all sentient animals but only to those that can be regarded as subjects-of-a-life. He argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify in this regard. Whereas Singer is primarily concerned with improving the treatment of animals and accepts that, in some hypothetical scenarios, individual animals might be used legitimately to further human or non-human ends, Regan believes we ought to treat nonhuman animals as we would human beings. He applies the strict Kantian ideal (which Kant himself applied only to human beings) that they ought never to be sacrificed as a means to an end, and must be treated as ends in themselves.

[edit] Critics

[edit] Carl Cohen

Philosopher Carl Cohen argues that "[o]nly in a community of beings capable of selfrestricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."[100] Critics such as Carl Cohen, professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Medical School, oppose the granting of personhood to animals, arguing that rights holders must be able to distinguish between their own interests and what is right. "The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, [they] ... must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."[100] Cohen rejects Singer's argument that, since a brain-damaged human being could not make moral judgments, moral judgments cannot be used as the distinguishing characteristic for determining who is awarded rights. Cohen writes that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one,"[100] but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general.

Judge Richard Posner argues that "facts will drive equality, not ethical arguments that run contrary to moral instinct."[101]

[edit] Posner–Singer debate A debate between Singer and Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is listed online.[101] In it, Posner first argues that, instead of starting his argument with the idea that consideration of pain for all animals is equal, his moral intuition tells him that humans prefer their own. If a dog threatened a human infant, and if it required causing more pain to the dog to get it to stop than the dog would have caused to the infant, then we, as human beings, favour the child. It would be "monstrous to spare the dog," Posner argues. Singer challenges Posner's moral intuition by arguing that formerly unequal rights for gays, women, and those of oppressed races were justified using the same set of intuitions. Singer fails to explain why a dog should not be stopped from attacking the child. Posner replies that equality in civil rights did not occur because of ethical arguments, but because facts mounted that there were no morally significant differences between humans based on race, sex, or sexual orientation that would support inequality. If and when similar facts are determined about the differences, or lack thereof, between humans and animals, the differences in rights will erode. But facts will drive equality, not ethical arguments that run contrary to instinct, he argues. Posner calls his approach "soft utilitarian," in contrast to Singer's "hard utilitarian." He argues: The "soft" utilitarian position on animal rights is a moral intuition of many, probably most, Americans. We realize that animals feel pain, and we think that to inflict pain without a reason is bad. Nothing of practical value is added by dressing up this intuition in the language of philosophy; much is Considerate la lost when the intuition is made a stage in a logical argument. When kindness vostra semenza: toward animals is levered into a duty of weighting the pains of animals and [101] of people equally, bizarre vistas of social engineering are opened up. Fatti non foste a viver come bruti, [edit] Roger Scruton Ma per segue virtute e The British philosopher Roger Scruton argues that rights conoscenza. imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he writes, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that ("You were not privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty." Scruton made to live as therefore regards the emergence of the animal rights brutes movement as "the strangest cultural shift within the but to follow liberal worldview," because the idea of rights and virtue and responsibilities are, he argues, distinctive to the human knowledge.") condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond — Dante, cited by our own species.[10] Scruton.[10]

“

”

“

”

He accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific" anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is within this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies, he argues. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled

with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when, in fact, they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

Animal Rights and Care Animal rights is an emotional issue and recently its supporters have shown how passionate and determined they are to speak on behalf of animals. There is a huge amount of written information available for anyone interested in this issue, much of it from animal rights organisations. DEFRA (the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) publishes various leaflets explaining how the welfare of animals is protected by law. Campaigning organisations, meanwhile, focus on specific issues of animal rights and welfare. The League Against Cruel Sports, for example, campaigns against hunting, which it regards as cruel, while the Countryside Alliance argues that it is an effective form of countryside conservation. Compassion in World Farming protests against 'factory farming' (eg. battery hens), and other groups argue for a ban on cosmetic tests and vivisection, laboratory experiments on animals for medical or scientific research. There are a number of organisations you can join if you want to become more active in protecting animals. Some, like the RSPCA's Animal Action Club, organise special trips for members, publish a newsletter and give you lots of ideas for projects and activities. The RSPCA is an animal welfare charity. It focuses on the way people treat animals and aims to promote kindness by preventing cruelty.

