Sunday, November 11, 2007
Manger moins de viande est bon pour la planète
La presse britannique et australienne publie constamment des articles sur le végératisme et les dangers de trop manger de viande. C'est rare qu'on peut lire de tels articles dans Le Monde, et jamais dans La Montagne. Aux infos de France 3 Auvergne hier soir il y avait même un interview avec une chercheuse chez l'INRA qui était sûre que manger des produits bovins (lait, fromage, viande) est super bon pour la santé et protège contre le cancer. C'est évident que l'industrie de la viande s'inquiète, même avec les médias (surtout français) dans sa poche.
Why eating less meat could cut global warming
What you choose to put on your plate can have a huge impact on the planet, reports Juliette Jowit
Food blog: Can your diet help combat climate change?
* The Observer
* Sunday November 11 2007
It seems a surprising suggestion. Can it be true that what we put on our dinner plates could have an effect on global warming? It appears so. A new report is to warn the livestock industry generates 8 per cent of all UK greenhouse gas emissions - but that eating some meat is good for the planet. It will also say organic farming may be no better than intensive methods for reducing emissions, though organic practices have other advantages.
The report, which aims to be the most comprehensive study of the subject yet completed, claims a vegetarian diet including cheese, butter and milk would probably not noticeably reduce carbon emissions because dairy cows are a major source of the biggest greenhouse gas pollution from livestock - the methane released when cattle burp.
A vegan diet would be better, but it would ignore some benefits of rearing grazing animals, said Tara Garnett, from the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University, who wrote the report. 'A little bit of livestock production is probably a good thing for the environment,' she said. 'Livestock provide a very important service in terms of maintaining landscape and soil quality and maintaining biodiversity: you get different animals grazing at different levels and if you didn't have them you'd have a very different landscape.'
Garnett said further research was needed to work out how much less meat should be eaten, but the report suggested it would be 'considerably less'. Next year Compassion in World Farming, an animal welfare group, will launch a fresh campaign urging people to eat less meat.
The growing environmental concerns about meat come at a time of rising health worries: as well as warnings of an epidemic of obesity, the World Cancer Research Fund recently said eating red meat even in small quantities can increase the risk of several cancers.
'All the different strands are building up: lots more information on diet, lots more information on livestock production, and the climate statistics... so we're making a strong case for reducing meat production and consumption,' said Joyce D'Silva, Compassion's ambassador.
Britons eat an average of 82g of protein a day, of which about 50g is from meat - equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop. The figure is relatively low for a developed country, but higher than developing nations and 25-50 per cent above the World Health Organisation recommendation. This adds up, for the UK, to a total of more than 1m tonnes of beef, 1.3m tonnes of pork and bacon, 1.8m tonnes of poultry, nearly 400,000 tonnes of lamb and mutton, plus 13m tonnes of milk, cheese and other dairy products eaten every year.
Vegetarians and some environmentalists have warned for years about the environmental benefits of eating less or no meat, but as incomes have grown the average Briton eats 50 per cent more meat than four decades ago and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050, says Compassion.
Earlier this year, the Vegetarian Society claimed livestock generate nearly one fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than transport. However, there is disagreement on the benefits of giving up meat: the figures, measured in 'carbon dioxide equivalent' to allow comparison of different greenhouse gases, range from a difference of 0.4 tonnes between a diet high in meat and vegetarian diets, to several times that figure, said Dave Hampton, a carbon reduction expert.
The Food Climate Research Centre report claims to study the subject more comprehensively by including full 'life cycle' analysis of meat production, from the fertiliser for feed to transport from the farm, and the carbon 'cost' of producing alternatives to meat and other animal products like leather and wool.
Garnett concludes that to reduce carbon emissions consumers need to eat less, but changes can also be made to production. Emissions from organic farming were 'unlikely to differ much' from intensive farming. Instead, the report recommends 'marginal livestock rearing', which would see animals grazed only on land which could not be used for other purposes, but warns meat prices would have to rise to help support farmers and the rural economy.
The Meat and Livestock Commission said there could be other ways to reduce the carbon footprint of meat eating, including using more UK-produced food which did not have to be transported as far and changing the diet of cows, which could reduce methane output by half.
The Vegetarian Society said it wanted to draw attention to the benefits of eating less meat, but it also recommended people chose seasonal, local and organic products to have the biggest impact.
The Soil Association, which represents the organic industry, disputed the idea it was not more climate-friendly, saying that a study for Defra showed organic production led to a 26 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from agriculture.
To help consumers wade through the confusing advice, Hampton says people who want to reduce emissions should first buy local food that does not need to be transported and choose organic produce and reduce meat and dairy foods.
'A person switching from highest to lowest impact for a year can save 1-2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent - the same annual saving as conserving £300 worth of gas on heating, [or] cutting down 5,000 miles a year in an average car, [or] avoiding one return flight to Europe,' he added.
Eating less meat alone would not be enough for many people, warned Hampton: 'For a well-off professional with above average disposable income, no amount of vegetarian or vegan eating, recycling, organic local produce or packaging avoidance will make any shrinkage of our shadow. Flying time, petrol spend and energy bills will predominate.'
* Print |
Why eating less meat could cut global warming
What you choose to put on your plate can have a huge impact on the planet, reports Juliette Jowit
Food blog: Can your diet help combat climate change?
* The Observer
* Sunday November 11 2007
It seems a surprising suggestion. Can it be true that what we put on our dinner plates could have an effect on global warming? It appears so. A new report is to warn the livestock industry generates 8 per cent of all UK greenhouse gas emissions - but that eating some meat is good for the planet. It will also say organic farming may be no better than intensive methods for reducing emissions, though organic practices have other advantages.
