Latest news with #FourPaws
Daily Mirror
5 days ago
- Climate
- Daily Mirror
Met Office tells Brits to do 5-second test before heading outside this weekend
A third official heatwave is on the horizon and with the country being a nation of dog owners, Brits have been urged to carry out a quick test before going on walkies Summer is in full swing, and with another heatwave officially here dog owners are being warned of pavement temperatures soaring across the nation. Before heading off for their daily walk, dog owners are being told to test the ground's temperature by doing a five-second tarmac test. The Met Office said: 'If it feels too hot for you, it's too hot for your dog's paws.' According to Four Paws, pavement temperatures can be even hotter than the surrounding environment. Taking a four-legged friend out in midday temperatures can therefore cause their pads to burn. Darker surfaces, such as the slate grey colour of tarmac, can also be hotter than lighter stones often seen in town centres and high streets. If conducting such a test makes anyone pull their hand away instantly, this is a key sign the ground is not a suitable temperature for the pup, and in such an instance, the daily walk should be abandoned. That's at least until the late evening, when thermometers may have cooled and the ground is a more tolerable heat. The summer's UV rays can pose some serious health risks to an array of dogs. Chances of them getting sick from the high temperatures increases, especially for older pets, flat-faced breeds or those with existing illnesses such as heart or lung diseases, the Met Office has warned. READ MORE: UK weather: Your rights when working from home or in the office during heatwave But the humidity can also get to dogs when they are at home, so they must have access to fresh water at all times, as well as proper ventilation and space with shade to avoid the sun. When will the UK be at its hottest? Met Office chief meteorologist, Jason Kelly, said: 'High pressure from the Atlantic will lead to a build in temperatures over the coming days, with heatwave criteria reached by the weekend. "Whilst temperatures are expected to build day on day, becoming widely hot, they are unlikely to surpass those recorded at the start of the month. This heatwave is expected to be longer lived and extend further north and west into a larger part of the UK than previously seen this summer. "Temperatures are expected to peak over the weekend and ease early next week. They are expected to reach 30C in some areas today and exceed 30C more widely tomorrow (Friday), with peak temperatures on Saturday of 33C possible in parts of England and Wales.'
CTV News
07-07-2025
- CTV News
Lion owners arrested after an attack on woman and her 2 children in Pakistan
A 4-year-old lion named Simba, who was rescued from Syria by the animal rights group Four Paws, is released into an enclosure at the Lionsrock Lodge and Big Cat Sanctuary in Bethlehem, South Africa, Monday, Feb. 26, 2018. (AP Photo/Themba Hadebe) LAHORE — The owners of a pet lion that escaped from a farmhouse and injured a woman and her two children have been arrested in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore, authorities said Sunday. The arrest comes after dramatic video footage surfaced showing the lion leaping over a wall before attacking the victims in a residential area. The woman and her 5- and 7-year-old children sustained injuries to their faces and arms on Wednesday night when the lion escaped from its cage, police official Faisal Kamran said. According to a police report, the children's father told police that the lion's owners stood by and watched as the animal clawed at his family, making no effort to restrain it. The lion later returned to the owners' farmhouse and was relocated to a wildlife park, police said. Keeping exotic animals such as lions is considered a status symbol among some wealthy Pakistanis, despite the legal requirements and high fees associated with ownership. The Associated Press
Daily Maverick
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Predator breeding in South Africa — time for a reality check
A recent statement by Environment Minister Dion George in response to a Daily Maverick article by Adam Cruise signals a welcome move towards public engagement, but it neither resolves the core governance concerns that underpin the debate nor proposes adequate measures that would see beyond a narrow interpretation of export regulations. In its response to the minister's statement, animal welfare organisation Four Paws outlines several gaps between policy and implementation. After all, it was a Four Paws' report from late 2024 that drew renewed attention to this abominable trade in captive-bred lions and tigers. The absence of CITES-registered facilities for commercial tiger breeding in South Africa appears inconsistent with ongoing exports of live animals and parts. At issue is not only what the permits record, but whether the permitting process includes any verification of the animals' origins, destinations and intended uses. Tigers are not listed under South Africa's Biodiversity Act because they are a non-native species. This results in a regulatory vacuum in which tigers fall between the cracks of national and provincial frameworks. The lack of uniform and enforceable national regulation means welfare standards vary significantly; in some cases, they're virtually non-existent. This regulatory gap enables the continued breeding of tigers in substandard conditions. The minister's statement also paid no heed to a 2024 CITES directive: 'Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale shall implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers; tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives.' In answer to a parliamentary question on 29 November 2024, the minister explicitly stated that South Africa would not prepare a report for CITES on how it was ensuring that the country's breeding of tigers would not imperil wild tiger survival, 'as facilities that keep tigers in South Africa do not export tigers for commercial purposes'. The minister states that South Africa adheres to CITES requirements and exports tigers solely for non-commercial purposes to zoos and wildlife parks abroad. But this assertion is based on an unquestioning reliance on details provided by exporters on their permits. The minister writes: 'Tigers are protected under CITES, and we follow its rules.' But this is evasive; where CITES rules are not fit for purpose, nor properly enforced, they cannot serve as a