Animal experiments and vivisection Animals are often used to test products before they are used on humans. Medicinal drugs and cosmetics are the most common. Rabbits, mice and sometimes larger animals such as monkeys are most commonly used in the testing. The practice of experimenting on live animals for research is known as vivisection. Whilst there is much public opposition to the use of animals in this way , scientists doing the experiments claim that in order to be safe for human use, products have to be tested on animals. But vivisection arouses strong feelings. Members of some radical groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) have tried bombing research laboratories, or attacking individuals associated with vivisection. Other 'direct action' groups have gained publicity by releasing dogs and other animals from laboratories. Vivisection has been used for defence research (eg. chemical warfare) and this has proved particularly controversial.

With the rapid development in the use of computers for research it may be possible in the future to avoid using animals. The RSPCA for example has sponsored research to develop a computer-modelling approach to the testing of chemicals.

Cosmetic testing on animals Tests of cosmetics on animals have now been abolished in British laboratories. Animals have been used for many years to test new cosmetic products. The RSPCA has spoken out against this as have many 'new wave' cosmetic producers. All licences which allow companies to test cosmetics on animals have been withdrawn and no new licences will be issued. This historic change in legislation is the climax to a 20 year campaign to end cruelty to animals in the beauty industry. Ministers are now working towards a European wide ban.

Organisations British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) The BUAV is the oldest anti-vivisection organisation in this country (nearly 100 years). It campaigns peacefully to end all animal experiments.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) There is an emergency number which you can call from anywhere in the country, day or night, if you become aware of animals in danger. The RSPCA asks callers to give the following information: Name, address and telephone number (these details are confidential and will not be given to anyone without your permission); Name(s) and address(es) of the people involved (if you know them); The date, time and place of the incident; The names and addresses of any witnesses; Registration number and description of any vehicle involved; Please also say if you willing to speak in court about what you saw. The RSPCA ask that specific requests for leaflets be made in writing, accompanied by two first class stamps to cover their postage costs.

What is BSE? Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) is a disease which makes very small holes in the brain of cattle. Infected animals go mad and die. There is a related disease which affects people (CJD or Creutzfeldt Jacob Disease) and a version called scrapie which affects sheep.

BSE arose because of the introduction, in the 1980s, of new forms of cattle feed made from sheeps' offal. Some of this was contaminated with scrapie and the disease 'jumped species' from sheep to humans. BSE is popularly known as 'mad cow disease'. In humans, CJD usually affects elderly people, but in the 1990s 'New Variant CJD' struck down a number of younger victims. Cases are still being reported. Although the numbers are small, the appearance of 'New Variant CJD' has aroused fears that BSE can 'jump species' from cattle to humans. Medical opinion still remains deeply divided on this issue. In 1996, BSE hit the headlines again when it was confirmed that ten people had died from a new form of CJD. A government advisory committee said that the 'most likely' explanation for these deaths was from exposure to BSE before controls were introduced in 1989. This sparked off a big debate about the safety of British beef resulting in a world-wide ban. Many countries are still keeping the ban in force. In 1997 the Government also announced a ban on the sale of beef on the bone. This ban has since been lifted and the sale of beef in the UK is returning to normal. There are still some export restrictions.

Conservation Protection and conservation of animals There is a difference between animal protection and animal conservation. Animal protection is about the care of an individual animal or bird whereas animal conservation is concerned with a population or species. It is often the case that animal protection implies there is some danger to the animal, perhaps from people or from pollution, whereas animal conservation is about safeguarding environments so animals can live undisturbed. Until very recently the law did not protect wild animals from cruelty. The Wild Mammals Protection Act which came into effect on 30 April 1997 protects wild mammals (though not birds or fish) from acts of cruelty such as kicking, beating, stoning or drowning. However there are a number of exceptions. For example, if an animal is injured as a result of lawful hunting, shooting, coursing or pest control activity, and is then killed swiftly and humanely, this is not illegal. Because the Act has only recently come into effect, it may be some time before the courts interpret sections of it. There are other laws already in effect which help to protect wildlife, including laws on rare and endangered species, badger bating and the protection of otters.