The report, which aims to be the most comprehensive study of the subject yet completed, claims a vegetarian diet including cheese, butter and milk would probably not noticeably reduce carbon emissions because dairy cows are a major source of the biggest greenhouse gas pollution from livestock - the methane released when cattle burp.
A vegan diet would be better, but it would ignore some benefits of rearing grazing animals, said Tara Garnett, from the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University, who wrote the report. 'A little bit of livestock production is probably a good thing for the environment,' she said. 'Livestock provide a very important service in terms of maintaining landscape and soil quality and maintaining biodiversity: you get different animals grazing at different levels and if you didn't have them you'd have a very different landscape.'
Garnett said further research was needed to work out how much less meat should be eaten, but the report suggested it would be 'considerably less'. Next year Compassion in World Farming, an animal welfare group, will launch a fresh campaign urging people to eat less meat.
The growing environmental concerns about meat come at a time of rising health worries: as well as warnings of an epidemic of obesity, the World Cancer Research Fund recently said eating red meat even in small quantities can increase the risk of several cancers.
'All the different strands are building up: lots more information on diet, lots more information on livestock production, and the climate statistics... so we're making a strong case for reducing meat production and consumption,' said Joyce D'Silva, Compassion's ambassador.
Britons eat an average of 82g of protein a day, of which about 50g is from meat - equivalent to a chicken breast and a lamb chop. The figure is relatively low for a developed country, but higher than developing nations and 25-50 per cent above the World Health Organisation recommendation. This adds up, for the UK, to a total of more than 1m tonnes of beef, 1.3m tonnes of pork and bacon, 1.8m tonnes of poultry, nearly 400,000 tonnes of lamb and mutton, plus 13m tonnes of milk, cheese and other dairy products eaten every year.
Vegetarians and some environmentalists have warned for years about the environmental benefits of eating less or no meat, but as incomes have grown the average Briton eats 50 per cent more meat than four decades ago and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050, says Compassion.
Earlier this year, the Vegetarian Society claimed livestock generate nearly one fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than transport. However, there is disagreement on the benefits of giving up meat: the figures, measured in 'carbon dioxide equivalent' to allow comparison of different greenhouse gases, range from a difference of 0.4 tonnes between a diet high in meat and vegetarian diets, to several times that figure, said Dave Hampton, a carbon reduction expert.
The Food Climate Research Centre report claims to study the subject more comprehensively by including full 'life cycle' analysis of meat production, from the fertiliser for feed to transport from the farm, and the carbon 'cost' of producing alternatives to meat and other animal products like leather and wool.
Garnett concludes that to reduce carbon emissions consumers need to eat less, but changes can also be made to production. Emissions from organic farming were 'unlikely to differ much' from intensive farming. Instead, the report recommends 'marginal livestock rearing', which would see animals grazed only on land which could not be used for other purposes, but warns meat prices would have to rise to help support farmers and the rural economy.
The Meat and Livestock Commission said there could be other ways to reduce the carbon footprint of meat eating, including using more UK-produced food which did not have to be transported as far and changing the diet of cows, which could reduce methane output by half.
The Vegetarian Society said it wanted to draw attention to the benefits of eating less meat, but it also recommended people chose seasonal, local and organic products to have the biggest impact.
The Soil Association, which represents the organic industry, disputed the idea it was not more climate-friendly, saying that a study for Defra showed organic production led to a 26 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from agriculture.
To help consumers wade through the confusing advice, Hampton says people who want to reduce emissions should first buy local food that does not need to be transported and choose organic produce and reduce meat and dairy foods.
'A person switching from highest to lowest impact for a year can save 1-2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent - the same annual saving as conserving £300 worth of gas on heating, [or] cutting down 5,000 miles a year in an average car, [or] avoiding one return flight to Europe,' he added.
Eating less meat alone would not be enough for many people, warned Hampton: 'For a well-off professional with above average disposable income, no amount of vegetarian or vegan eating, recycling, organic local produce or packaging avoidance will make any shrinkage of our shadow. Flying time, petrol spend and energy bills will predominate.'
* Print |
Friday, November 09, 2007
Animal testing rises in Britain and France
The Guardian
Animal testing rises
Research using animals in the EU rose by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. It is now time for a mature debate on the issue.
November 8, 2007 4:42 PM
New figures released by the EU today on animal testing reveal that the number of animals used in experiments went up by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. UK researchers are second on the list in terms of numbers of animals used behind France.
In 2005 EU researchers used 12.1m animals in experiments - 78% were rodents, mostly mice. As in 2002, no great apes (chimps, gorillas or orang utans) were used in research but just over 10,000 primates were used, very slightly more than in 2002.
Testing in France and Britain rose by 5% and 3% respectively. While Germany, in third place in terms of the number of animals used, cut its testing by 12%.
The number of animals used in costmetics testing increased by 50% to 5571. Almost all of this testing occurred in France despite a 1999 European directive banning the use of animals for cosmetics testing. All member states must adhere to the directive by 2009 and by 2012 no cosmetic can be sold or marketed in the EU that has been tested on animals. No cosmetic testing using animals took place in Britain.
There is no doubt that using animals in research is necessary. It is simply impossible to answer many questions without them. And the British public are broadly in favour too, so long as the experiments are justified and tightly regulated. A YouGov poll carried out in May last year found that 70% believe that animal testing is justified and 72% say there is no alternative.
But that is not to say that the scientists should have carte blanche to do what they want. By their actions, a small number of animal extremists have created a bunker mentality amongst scientists who feel that any questioning of animals experiments is "playing into the hands of the other side". This is wrong and has been bad for proper debate on the issue. Thankfully it now seems to be changing.
At this year's British Association Festival of Science a report from the CAMARADES Collaboration that reviewed 288 animal studies of prospective treatments for stroke concluded that many animal experiments are flawed. The report found that animal studies frequently do not use experimental techniques that are the "gold standard" for clinical trials.