benchmark for governance practices. It is implausible, given the sheer demand for illicit tiger bone products in East Asian markets, that South Africa's breeders are only exporting 'live animals to zoos and wildlife parks abroad'. The minister's assertion that the exports are for 'non-commercial purposes' to zoos and wildlife parks and that they are 'strictly monitored' – despite the lack of even cursory checks on destinations – lacks resemblance to reality; there is no evidence of any strict monitoring. As Don Pinnock explains: 'By the transposition of one letter for another in the permit code of CITES – Z for zoo instead of T for Commercial – critically endangered wild animals become tradeable for huge sums of money. It's a loophole so big that the very intention of CITES is being systematically undermined.' It remains implausible for the minister to state that no facilities are breeding tigers for commercial purposes. Repeating it does not make it true, especially when nobody is checking whether the Z code is legitimate, and whether those purported zoos are not using the animals for commercial purposes. While CITES permits may be procedurally correct, the absence of field-level or even desktop inspections, let alone independent validation, facilitates abuse of export destination criteria. In May 2024, 40 tigers were exported to a single destination in India. The scale of this export is surely indicative of commercial purpose? However, the minister did not address this issue in his reply to Cruise's article nor did he provide an answer to a parliamentary question of 29 November 2024 regarding this export. On 4 April 2025, a parliamentary question asked the minister whether there was any evidence that tigers exported from South Africa were not being used for commercial purposes. This distinction is important because – as indicated above – CITES does not require exporting countries to verify the final destination or end use if the export is labelled 'non-commercial'. The response did not provide evidence. Instead, it stated only that no commercial tiger breeding facilities in South Africa are registered with CITES. In the eyes of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), if they are not registered, then the breeding cannot be commercial. But the absence of registration does not confirm non-commerciality. This leaves an important regulatory gap: the state holds no evidence that the exports are non-commercial, and likewise no evidence that they are not. This omission underscores a critical governance challenge – the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. The 2024 report by Four Paws mentioned above documents extensive tiger and lion part exports, often with unclear or unverifiable purposes. This is despite a 2020 high-level government panel recommending that the predator breeding industry be phased out, and a 2024 ministerial task team reinforcing those recommendations. The latter report noted that South Africa's large captive lion population – estimated at 8,000 – presents ongoing regulatory challenges and may conflict with international conservation trends. There are also at least 626 known tigers currently kept in captivity in South Africa across 72 facilities. South Africa is the single-largest global exporter of big cats and their parts, according to the CITES trade database. While this may technically comply with CITES provisions for Appendix II species (captive-bred animals), inconsistencies between export and import data suggest that closer scrutiny is needed. As of the time of writing, commercial-scale big cat farming was still permitted in South Africa. The country now also has the largest number of tiger breeding facilities outside Asia. Not one is CITES-registered, but – as I've argued above – they should be. That they aren't raises questions about the destination and use of exported specimens. There are three major areas of concern. The first is a lack of regulatory oversight. Under Nemba, permits are required for activities involving threatened or alien species such as tigers. However, enforcement varies across provinces. According to the Four Paws report: Only two provinces conduct regular inspections; Limpopo has no provincial regulations governing tiger breeding; and North West did not respond to a PAIA request, despite housing numerous facilities. Without consistent provincial-level enforcement it becomes difficult to ensure that permits reflect on-the-ground compliance. Second, there are radical international conservation implications for not addressing the murky tiger trade properly. Since 2004, South Africa has issued permits for the export of 3,545 live big cats and 34,246 parts, including 517 live tigers. Yet the country has no CITES-registered commercial breeding facilities for tigers. CITES itself – as indicated above – has issued a directive that explicitly calls for countries (like South Africa) with 'commercial-scale' breeding operations to put an end to those. Even if the minister argues that there isn't explicit evidence of commercial operations, the scale certainly appears commercial. The minister's response appears to be missing the point by sticking to the 'letter of the law' without any direct evidence that the operations are not commercial. Self-reporting by those who stand to benefit is not evidence; it's wishful thinking. Third, policy implementation remains weak and the political will to shut down the industry really needs to be stronger. On 15 November 2024, the government gazetted a voluntary exit programme, calling on lion bone stockpile holders to participate. While signalling intent, this initiative currently does not extend to tigers or address the scale of breeding activity. It seems obvious that the DFFE machinery continues to obfuscate the truth, regardless of which minister is in charge. In a world where we have overstepped six of our nine planetary boundaries, and are witnessing the sixth extinction before our very eyes, it is deeply concerning that the South African government can turn a blind eye to commercial-scale tiger breeding by simply insisting – without evidence – that the breeding is for non-commercial purposes. This violates the directive of the very same CITES that our government purports to comply with. DM
Yahoo
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fur imported and sold in UK should be banned