Turtles in Trouble Turtles have been on the earth for 200 million years! There are seven species, or kinds, of sea turtles. All are endangered.

World Turtle Day is an international celebration that aims to raise awareness about the dire state of most turtle populations. More about endangered species >>

Protecting wildlife and countryside areas There is a wide range of areas which are defined for their scientific interest, their importance for plant or wildlife, or for their habitats. The National Trust, Wildlife Trusts, English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the European Commission and local authorities are some of the organisations responsible for establishing them.

Wildlife conservation It is estimated that there are between 13 and 14 million different species on earth and only about 1.75 million have been scientifically described. Scientists and environmentalists are concerned at the increasing number of species in danger of extinction. It is not just rare animals which are threatened. Species of butterflies, frogs, toads, newts, snakes and insects are all in decline. In Britain 24 bird species have halved in number in the last 25 years. Common British birds like the songthrush and skylark are now at risk. Wildlife habitats are particularly threatened by changes in land use, by the spread of towns, cities and roads, and by farming practices. Many of the wildlife organisations listed below spend a lot of their time managing areas of land to make sure the conditions are right for animals and birds to survive. The RSPB is one of these. It manages reserves throughout England and relies heavily on volunteers to maintain the work. The RSPB offers a range of volunteering opportunities for young people over the age of 16. Most are outdoors on bird reserves as voluntary wardens, but there are also office based jobs helping with campaigns. In 1993 the RSPB joined with other bird and habitat organisations throughout the world to form a global partnership called Birdlife International. RSPB Phoenix is the youth section of the RSPB for 13-19 year olds. For information, including an introductory pack, send an s.a.e to the RSPB address below.

Annual RSPB Garden Birdwatch The Big Garden Birdwatch takes place at the end of January every year. The Birdwatch continues to inspire hundreds of thousands of people to watch the birds their gardens

and local parks. Approximately 6 million birds are recorded and 210,000 gardens surveyed. The information recorded helps the RSPB to prioritise its conservation work. The declines that are reported over time highlight which birds need the RSPB's help most. To find out more visit the RSPB's website or read the survey results.

Organisations Bag It & Bin It Campaign Bag It and Bin It is a national water industry-led campaign promoting responsible disposal of discarded personal products. It raises awareness of the key issues through distribution of leaflets, stickers and other material to the public.

at Conservation Trust The Bat Conservation Trust is the only UK organisation solely devoted to the conservation of bats and their habitats. There are 90 local bat groups around the UK who aim to turn around the bad image of these native mammals. If you would like to find out more about bat habitats and conservation contact the Bat Conservation Trust. The BCT also operate a helpline service. If you find an injured bat or are worried about where bats have chosen to live call their advice line. The Bat Conservation Trust organises a National Bat Week every year.

Born Free Foundation The Born Free Foundation operates a number of animal conservation projects including Zoo Check Project which exposes the physical and psychological suffering of captive animals and campaigns to keep wildlife in the wild, the Elefriends Project helpling to protect elephants from poachers, battling against the ivory trade, and caring for rescued elephants and the Big Cat Project that resucues neglected big cats from lives of misery in cages, and protects big cat species in the wild.

Roya oyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) There is an emergency number which you can call from anywhere in the country, day or night, if you become aware of animals in danger. The RSPCA asks callers to give the following information: Name, address and telephone number (these details are confidential and will not be given to anyone without your permission); Name(s) and address(es) of the people involved (if you know them); The date, time and place of the incident; The names and addresses of any witnesses; Registration number and description of any vehicle involved; Please also say if you willing to speak in court about what you saw.

The RSPCA ask that specific requests for le he RSPCA ask that specific requests for leaflets be made in writing, accompanied by two first class stamps to cover their postage costs.