For example, only a third of the studies randomised which animals went into the treatment and control groups. And in only a third of cases were the experimenters who assessed the expeimental outcome blinded to the whether each animal had been given the treatment or not - a well known source of unconscious bias.
Another problem highlighted by the EU's Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik today is that too often the same tests are duplicated - particularly by companies not willing to share data.
Now that some of the poision has been drawn from the animal testing debate perhaps we can have a more productive discussion about how scientists can carry out animal experiments more effectively and - where possible - reduce the numbers involved.
Comments
Animal testing rises
Research using animals in the EU rose by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. It is now time for a mature debate on the issue.
November 8, 2007 4:42 PM
New figures released by the EU today on animal testing reveal that the number of animals used in experiments went up by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. UK researchers are second on the list in terms of numbers of animals used behind France.
In 2005 EU researchers used 12.1m animals in experiments - 78% were rodents, mostly mice. As in 2002, no great apes (chimps, gorillas or orang utans) were used in research but just over 10,000 primates were used, very slightly more than in 2002.
Testing in France and Britain rose by 5% and 3% respectively. While Germany, in third place in terms of the number of animals used, cut its testing by 12%.
The number of animals used in costmetics testing increased by 50% to 5571. Almost all of this testing occurred in France despite a 1999 European directive banning the use of animals for cosmetics testing. All member states must adhere to the directive by 2009 and by 2012 no cosmetic can be sold or marketed in the EU that has been tested on animals. No cosmetic testing using animals took place in Britain.
There is no doubt that using animals in research is necessary. It is simply impossible to answer many questions without them. And the British public are broadly in favour too, so long as the experiments are justified and tightly regulated. A YouGov poll carried out in May last year found that 70% believe that animal testing is justified and 72% say there is no alternative.
But that is not to say that the scientists should have carte blanche to do what they want. By their actions, a small number of animal extremists have created a bunker mentality amongst scientists who feel that any questioning of animals experiments is "playing into the hands of the other side". This is wrong and has been bad for proper debate on the issue. Thankfully it now seems to be changing.
At this year's British Association Festival of Science a report from the CAMARADES Collaboration that reviewed 288 animal studies of prospective treatments for stroke concluded that many animal experiments are flawed. The report found that animal studies frequently do not use experimental techniques that are the "gold standard" for clinical trials.
For example, only a third of the studies randomised which animals went into the treatment and control groups. And in only a third of cases were the experimenters who assessed the expeimental outcome blinded to the whether each animal had been given the treatment or not - a well known source of unconscious bias.
Another problem highlighted by the EU's Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik today is that too often the same tests are duplicated - particularly by companies not willing to share data.
Now that some of the poision has been drawn from the animal testing debate perhaps we can have a more productive discussion about how scientists can carry out animal experiments more effectively and - where possible - reduce the numbers involved.
Comments
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Les crustacés sont sensibles à la douleur
Blow for fans of boiled lobster: crustaceans feel pain, study says
* Ian Sample
*
o Ian Sample
o The Guardian
o Thursday November 8 2007
Sensitive chefs, avert your eyes now. An investigation into the most contentious of kitchen dilemmas has reached its unpalatable conclusion: lobsters do feel pain.
The question of crustaceans' ability to experience pain has become an unlikely obsession for some scientists. Over the past few decades, the question has been batted back and forth as fresh evidence comes to light. Two years ago, Norwegian researchers declared the answer was a firm no, claiming the animals' nervous systems were not complex enough.
The latest salvo, published in New Scientist today, comes from Robert Elwood, an expert in animal behaviour at Queen's University, Belfast. With help from colleagues, he set about finding an answer by daubing acetic acid on to the antennae of 144 prawns.
Immediately, the creatures began grooming and rubbing the affected antenna, while leaving untouched ones alone, a response Prof Elwood says is "consistent with an interpretation of pain experience". The same pain sensitivity is likely to be shared by lobsters, crabs and other crustaceans, the researchers believe.
Prof Elwood says that sensing pain is crucial even for the most lowly of animals because it allows them to change their behaviour after damaging experiences and so increase their chances of survival.
The claim will add weight to campaigns by animal rights organisations which protest against lobsters being boiled alive.
But conscientious eaters need not, necessarily, abandon lobster. Other scientists believe the debate is far from over. Many think only vertebrates have advanced enough nervous systems to feel pain, and suspect that the prawns' reaction to having acid daubed on their antennae was an attempt to clean them.
"Shrimps do not have a recognisable brain," said Lynne Sneddon, a Liverpool University researcher who has studied pain in fish. "You could argue the shrimp is simply trying to clean the antenna rather than showing a pain response."
Richard Chapman, from the University of Utah's pain research centre in Salt Lake City, stressed that most animals possessed receptors which responded to irritants. "Even a single-cell organism can detect a threatening chemical gradient and retreat from it," he said. "But this is not sensing pain."
Prof Elwood insists such arguments are flawed. "Using the same analogy, one could argue crabs do not have vision because they lack the visual centres of humans," he said. He urged further work looking at whether crustaceans have the neurological architecture to feel pain.
* Ian Sample
*
o Ian Sample
o The Guardian
o Thursday November 8 2007
Sensitive chefs, avert your eyes now. An investigation into the most contentious of kitchen dilemmas has reached its unpalatable conclusion: lobsters do feel pain.
The question of crustaceans' ability to experience pain has become an unlikely obsession for some scientists. Over the past few decades, the question has been batted back and forth as fresh evidence comes to light. Two years ago, Norwegian researchers declared the answer was a firm no, claiming the animals' nervous systems were not complex enough.
The latest salvo, published in New Scientist today, comes from Robert Elwood, an expert in animal behaviour at Queen's University, Belfast. With help from colleagues, he set about finding an answer by daubing acetic acid on to the antennae of 144 prawns.