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned, an MP has said. While fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and sold. Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to Parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur products. The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) accused Jones of being the "wardrobe police", adding the ban would be "unenforceable and unworkable" and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US. How my challenge to stop buying new clothes has gone Designer brings Welsh myths to London Fashion Week Miners' strike designs help Welsh fashion find voice Jones said: "Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane. "If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense." The MP added: "Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry. "Faux fur could do the job just as well." Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presented a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners. "There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms," she said. "Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely." The British Fashion Council attended one of the campaign group's events in Parliament to support the proposed bill, she said. Ms Badiani-Hamment said she had noticed the fashion industry changing, adding there were "very few designers left in the country handling fur". "It's just not desirable." But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, said demand for vintage fur was growing. "We have queues going out the door in the winter," she said. "Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur. "I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity." Furriers in the UK sell a variety of fur that has been imported from other countries. The import or export of cat and dog fur, and products containing their fur, is banned. There is also a ban on selling cat and dog fur in the UK market. The new bill calls for a ban on all new fur being imported or sold in the UK and would not apply to vintage items. Ms Kaplan said all the coats and jackets in their store were from the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. The shop has a rigorous process when acquiring fur products to ensure that what they are selling is vintage, not new fur, she added. Ms Kaplan also said vintage fur was sustainable, adding: "If it were to be discarded, it would go back into the earth, everything - all the fibres and the fur is natural. "I don't support the making of new furs, I don't support the farming and I don't support the sale of it, but I can get behind a piece that was already made with the intention of being worn so it can carry on being worn." In a statement, the BFTA warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs. "Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws," it said. "Fur is popular as evidenced by the number of young people choosing to wear it who are rejecting oil-based fast fashions often made in sweatshop conditions. "MPs like Ruth Jones should respect that others are happy to wear high-welfare fur, rather than acting like the wardrobe police." The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in Parliament on 4 July. Meanwhile, the UK government said it was building a "clear evidence base to inform future action", with an updated animal welfare strategy due to be published later this year. French fashion giant to ban use of fur Queen Camilla will buy no more real-fur items Soaring cost of King's Guards' real fur bearskin caps revealed
BBC News
15-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned says Welsh MP
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned, an MP has fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and Jones, Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to Parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) accused Jones of being the "wardrobe police", adding the ban would be "unenforceable and unworkable" and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US. Jones said: "Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane."If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense."The MP added: "Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry."Faux fur could do the job just as well."Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presented a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners. "There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms," she said. "Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely."The British Fashion Council attended one of the campaign group's events in Parliament to support the proposed bill, she said. Ms Badiani-Hamment said she had noticed the fashion industry changing, adding there were "very few designers left in the country handling fur". "It's just not desirable."But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, said demand for vintage fur was growing."We have queues going out the door in the winter," she said. "Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur. "I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity."Furriers in the UK sell a variety of fur that has been imported from other countries. The import or export of cat and dog fur, and products containing their fur, is banned. There is also a ban on selling cat and dog fur in the UK new bill calls for a ban on all new fur being imported or sold in the UK and would not apply to vintage Kaplan said all the coats and jackets in their store were from the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. The shop has a rigorous process when acquiring fur products to ensure that what they are selling is vintage, not new fur, she added. Ms Kaplan also said vintage fur was sustainable, adding: "If it were to be discarded, it would go back into the earth, everything - all the fibres and the fur is natural."I don't support the making of new furs, I don't support the farming and I don't support the sale of it, but I can get behind a piece that was already made with the intention of being worn so it can carry on being worn."In a statement, the BFTA warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs."Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws," it said."Fur is popular as evidenced by the number of young people choosing to wear it who are rejecting oil-based fast fashions often made in sweatshop conditions."MPs like Ruth Jones should respect that others are happy to wear high-welfare fur, rather than acting like the wardrobe police."The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in Parliament on 4 July. Meanwhile, the UK government said it was building a "clear evidence base to inform future action", with an updated animal welfare strategy due to be published later this year.