Farm animals According to the RSPCA 750 million farm animals are reared in the UK each year. The huge demand for meat, eggs and dairy products has encouraged farmers to use intensive methods of farming. Usually this means animals are kept in a limited space with little opportunity to roam outside and look for their own food. Although there are government regulations on the conditions in which animals are raised, transported and slaughtered, many people feel they do not go far enough. To promote best practice in caring for farm animals, the RSPCA helped launch and now monitors the Freedom Food mark. If you see this mark on a food wrapper or packet it means the RSPCA believes the animals were properly cared for throughout their lives. According to the RSPCA animals need: • • • • •

a proper diet; a comfortable place to live; veterinary treatment when they need it; to be free from distress; and room to behave normally together.

The RSPCA is concerned that not all labelling schemes provide the information consumers need to make informed choices. Eggs are a good example. If you look in your local supermarket you will find barn eggs, perch eggs, fresh farm eggs, free range eggs and probably some other names as well. Most of these are from chickens kept in battery cages. Even free range eggs are not always what you might expect. The Animal Action Club publish a hen and egg fact sheet. For more information telephone the RSPCA on: 01403 264 181. If you want to know more about the government's regulations on keeping farm animals, ask your central library if they have a copy of The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (Statutory Instruments 1994 No. 2126) and The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994 (Statutory Instruments 1994 No. 3249).

Antibiotics and farm animals The use of antibiotics as part of farming have been in the news lately. Cattle are often kept together in large groups. This is known as intensive factory farming. Overcrowding causes infection amongst the herd so they are routinely fed antibiotics with their normal feed.

Antibiotics have also been used to artificially boost the animal's growth. These are similar to the antibiotics used to treat humans and there is now growing evidence that we are becoming resistant to antibiotics as a result. The fact that we are consuming antibiotics though the food chain means that our own ability to fight disease is reduced.

Foot and mouth disease This is a disease rarely seen in the UK but we will all remember the outbreak in 2000. Before this it was which was last seen in Britain in 1967. The disease affects farm animals including cows, sheep, goats and pigs. Other animals with cloven hooves and feet are also at risk - for example deer and hedgehogs. There is no cure for foot and mouth disease but it is not a fatal condition. It can kill young livestock though. Adult animals normally recover within a few weeks, but they will carry the virus for up to two years. The Government offers this advice to avoid future outbreaks of the disease. You can go anywhere in the countryside and use reopened footpaths as long as you follow this advice: • • • • • • •

If you keep or handle farm livestock you are requested not to enter or cross other farmland. Avoid all contact with sheep, cows, goats, pigs or deer and do not feed them. Do not enter enclosed fields with sheep, cows, goats or pigs. Take your unwanted food and litter home with you. Keep dogs on a lead at all times. Do not take dogs on land with cows, sheep, goats and pigs. Use disinfectant where provided. Clean your footwear and vehicles after each walk or visit to the countryside.

The main risks are from contact with an infected animal, infected land or buildings, and transferring the virus on hands, clothing and footwear. The virus is sensitive to heat, and disinfectants, but it can remain active for some time on clothing or dried mud or dung on shoes or vehicles. Indirect transfer via person to person contact - for example at a sporting or social event - and then onward to another animal, is possible but unlikely. Contact local tourist information offices to check whether attractions are open. Foot and Mouth disease is not a risk to human health. Visits to the countryside are not banned. You can freely drive along tarmac roads and visit country towns, villages, stately homes, hotels, pubs and museums safely as long as you follow these guidelines.

Organisations A nimal Aid Animal Aid campaigns 'peacefully to encourage a world which is not dependent upon the violent exploitation of animals.' The organisation also has a youth section called Animal Aid Youth Group which publishes a bi-monthly newsletter called Youth Rage. Animal Aid also produce a really useful leaflet called 'Going Veggie - The lazy gourmet's shopping and cooking guide' to kicking the meat habit includes information on vegetarian nutrition, alternatives to animal products, finding your way around the supermarhet and cooking for young people. See their Eat This website for information about being veggie:

Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) The Farm Animal Welfare Council is an independent advisory body established by the Government in 1979. Its terms of reference are "to keep under review the welfare of farm animals on agricultural land, at market, in transit and at the place of slaughter, and to advise the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the First Minister of the Office of the Scottish Executive and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales of any legislative or other changes that may be necessary".