Immediately, the creatures began grooming and rubbing the affected antenna, while leaving untouched ones alone, a response Prof Elwood says is "consistent with an interpretation of pain experience". The same pain sensitivity is likely to be shared by lobsters, crabs and other crustaceans, the researchers believe.
Prof Elwood says that sensing pain is crucial even for the most lowly of animals because it allows them to change their behaviour after damaging experiences and so increase their chances of survival.
The claim will add weight to campaigns by animal rights organisations which protest against lobsters being boiled alive.
But conscientious eaters need not, necessarily, abandon lobster. Other scientists believe the debate is far from over. Many think only vertebrates have advanced enough nervous systems to feel pain, and suspect that the prawns' reaction to having acid daubed on their antennae was an attempt to clean them.
"Shrimps do not have a recognisable brain," said Lynne Sneddon, a Liverpool University researcher who has studied pain in fish. "You could argue the shrimp is simply trying to clean the antenna rather than showing a pain response."
Richard Chapman, from the University of Utah's pain research centre in Salt Lake City, stressed that most animals possessed receptors which responded to irritants. "Even a single-cell organism can detect a threatening chemical gradient and retreat from it," he said. "But this is not sensing pain."
Prof Elwood insists such arguments are flawed. "Using the same analogy, one could argue crabs do not have vision because they lack the visual centres of humans," he said. He urged further work looking at whether crustaceans have the neurological architecture to feel pain.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Les étourneaux
Home to roost
During the next few months an amazing natural spectacle can be seen as millions of starlings take to the skies in fluid, fast-moving flocks. Bill Oddie is enthralled
* Interview by Amy Fleming
* The Guardian
* Wednesday November 7 2007
A large flock of starlings fly over a park at sunset seaking an area to land for the evening, in Algiers. Photograph: Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty images
At this time of year, starlings form vast flocks for the winter [not just in this country, but in places such as Algeria and the United States]. Each night before they go down to roost, they swoop around the skies in spectacular formations. Quite why or how they move together so fluidly, making such specific shapes, remains a mystery to us.
The reasons why they form flocks, however, are very simple. First, there is safety in numbers. Any hungry bird of prey wouldn't know which starling to go for in such a vast, fast-moving flock. Some flocks have been estimated to contain 2 million birds. Second, it's always warmer in a group, be you a human, a penguin or a starling. The third reason is not conclusively proven, but it is generally felt that there is some sort of communication going on. I'm not saying it's a language but, in starling terms, they get together in the evenings and say things like: "Well, we've found a good feeding area down the road there." It took years to figure out the "waggle dance" that bees use to indicate the best feeding sites and this could be similar.
The flocks start forming around now, in the autumn, and stay together right through to spring when the birds go off - some abroad, some not - to breed. In Britain, we get a huge influx of starlings from Russia and northern Europe; they come here to roost in the relative warmth. At this time of year on the east coast, you can see them still arriving.
We imagine they're sleeping most of the time when roosting - conserving energy overnight. The BBC is currently filming inside a roost on the Somerset levels to work out whether the birds go straight to sleep or stay up chatting and exchanging news.
The spots where you can watch the spectacular flocks in the UK are quite well known and you don't have to be a naturalist to spot them. The Somerset levels, Brighton's crumbling West Pier, and the flock I filmed a few years ago near Slimbridge on the river Severn, are good places to try but, be warned, while starlings usually stay in the same area throughout winter, they do move, so you'll have to be patient. After a while, they tend to flatten the reeds or trees they roost in, so they'll seek out fresh vegetation nearby. They tend to roost in woods, or mostly old, but sometimes new, buildings. They used to be rife in cities but local councils got rid of them.
They're not really pests but some people say, "Ooh, we don't want starlings in our gardens," because they think they chase away the other birds. This isn't true. There's just a natural pecking order, and starlings are survivors.
The best time to catch the spectacular flocking is at the starlings' bedtime - get there an hour before it gets dark. The flocks will build and build in the late afternoon and the final moments of dusk are when it looks like they're going down a plug hole, when they descend to roost.
During the next few months an amazing natural spectacle can be seen as millions of starlings take to the skies in fluid, fast-moving flocks. Bill Oddie is enthralled
* Interview by Amy Fleming
* The Guardian
* Wednesday November 7 2007
A large flock of starlings fly over a park at sunset seaking an area to land for the evening, in Algiers. Photograph: Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty images
At this time of year, starlings form vast flocks for the winter [not just in this country, but in places such as Algeria and the United States]. Each night before they go down to roost, they swoop around the skies in spectacular formations. Quite why or how they move together so fluidly, making such specific shapes, remains a mystery to us.
The reasons why they form flocks, however, are very simple. First, there is safety in numbers. Any hungry bird of prey wouldn't know which starling to go for in such a vast, fast-moving flock. Some flocks have been estimated to contain 2 million birds. Second, it's always warmer in a group, be you a human, a penguin or a starling. The third reason is not conclusively proven, but it is generally felt that there is some sort of communication going on. I'm not saying it's a language but, in starling terms, they get together in the evenings and say things like: "Well, we've found a good feeding area down the road there." It took years to figure out the "waggle dance" that bees use to indicate the best feeding sites and this could be similar.
The flocks start forming around now, in the autumn, and stay together right through to spring when the birds go off - some abroad, some not - to breed. In Britain, we get a huge influx of starlings from Russia and northern Europe; they come here to roost in the relative warmth. At this time of year on the east coast, you can see them still arriving.
We imagine they're sleeping most of the time when roosting - conserving energy overnight. The BBC is currently filming inside a roost on the Somerset levels to work out whether the birds go straight to sleep or stay up chatting and exchanging news.