Viva! VIVA (Vegetarians International Voice for Animals) produce two useful vegetarian guides both priced at £1; The L-Plate Vegetarian or the L-Plate Vegan. The booklets offer tips and advice about how to 'make the change' and how to maintain a healthy diet. They also produce the Livewire Guide to Going, Being and Staying Vegetarian. This is an excellent guide for young people who want to save animals, the environment and their health.

Hunting and field sports Under the Hunting Act 2004, the hunting of live animals with dogs was banned. However, it is still perfectly legal for a hunt to meet up, with their hounds, and ride around the country. They are still permitted to enjoy all the social aspects of the hunt, except for the actual chasing and killing of a wild mammal. After a considerable period of debate, which involved widespread public demonstrations from both sides of the hunting lobby, MPs decided to ban the sporting element of hunting, while leaving options (legally "exempt hunting") so that farmers could engage in what MPs saw as legitimate 'pest control'. MPs chose only two exceptions from the blanket ban - rats and rabbits. Rabbits and rats can be hunted. Hare coursing is however, banned under the Hunting Act.

Today the pro and anti-hunting groups are still as far apart as ever. Many hunters have stated their intent to defy the law or to pick out loopholes in it. Meanwhile, organisations such as The League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) continue to vociferously oppose such moves.

The case in favour of hunting with hounds In its traditional, horse and dog incarnation, the hunting of foxes has been practised in Britain for more than 300 years. People who used to regularly hunt argue that the ban has infringed their civil rights, and many have stated they will defy the ban. They also believe that fox hunting provides a service to farmers who regard the fox as vermin. At its peak, there were over 200 fox hunts in Britain, each of which hunted two or three times per week during the peak November to April season. Pro-hunt campaigners believe that it is only the ill-informed who regard it as a cruel sport. They state that when following correct procedure, the top dog in the hunting pack is trained to kill the fox quickly and efficiently. Hunters claim that fox hunting is a naturalised part of the ecosystem helping to keep fox populations down while causing minimal suffering to the animals. They also claim that the banning of hunting will have huge cost implications for people living in rural areas undertaking what they perceive as traditional rural activities. The end of hunting could, they say, have devastating implications for the packs of hounds which are not thought to be suitable as pets.

The case for maintaining and furthering the hunting ban The RSPCA believes that hunting foxes, deer, hares and mink with dogs has "no place in civilised society". They also show evidence that the hunted animals death is often far from swift and efficient as claimed by the pro-hunting lobby. Even before the government's ban, The National Trust banned all hunting on the land they own - a significant land area and a bold commitment by the organisation. In response to the argument that the fox population needs to be managed, those in the anti-hunt camp state that there are alternatives. Culling in a responsible manner removes the need to chase and kill the animal in ceremony. Another alternative for hunt enthusiasts are so-called 'drag hunts' where no live quarry is pursued, but dogs and riders can still enjoy the chase element that defines traditional horse and hound hunting.

Organisations Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management The management of wildlife in the United Kingdom has, in recent years, become an important, sometimes contentious, subject. It is also a subject in which misunderstandings and prejudices are common. However a balanced and healthy wildlife population will not result from a "hands off" approach. Man has a responsibility to manage the present day countryside he has created and to preserve the health and vigour of wild animal populations therein, particularly those without natural predators.

Live export of animals In late 1994 and early 1995, the export of live calves for veal came into the news. One of the objections to exporting calves was that the animals have to travel such long distances before they are slaughtered. At the moment, veal calves are not being transported because of the BSE crisis. Live animals are expensive to transport but there are advantages because the meat is fresh when the animals are slaughtered near the market. Animal welfare organisations argued that there should be a European standard for the transport of live animals, including a maximum travelling time before a rest and feeding period. Inspectors should also be appointed to monitor the transport of the animals. On 1 July 1998, new regulations for live exports were introduced to implement the 1995 European Union (EU) directive on the transport of animals. However, the new regulations in some cases actually extend journey times for animals. Previously, live animals could be transported for a maximum of 15 hours, followed by a recommended rest period of no less than 8 hours. Now, calves, piglets, lambs, kids and foals can be transported for 18 hours with only 1 hour's 'rest'. Pigs and horses can be transported continuously for up to 24 hours (pigs must be provided with 'continuous access to water'). There is, as yet, no pan-European veterinary and animal welfare monitoring system.

Org. Animal Aid Animal Aid campaigns 'peacefully to encourage a world which is not dependent upon the violent exploitation of animals.' The organisation also has a youth section called Animal Aid Youth Group which publishes a bi-monthly newsletter called Youth Rage. Animal Aid also produce a really useful leaflet called 'Going Veggie - The lazy gourmet's shopping and cooking guide' to kicking the meat habit includes information on vegetarian nutrition, alternatives to animal products, finding your way around the supermarhet and cooking for young people.

Pets Although the law protects most animals from cruelty, thousands of pets are abandoned every year. Many of these are rescued by the RSPCA. In 1993 the Society found homes for over 80,000 animals, mostly dogs and cats. Others had to be put down or were treated for a variety of health problems before being returned to their owners. The RSPCA is the main agency in the UK providing welfare services to animals.

Throughout the country its inspectors give advice on the conditions in which animals are kept, investigate complaints, rescue animals in distress, run animal welfare centres and find new homes for abandoned animals. The Society also publishes a range of leaflets with information on caring for your animal and giving advise on what to do if you are thinking of buying a particular pet. It is important to be aware of the cost of looking after a pet and the time and effort needed to take care of an animal properly. There are opportunities for volunteering with the RSPCA in many areas of its work, from fundraising and public relations to maintaining animal centres and clinics.

The Pet Travel Scheme The Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) is the system that allows pet animals from certain countries to enter the UK without quarantine as long as they meet certain conditions. It also means that people in the UK can, having taken their pets to these countries, bring them back without the need for quarantine. PETS was introduced for dogs and cats travelling from certain European countries on 28 February 2000. The Scheme was extended to Cyprus, Malta and certain Long Haul countries and territories on 31 January 2001. In order to qualify for the Pets Travel Scheme (PETS), owners will need to provide a veterinary certificate stating that their cat or dog has been microchipped, vaccinated against rabies and blood tested by a DEFRA (formerly MAFF) approved laboratory. Once this certificate has been issued the pet can travel within the terms of the scheme for the period of the certificate's validity. However, on each occasion that the pet travels, the following must also happen: •

•

The pet owner must produce a certificate declaring that the animal has been vaccinated against ticks and worms in the period 24 - 48 hours before entry into the U.K (the vet administering the vaccination will normally issue the certificate). The owner must also complete a declaration stating that the pet has not been outside the qualifying countries for the scheme in the 6 months prior to entry into the U.K.

Only if all the above regulations are adhered to will the pet be allowed into the U.K. For full details about PETS and how to qualify, see the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website >>

Fireworks and Pets Remember that animals have acute hearing and loud bangs and whistles cause them pain. Check the Blue Cross website for guidelines on keeping your pet safe during firework season: Fireworks can be fun for you...but not for your pets>>

Bereavement Support Grieving for the loss of a pet, whether through death or enforced separation, can be a sad and difficult experience. Life once filled with the love and friendship of a pet, may suddenly seem very empty and feelings of despair and loneliness are not uncommon. The Blue Cross operates a Support Line for people who want to talk over their feelings. The contact deatils are listed below and the helpline is open daily 8:30am-8.30pm. See also: Pets Travel Scheme

Blue Cross The Blue Cross has 11 animal adoption centres and 4 hospitals caring for unwanted pets & finding new homes; pet care advice. They also offer online support for bereaved pet owners. Bereaved Pet Owner email: [email protected] The Blue Cross Pet Bereavement Email Support Service is run in association with The Society for Companion Animal Studies and operates alongside their telephone helpline.

Cat Protection League Cat Protection League rescues and cares for stray or unwanted cats and kittens, gives advice to the public on cat care and runs a network of cat homes throughout the country. Campaigns for the neutering of all cats not required for breeding.

Kennel Club The Kennel Club is a major organisation supporting dogs and their owners in the UK. It publishes a range of useful booklets and leaflets to support dog owners, including the Dog Rescue Directory which is in its 7th edition. This lists rescue organisations for particular breeds of dog as well as general dog rescue organisations. For example if you come across an abandoned German Wirehaired Pointer the directory will have details of the German Wirehaired Pointer Rescue organisation.

ational Fancy Rat Society Fancy Rats have also been shown in Britain for more than 100 years but they have particularly flourished since 1976 when the National Fancy Rat Society (NFRS) was founded.