The spots where you can watch the spectacular flocks in the UK are quite well known and you don't have to be a naturalist to spot them. The Somerset levels, Brighton's crumbling West Pier, and the flock I filmed a few years ago near Slimbridge on the river Severn, are good places to try but, be warned, while starlings usually stay in the same area throughout winter, they do move, so you'll have to be patient. After a while, they tend to flatten the reeds or trees they roost in, so they'll seek out fresh vegetation nearby. They tend to roost in woods, or mostly old, but sometimes new, buildings. They used to be rife in cities but local councils got rid of them.
They're not really pests but some people say, "Ooh, we don't want starlings in our gardens," because they think they chase away the other birds. This isn't true. There's just a natural pecking order, and starlings are survivors.
The best time to catch the spectacular flocking is at the starlings' bedtime - get there an hour before it gets dark. The flocks will build and build in the late afternoon and the final moments of dusk are when it looks like they're going down a plug hole, when they descend to roost.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
It never rains but it pours.........
Il y a une femme dans notre immeuble qui laisse des croquettes dans la cour pour les chats errants. Mes chats aussi mangent ces croquettes, qui sont de très mauvaise qualité et rendent Zara malade. Un jour j'ai essayé de raisonner avec cette femme, pour lui expliquer que si on veut nourrir les chats errants, il faut aussi les faire stériliser pour limiter une explosion démographique. Si elle voulait les aider.....
- Mais je ne veux pas les aider! J'aime seulement les voir manger les croquettes dans la cour!
Personnellement, je préfère aller au cinéma ou jouer au scrabble.
Deux jours après le sauvetage des chiens, cette femme m'a arrêtée dans la rue pour me dire que Georges le grand chat était couché dans la cour et elle s'inquiétait pour lui. C'était seulement 2 heures plus tard que je me suis rentrée; Georges était toujours couché. Je l'ai ramassé, et cette fois il n'avait pas le temps de s'échapper. Il est toujours chez nous, et nous cherchons désespérément une famille adoptive pour lui. Il a été stérilisé aux frais des Vaches Rouges. Il a aussi été traité contre les puces et les vers, et testé pour le sida et la leucose. Il est sero-négatif, yippee!
Samedi soir, après le retour de Georges de chez le véto, mon fils est rentré dans l'appartement avec Georges dans ses bras. Il l'avait trouvé en train de se rechauffer sur ma voiture. Mais Georges faisait la sieste sur mon lit! Le chat frileux était un des enfants de Georges, qui viennent manger les croquettes maudites de la voisine. Elle lui ressemble comme deux gouttes d'eau, elle s'appelle Betty, et qui veut l'adopter?
Les Dellaroos et Zara (tous petits et noirs) ont très peur de Georges et Betty (grands, blancs et tigrés). Aïda et Otello ne rentrent presque plus à la maison, ce sont les plus peureux. Je viens de dire à une amie que je vais emmener Georges et Betty au refuge de l'APA. Mon ami a dit que le refuge n'accepte pas les chats de Clermont-Fd, il faut passer par la fourrière. Je ne veux pas qu'ils passent par la fourrière. Que faire? Il n'y a plus de place dans les refuges.
Georges est magnifique. Il a un moral d'acier. Super cool, gentil. Betty est comme son père, mais plus réservée. Si vous voulez les adopter, contactez-moi au
vacaroja63@yahoo.fr.
Merci.
- Mais je ne veux pas les aider! J'aime seulement les voir manger les croquettes dans la cour!
Personnellement, je préfère aller au cinéma ou jouer au scrabble.
Deux jours après le sauvetage des chiens, cette femme m'a arrêtée dans la rue pour me dire que Georges le grand chat était couché dans la cour et elle s'inquiétait pour lui. C'était seulement 2 heures plus tard que je me suis rentrée; Georges était toujours couché. Je l'ai ramassé, et cette fois il n'avait pas le temps de s'échapper. Il est toujours chez nous, et nous cherchons désespérément une famille adoptive pour lui. Il a été stérilisé aux frais des Vaches Rouges. Il a aussi été traité contre les puces et les vers, et testé pour le sida et la leucose. Il est sero-négatif, yippee!
Samedi soir, après le retour de Georges de chez le véto, mon fils est rentré dans l'appartement avec Georges dans ses bras. Il l'avait trouvé en train de se rechauffer sur ma voiture. Mais Georges faisait la sieste sur mon lit! Le chat frileux était un des enfants de Georges, qui viennent manger les croquettes maudites de la voisine. Elle lui ressemble comme deux gouttes d'eau, elle s'appelle Betty, et qui veut l'adopter?
Les Dellaroos et Zara (tous petits et noirs) ont très peur de Georges et Betty (grands, blancs et tigrés). Aïda et Otello ne rentrent presque plus à la maison, ce sont les plus peureux. Je viens de dire à une amie que je vais emmener Georges et Betty au refuge de l'APA. Mon ami a dit que le refuge n'accepte pas les chats de Clermont-Fd, il faut passer par la fourrière. Je ne veux pas qu'ils passent par la fourrière. Que faire? Il n'y a plus de place dans les refuges.
Georges est magnifique. Il a un moral d'acier. Super cool, gentil. Betty est comme son père, mais plus réservée. Si vous voulez les adopter, contactez-moi au
vacaroja63@yahoo.fr.
Merci.