Paws for Kids Paws for Kids provides support service for families seeking solace and protection in a refuge by offering temporary fostering care for the animals of such families who have to leave their homes.

Paws for Kids aims to relieve the pressures on families escaping domestic violence by providing: • •

A child-centred service to help reduce the long-term effects of witnessing or experiencing domestic violence. Temporary fostering of pets belonging to these families.

Pet Fostering Service Pet Fostering Service Scotland is an initaitive established in association with Scottish Women's Aid. They have joined up to help women who need to leave their home to escape domestic violence. Women have reported staying in a violent situation because they cannot find suitable accommodation for their family pets. Women seeking refuge in a Scottish Women's Aid shelter can ask to arrange to have their pets fostered by PFSS. This allows the family to maintain responsibility for their pets and to know that they can be reunited with them as soon as their situation improves. This is particularly comforting for children knowing where their pets are and that they are safe. At the moment there is not a similar arrangement in England.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) There is an emergency number which you can call from anywhere in the country, day or night, if you become aware of animals in danger. The RSPCA asks callers to give the following information: Name, address and telephone number (these details are confidential and will not be given to anyone without your permission); Name(s) and address(es) of the people involved (if you know them); The date, time and place of the incident; The names and addresses of any witnesses; Registration number and description of any vehicle involved; Please also say if you willing to speak in court about what you saw. The RSPCA ask that specific requests for leaflets be made in writing, accompanied by two first class stamps to cover their postage costs.

Protecting animals Rights for circus animals Animals were once the central focus of family entertainment provided in the "big top". However, as our knowledge of the needs of animals has increased, they have been used less and less. There are some circus families though who still believe that they play an essential part of the show.

If you would like more information about the rights of circus animals, contact Animal Defenders. They have produced a video and a report entitled 'The Ugliest Show on Earth' which argues that the use of animals is cruel and unnecessary.

Animals in Zoos There are 5000 zoos worldwide. These can offer protection to endangered species and help boost populations in the wild. Zoos can be educational and interesting places for young people and families to visit. However some people feel that they are an outdated concept and that their main purpose is entertainment. There has been publicity about animals around the world kept in zoos where the conditions have found to be appalling. Harrowing images of these animals suffering have become common place in the news and in our daily papers. Much is being done in British zoos to ensure that the animals are content. Safari Parks are also popular attractions that allow the animals space to roam and adopt a far more natural existence. Across the globe hundreds of thousands of wild animals are used in tourism experiences for the entertainment of the general public. Many are kept in zoos or perform in circuses, dolphinaria and magic shows, whilst others are used as photographic props for tourists. Additionally, many wild animals are encountered as part of wildlife viewing opportunities in the wild e.g. safaris, whale watching trips. Whilst some operators provide animals with conditions that satisfy animal welfare legislation, many do not. Despite this, such operators continue to thrive due to the support of tourists.

Travellers' Animal Alert Travellers' Alert is a dynamic online campaign working to alleviate the suffering of wild animals used in tourism experiences by: • • •

Generating greater public awareness of the issues surrounding wild animal cruelty and exploitation Encouraging you the public to alert us of any wild animal cruelty you see on your travels both at home and abroad Promoting the philosophies of the Born Free Foundation

Travellers' Alert is about YOU, the compassionate traveller, alerting us to wild animal suffering around the world. Acting upon complaints received from concerned members of the public returning from holidays and days out both at home and abroad, Travellers' Alert aims to help those wild animals that are suffering as a result of being used in tourism. Find out more >>

Organisations Animal Action Club If you want to become involved in animal action campaigns or activities, there are a number of organisations you can join. Visit the RSPCA website and follow the link to Playpen. Animal Action Club is the children and young people's section of the RSPCA open to children under the age of 13.

Animal Defenders The purpose of the Animal Defenders is to educate, create awareness, and promote the interest of humanity in the cause of justice, and the suppression of all forms of cruelty to animals; wherever possible, to alleviate suffering, and to conserve and protect animals and their environment.