Long day's journey into night
Mardi matin, j'ai mis les chiens dans la voiture et nous avons quitté Clermont à 7 heures. Dans les Bois Noirs il y avait du brouillard qui nous a ralentis, et de temps en temps il pleuvait. Curieusement, il n'y avait pas beaucoup de circulation sur l'autoroute. Plus curieux encore, à 8 heures il faisait toujours nuit. La radio de ma voiture a été volée, donc je ne pouvais pas me renseigner sur la fin possible du monde ce mardi matin. C'était seulement quand nous nous sommes arrêtés sur une aire d'autoroute pour permettre aux chiens de se dégourdir les jambes et de manger de l'herbe (qu'ils vomiraient plus tard dans la voiture), que la vérité s'est présentée. En fait, ma montre avait toujours une heure d'avance, je ne l'avais pas changé après le changement d'heure le weekend dernier. Et dans l'urgence de partir tôt et la peur que les chiens ne retombent entre les mains de leur tortionnaire, j'avais oublié la vraie heure. Ce qui voulait dire que la lumière qui se pointait dans l'est n'était rien que le début d'un autre jour banal, pas la réflection d'un catastrophe géant. Quel soulagement.
J'avais les chiens depuis 24 heures. La Misère courait dans le parc des Salins quand je l'ai traversé avec Annie et nos chiens ce lundi matin-là. La Misère était très contente de nous voir, comme d'habitude, et elle nous a accompagné sur notre promenade. De retour dans l'avenue Marx Dormoy, Zorro, un ami du maître des chiens, nous attendait sur le trottoir avec Opium. Leur maître avait été arrêté samedi soir parce qu'il a agressé quelqu'un, il n'y avait personne pour s'occuper des animaux, Annie et moi nous voudrions les garder? Annie a invité Anaïs de passer la journée chez elle, et moi j'ai pris La Misère et Opium. De retour dans notre F3 les chats étaient furieux. Zara, la plus petite, les a confronté avec beaucoup de crachats et de vilains mots. Les deux chiens étaient très gentils, ils ont accepté les insultes avec de la grâce. La Misère s'est installé sur le canapé, et Opium, qui avait habité en appartement autrefois, a reconnu le panier d'Anaïs comme un endroit convenable à se reposer. Au cours de cette journée j'ai dû finir une traduction et en même temps tenter de trouver un refuge pour les chiens. Des Vaches Rouges ont proposé de les héberger temporairement, mais finalement c'était Le Graal qui les a trouvé des places dans un refuge loin de Clermont.
Il faut noter ici que La Misère n'est pas propre, son maître n'a fait aucun effort pour l'aider à en devenir. Ou peut-être elle est incontinente à force de rester assise si longtemps sans bouger. Heureusement elle a seulement uriné sur mes tapis d'orient, la situation aurait pu être pire. Opium par contre est un parfait chien d'appartement. Il faut noter aussi que La Misère n'a jamais eu de jouet; quand elle a trouvé une vieille balle qui fait du bruit, (appartenant aux chats), elle l'a gardé avec elle tout le temps. J'ai oublié de l'apporter avec nous, mais je viens de lui acheter un jouet que je vais envoyer au refuge.
Leur maître était seulement en garde à vue, il a été libéré et a dit à plusieurs personnes qu'il veut reprendre ses chiens. J'espère qu'il n'aura plus l'occasion de posséder un animal. Dans ce blog j'ai assez souvent parlé de sa façon de traiter ses chiens, donc il n'y a rien à dire là dessus. Sauf que, je ne l'avais jamais vu les battre. Toutes les autres cruautés raffinées ou non, il les a pratiquées en plein vue de tout le monde. La brutalité déchaînée il l'a gardée entre amis. C'est il y a quelques jours qu'Anaïs reconnait un chien dans la rue. C'est le frère de La Misère. Il était avec une jeune femme qui était fière de lui, et fière qu'il était vacciné et pucé. Elle m'a dit d'avoir écrit une lettre à l'Association Protectrice des Animaux (APA) de Clermont-Ferrand, pour leur informer d'avoir vu le maître de La Misère lui donner "des coups de poing et des coups de pied dans la gueule". La réponse laconique de cette association protectrice des animaux lui a informé que l'association faisait une enquête, car elle avaient reçu d'autres plaintes contre cet homme. Je me demande quelles sont les conclusions de cette enquête, et si le public aura le droit de les connaître.
J'avais les chiens depuis 24 heures. La Misère courait dans le parc des Salins quand je l'ai traversé avec Annie et nos chiens ce lundi matin-là. La Misère était très contente de nous voir, comme d'habitude, et elle nous a accompagné sur notre promenade. De retour dans l'avenue Marx Dormoy, Zorro, un ami du maître des chiens, nous attendait sur le trottoir avec Opium. Leur maître avait été arrêté samedi soir parce qu'il a agressé quelqu'un, il n'y avait personne pour s'occuper des animaux, Annie et moi nous voudrions les garder? Annie a invité Anaïs de passer la journée chez elle, et moi j'ai pris La Misère et Opium. De retour dans notre F3 les chats étaient furieux. Zara, la plus petite, les a confronté avec beaucoup de crachats et de vilains mots. Les deux chiens étaient très gentils, ils ont accepté les insultes avec de la grâce. La Misère s'est installé sur le canapé, et Opium, qui avait habité en appartement autrefois, a reconnu le panier d'Anaïs comme un endroit convenable à se reposer. Au cours de cette journée j'ai dû finir une traduction et en même temps tenter de trouver un refuge pour les chiens. Des Vaches Rouges ont proposé de les héberger temporairement, mais finalement c'était Le Graal qui les a trouvé des places dans un refuge loin de Clermont.
Il faut noter ici que La Misère n'est pas propre, son maître n'a fait aucun effort pour l'aider à en devenir. Ou peut-être elle est incontinente à force de rester assise si longtemps sans bouger. Heureusement elle a seulement uriné sur mes tapis d'orient, la situation aurait pu être pire. Opium par contre est un parfait chien d'appartement. Il faut noter aussi que La Misère n'a jamais eu de jouet; quand elle a trouvé une vieille balle qui fait du bruit, (appartenant aux chats), elle l'a gardé avec elle tout le temps. J'ai oublié de l'apporter avec nous, mais je viens de lui acheter un jouet que je vais envoyer au refuge.
Leur maître était seulement en garde à vue, il a été libéré et a dit à plusieurs personnes qu'il veut reprendre ses chiens. J'espère qu'il n'aura plus l'occasion de posséder un animal. Dans ce blog j'ai assez souvent parlé de sa façon de traiter ses chiens, donc il n'y a rien à dire là dessus. Sauf que, je ne l'avais jamais vu les battre. Toutes les autres cruautés raffinées ou non, il les a pratiquées en plein vue de tout le monde. La brutalité déchaînée il l'a gardée entre amis. C'est il y a quelques jours qu'Anaïs reconnait un chien dans la rue. C'est le frère de La Misère. Il était avec une jeune femme qui était fière de lui, et fière qu'il était vacciné et pucé. Elle m'a dit d'avoir écrit une lettre à l'Association Protectrice des Animaux (APA) de Clermont-Ferrand, pour leur informer d'avoir vu le maître de La Misère lui donner "des coups de poing et des coups de pied dans la gueule". La réponse laconique de cette association protectrice des animaux lui a informé que l'association faisait une enquête, car elle avaient reçu d'autres plaintes contre cet homme. Je me demande quelles sont les conclusions de cette enquête, et si le public aura le droit de les connaître.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Comment protéger les hérissons des feux et des feux d'artifices
The question
How can we help hedgehogs on bonfire night?
* Terry Nutkins
* The Guardian
* Monday November 5 2007
A hedgehog
At this time of year, many animals want to go into hibernation - hedgehogs but also creatures such as slow worms and grass snakes. Sheltered from the wind and the rain, they crawl into warm and dry piles of wood. The unlit bonfire is an oasis for many animals in the winter but when all those firework night bonfires are lit on November 5, they are suddenly burned to death.
Most communities start building their bonfires many weeks ahead. It would be much better to pile them up at the last minute. It is incredibly tempting to begin piling wood up early but if it can be stored somewhere and moved into place on the day this could save many animal's lives.
If a bonfire has been sitting in the same spot for days, organisers worried about killing hedgehogs - as well as smaller animals such as frogs and toads which have hopped and crawled in - could assemble a group of volunteers and simply move all the wood 20m away. It wouldn't take long and it would give the animals a chance to escape.
You should also consider the siting of your bonfire to minimise the risk to wildlife - place it in open ground well away from indigenous trees, which can get burned or scorched by the heat.
Fireworks are another problem altogether although they mostly affect dogs, cats and livestock such as cattle and sheep. Keeping pets indoors is essential and if you leave the television on, or play some music, that can help muffle the cracks and bangs.
My kids are going to the village firework display but I'll stay in with my black labrador, Sloopy. She shakes and goes into a terrible state when she hears any kind of bang. I'll comfort her and stroke her and make sure she feels secure.
If it was up to me I would ban fireworks and big bonfires.
How can we help hedgehogs on bonfire night?
* Terry Nutkins
* The Guardian
* Monday November 5 2007
A hedgehog
At this time of year, many animals want to go into hibernation - hedgehogs but also creatures such as slow worms and grass snakes. Sheltered from the wind and the rain, they crawl into warm and dry piles of wood. The unlit bonfire is an oasis for many animals in the winter but when all those firework night bonfires are lit on November 5, they are suddenly burned to death.
Most communities start building their bonfires many weeks ahead. It would be much better to pile them up at the last minute. It is incredibly tempting to begin piling wood up early but if it can be stored somewhere and moved into place on the day this could save many animal's lives.
If a bonfire has been sitting in the same spot for days, organisers worried about killing hedgehogs - as well as smaller animals such as frogs and toads which have hopped and crawled in - could assemble a group of volunteers and simply move all the wood 20m away. It wouldn't take long and it would give the animals a chance to escape.
You should also consider the siting of your bonfire to minimise the risk to wildlife - place it in open ground well away from indigenous trees, which can get burned or scorched by the heat.
Fireworks are another problem altogether although they mostly affect dogs, cats and livestock such as cattle and sheep. Keeping pets indoors is essential and if you leave the television on, or play some music, that can help muffle the cracks and bangs.
My kids are going to the village firework display but I'll stay in with my black labrador, Sloopy. She shakes and goes into a terrible state when she hears any kind of bang. I'll comfort her and stroke her and make sure she feels secure.
If it was up to me I would ban fireworks and big bonfires.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Possum voyou
Possum goes on the rampage in NSW museum
Sydney Morning Herald
November 2, 2007 - 12:50PM
At first, mindless vandals were suspected after valuable historical artefacts were destroyed in a rampage through a NSW museum.
Today the culprit was behind bars.
It was a possum.
Members of the Moruya and District Historical Society, at Moruya on the NSW south coast, had initially blamed a "human hand" for the late night rampage, which caused thousands of dollars in damage.
The 280-member society established the museum more than 30 years ago, acquiring artefacts dating back to the 1830s to record the history of the area, and housing them in a building that itself is well over 100 years old.
But on Wednesday morning society president Michael Gold and treasurer Andy McKenzie opened up the museum to find at least 20 items of glassware smashed and 10 framed pictures resting on glass display cases knocked over.
"I got down there and it was pretty devastating to find what we found," Mr Gold told AAP.
"But as we gradually investigated we realised that it was so haphazard that it wasn't a human hand - it couldn't have been."
When they entered a room containing an 1850s dining room setting, the evidence was unmistakable.
"All of the stuff had been knocked off the table but we found four distinct paw prints on the white table cloth," Mr Gold said.
"So we looked at each other and made the gradual discovery that we weren't dealing with vandals - we were dealing with a furry vandal."
Once they realised the possum was still in the building, a trap was set and the possum was caught this morning.