ARKive "Over the past few decades a vast treasury of wildlife images has been steadily accumulating, yet no one has known its full extent - or its gaps - and no one has had a comprehensive way of gaining access to it. ARKive will put that right. It will become an invaluable tool for all concerned with the well-being of the natural world." Sir David Attenborough CH FRS ARKive is the Noah's Ark for the Internet era - a unique global initiative, gathering together into one centralised digital library, films, photographs and audio recordings of the world's species. ARKive is leading the 'virtual' conservation effort - finding, sorting, cataloguing and copying the key audio-visual records of the world's animals, plants and fungi, and building them into comprehensive and enduring multi-media digital profiles. Using film, photographs and audio recordings, ARKive is creating a unique record of the world's biodiversity - complementing other species information datasets, and making a key resource available for scientists, conservationists, educators and the general public. See also ARKive Education: free resources for teachers and educators to help them create learning resources around the subject of wildlife and natural history.

Bat Conservation Trust The Bat Conservation Trust is the only UK organisation solely devoted to the conservation of bats and their habitats. There are 90 local bat groups around the UK who aim to turn around the bad image of these native mammals. If you would like to find out more about bat habitats and conservation contact the Bat Conservation Trust. The BCT also operate a helpline service. If you find an injured bat or are worried about where bats have chosen to live call their advice line. The Bat Conservation Trust organises a National Bat Week every year.

Blue Cross The Blue Cross has 11 animal adoption centres and 4 hospitals caring for unwanted pets & finding new homes; pet care advice. They also offer online support for bereaved pet owners. Bereaved Pet Owner email: [email protected] The Blue Cross Pet Bereavement Email Support Service is run in association with The Society for Companion Animal Studies and operates alongside their telephone helpline.

Born Free Foundation The Born Free Foundation operates a number of animal conservation projects including Zoo Check Project which exposes the physical and psychological suffering of captive animals and campaigns to keep wildlife in the wild, the Elefriends Project helpling to protect elephants from poachers, battling against the ivory trade, and caring for rescued elephants and the Big Cat Project that resucues neglected big cats from lives of misery in cages, and protects big cat species in the wild.

British Trust for Ornithology The British Trust for Ornithology has existed since 1933 as an independent, scientific research trust, investigating the populations, movements and ecology of wild birds in the British Isles. Their speciality is the design and implementation of volunteer wild bird surveys. Getting involved: Garden BirdWatch is a permanent, ongoing bird survey for anyone with access to a garden: urban, rural, extensive, average or even tiny. You do not need a special garden. Average suburban gardens are of great ornithological interest. Even records from urban patios are of conservation value.

Captive Animals' Protection Trust (CAPT) The Captive Animals' Protection Trust (CAPT) works to prevent cruelty and to promote respect for animals through education. They co-ordinate a network of experts who give talks to schools and other groups, as well as producing educational materials for teachers, students and the general public.

They are totally against the use of animals in captivity and the entertainment industry and aim to help build a kinder world for all of us. IOSF is a global organisation working to conserve all 13 species of otter by helping to support scientists and other workers in practical conservation, education, research and rescue and rehabilitation.

John Aspinall Foundation The John Aspinall Foundation in conjunction with Howletts and Port Lympne Wild Animal Parks located in Kent is devoted to saving rare and endangered animals, returning them to protected areas in the wild. Website: http://www.totallywild.net/

SPANA - Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad SPANA, the Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad is a voluntary organisation and registered charity founded in Britain in l923. SPANA's mission is: "to improve standards of animal care wherever the need arises"- working amongst some of the poorest people of North and West Africa and the Middle East. Essentially, SPANA helps poor families in rural and semi-rural communities by supplying free veterinary first aid to their working animals. For people in subsistencelevel agriculture, the health of their pack and ploughing animals is critical for survival. There are several million donkeys in North Africa alone and their economic importance is being increasingly recognised.

World Wide Fund for Nature UK. The World Wide Fund for Nature is an international organisation with offices in 28 countries. Its aims are to raise funds for the conservation of endangered wild animals, wild plants and wild places and to promote the wise use of the world's natural resources.