Neighbours say they heard damage on Monday night, and as the museum did not open again until Wednesday, it appears the marsupial had free rein of the premises for two days.
Mr Gold said he and Mr McKenzie were initially distraught over the estimated $3,000 worth of damage to items that may never be able to be replaced.
"We were absolutely devastated at first," he said.
"But as it dawned on us what had happened, we had to sort of smile at each other and say 'well, you know, it's an act of God really and we'll just have to take it'.
"And we'll have to gradually replace what we've lost."
The wildlife rescue organisation WIRES was today to take custody of the possum.
AAP
Sydney Morning Herald
November 2, 2007 - 12:50PM
At first, mindless vandals were suspected after valuable historical artefacts were destroyed in a rampage through a NSW museum.
Today the culprit was behind bars.
It was a possum.
Members of the Moruya and District Historical Society, at Moruya on the NSW south coast, had initially blamed a "human hand" for the late night rampage, which caused thousands of dollars in damage.
The 280-member society established the museum more than 30 years ago, acquiring artefacts dating back to the 1830s to record the history of the area, and housing them in a building that itself is well over 100 years old.
But on Wednesday morning society president Michael Gold and treasurer Andy McKenzie opened up the museum to find at least 20 items of glassware smashed and 10 framed pictures resting on glass display cases knocked over.
"I got down there and it was pretty devastating to find what we found," Mr Gold told AAP.
"But as we gradually investigated we realised that it was so haphazard that it wasn't a human hand - it couldn't have been."
When they entered a room containing an 1850s dining room setting, the evidence was unmistakable.
"All of the stuff had been knocked off the table but we found four distinct paw prints on the white table cloth," Mr Gold said.
"So we looked at each other and made the gradual discovery that we weren't dealing with vandals - we were dealing with a furry vandal."
Once they realised the possum was still in the building, a trap was set and the possum was caught this morning.
Neighbours say they heard damage on Monday night, and as the museum did not open again until Wednesday, it appears the marsupial had free rein of the premises for two days.
Mr Gold said he and Mr McKenzie were initially distraught over the estimated $3,000 worth of damage to items that may never be able to be replaced.
"We were absolutely devastated at first," he said.
"But as it dawned on us what had happened, we had to sort of smile at each other and say 'well, you know, it's an act of God really and we'll just have to take it'.
"And we'll have to gradually replace what we've lost."
The wildlife rescue organisation WIRES was today to take custody of the possum.
AAP
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Le hérisson d'Hervé
Il n'a pas vécu, le hérisson que Hervé a trouvé dans son jardin. Il croit qu'il a été empoisonné par des granulés anti-limaces. Bien qu'ils soient de plus en plus difficiles à acheter, néanmoins des jardiniers égoistes les utilisent toujours. Bravo pour les jardins sans limaces! Bravo pour les prédateurs des limaces condamnés à une mort horrible. Herve a dit que ce petit animal a pleuré de douleur.
Les VR feront un autre café hérisson bientôt. Peut-être nous pouvons l'encadrer dans la peña du mois de janvier ou février?
Les VR feront un autre café hérisson bientôt. Peut-être nous pouvons l'encadrer dans la peña du mois de janvier ou février?
Massacre japonais
Article paru dans The Sydney Morning Herald
Celebrities threatened at whale slaughter
Making a splash … protesters swim out to confront fishermen who slaughter whales and dolphins in Taiji.
Making a splash … protesters swim out to confront fishermen who slaughter whales and dolphins in Taiji.
Photo: Reuters
Latest related coverage
Andrew Darby
November 1, 2007
A GROUP of surfers, including the Australian actress Isabel Lucas, has resisted fishermen to protest against the slaughter of a herd of pilot whales at the Japanese town of Taiji.
Lucas, formerly of Home and Away, and Hayden Panettiere, a star of the American TV series Heroes, were in a group of six who paddled out past bloodstained waters in a cove at Taiji to join the surviving whales, swimming inside a nearby net.
Images of the protest show them joining a surfers' memorial circle before being approached by fishermen in a powerboat.
The protest organiser, Dave Rastovich, a professional surfer, said the fishermen harassed the surfers, using a long wooden pole to attack and intimidate them before they returned to shore.
"I couldn't believe how red the water was," Panettiere said in a media statement issued through the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. "The whales were so scared. Hopefully their deaths won't be in vain."
Some fishermen in the town kill dolphins and pilot whales in hunts that use fishing boats and metal noise-makers to herd the animals into netted coves and bays where they are held captive before being killed.
Celebrities threatened at whale slaughter
Making a splash … protesters swim out to confront fishermen who slaughter whales and dolphins in Taiji.
Making a splash … protesters swim out to confront fishermen who slaughter whales and dolphins in Taiji.
Photo: Reuters
Latest related coverage
Andrew Darby
November 1, 2007
A GROUP of surfers, including the Australian actress Isabel Lucas, has resisted fishermen to protest against the slaughter of a herd of pilot whales at the Japanese town of Taiji.
Lucas, formerly of Home and Away, and Hayden Panettiere, a star of the American TV series Heroes, were in a group of six who paddled out past bloodstained waters in a cove at Taiji to join the surviving whales, swimming inside a nearby net.
Images of the protest show them joining a surfers' memorial circle before being approached by fishermen in a powerboat.
The protest organiser, Dave Rastovich, a professional surfer, said the fishermen harassed the surfers, using a long wooden pole to attack and intimidate them before they returned to shore.
"I couldn't believe how red the water was," Panettiere said in a media statement issued through the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. "The whales were so scared. Hopefully their deaths won't be in vain."
Some fishermen in the town kill dolphins and pilot whales in hunts that use fishing boats and metal noise-makers to herd the animals into netted coves and bays where they are held captive before being killed.
