PAICE OUT OF PACE WITH THE PUBLIC.

Mr Paice: “Shooting animals at night is a commonplace countryside activity – I’ve been doing foxes for years”. The difference is that the 70 per cent “success” rate required would have to be proved, and as the interviewer rightly comments, there is doubt as to whether this method could achieve that figure.

I say, what the hell have foxes done to you Paice? After all, they don't bother your lambs and they only kill chickens when they're kept in shoddy housing. Basically Paice you do it for fun, don't you, for entertainment, you do it because you like snuffing out their lights.
You hunt them and you shoot them, you despicable man, for no other reason than for sick sport. Ordinarily I would keep my more graphic thoughts to myself but in your case I will make an exception, so do the foxes a favour and trip over your gun....
Judi

A superb speech from Brian May.

"CASJ (Centre for Animals and Social Justice)
Seminar: Wildlife Conservation, Animal Welfare and Public Policy
Thursday 19th April 2012, Stamford Hall, University of Leicester.

Thank you, Dr Alasdair Cochrane. And thank you Dr Dan Lyons, my esteemed friend, for inviting me to speak.

I’m honoured to have been asked to open this very important seminar. It’s interesting for me that we are in Leicester. This is the home of our illustrious Queen bass-player John Deacon – pause for applause - , but also the place where I got into trouble in the very beginnings of the Save-Me Campaign. I crossed swords with a local councillor who had been advocating fox-hunting. He insulted me in the Press, accusing me of ignorance because I used a guitar instead of a ploughshare, judged me unworthy to comment on country matters. And, in one of the very few spontaneous moments of trading insults in my life, I called him a Sniveling Little Dweeb, on my website. This one comment got the Save Me campaign more publicity than anything in that whole period … and perhaps helped in a small way towards stopping David Cameron being voted directly into power – and preventing him from being immediately able to fulfil his promise of reintroducing blood sports. I couldn’t remember the name of the Leicester councilor on the way up here, but I was able to just Google ‘Sniveling little Dweeb’ and up he came ! I’d just like to say – my apologies if I was a little too blunt, and thank you for advancing the cause of animal welfare!

Presumably he is still having fun chasing and tearing apart real or imaginary foxes with hungry dogs – who knows. But for now I’d like to bury the hatchet.

Looking around, I can sense that every one of us here is part of this initiative because we woke up at some point in our life … to the realization that there is something terribly wrong with our country, with our world. And it is to do with our perceptions of why we are here, and what the significance of LIFE really is. It’s to do with what place we see ourselves occupying as animals, in a world with so many different kinds of other animals. It’s to do with something we can call Anthropocentrism. Let me explain.

I’m a musician, but I’m also an astronomer. My doctorate is not in biology but in astrophysics. This gives me an unusual perspective. In Ancient Greece, a thinker called Ptolemy came up with a theory of how the Universe is constructed. In his system, the Earth was the Centre of the Universe. Around it circled the other heavenly bodies … the Moon, the Sun and all the planets (though he had to come up with a very fancy system of ‘epicycles’ to explain their erratic movements in our skies ) and of course … all the stars too. This meant that Man was at the centre of the Universe too – a comforting thought, perhaps, and something that religions, including Christianity, found very appealing. But once lenses were invented, enabling us to look more closely at the night sky, it became evident that the Ptolemaic system was completely wrong; and of course it was Galileo, observing the four large moons of Jupiter in his tiny telescope, who had the brilliant insight that they were in orbits around Jupiter. He realized that this blew apart Ptolemy’s whole scheme. And he perceived that it was much easier to explain the movements of the planets if one assumed that they circled the Sun rather than the Earth.

So – suddenly – the sobering secret was out … the Earth was NOT the centre of the Solar System. As Astronomy has developed over the last 200 years, we have discovered the rather shocking truth that not only is the Earth nothing more than a mere satellite of the Sun - but the Sun also is not the centre of our galaxy – it lives in a thinly populated suburb … thousands of light years from the centre of our Milky Way Galaxy. And it gets worse. Our Galaxy is NOT the centre of creation either … but just one of billions of galaxies of all shapes and sizes scattered throughout the known Universe.

In short … the Earth has been relegated to a microscopic corner, and really nobody now thinks it is central in any way.

But somehow, in spite of the findingd of a man called Darwin, our perception of ourselves – of MAN in all this, has not caught up. For some reason, in spite of the lack of any kind of evidence, the notion is still abroad that MAN is the central species, the most important species – the ONLY species that matters. The Human animal developed the power of speech, and this led to his ability to dominate the planet. He has used this ability to increase his numbers in an alarming way, to a point where Humans now consume vastly more than their fair share of the Earth’s bounties. Man, in his ignorance, has managed to push all the other mammals – his closest relatives, on the land, to the point of either extinction or total subjugation; he has all but destroyed the habitat of the birds, the fishes in the sea, and the reptiles who used to populate the borders between land and water. Only the insect world continues to rival Man’s domination.

What gives us the right to abuse and destroy the creatures with whom we were put on this Earth ? People still come up with words like ‘Man – the pinnacle of evolution’ – as if we were in some way special because of our very survival. But, after millions of years of evolution, logically all the species on this planet are the pinnacle of evolution – perfectly adapted to a world in which they have earned the right to live and procreate.

We – attending this seminar - are all here because we have seen the light. We realize that all creatures are special. Not just all species, but every individual of every species. It’s not enough to talk ecology, and conservation of populations – we need to look at the welfare of every creature to decide which of our actions are morally acceptable.

I, like all who speak today, have to be conscious that we are, within these walls, speaking to the converted … . What we are doing is not debating whether it is RIGHT to change the way we treat animals, but how … in the world outside, we can be heard, and understood by the non-converted, and how we can make the changes which MUST be made if our grandchildren will even have the chance to continue the debate … because soon there may BE no wild animals out there to talk about.

In 2012, animals everywhere are in chains. Our fight for their right to a decent life and a decent death, is very analogous the fight which William Wilberforce engaged in, two hundred years ago to make human slavery a thing of the past. He was reviled, laughed at, for his beliefs – told that the world just could not work without slavery … just as we are told today that the world cannot turn without animal farming, without animal experimentation, and without ‘controlling’ (for which read ‘killing’) wild animals. It’s not very well known that Wilberforce was a passionate campaigner for the decent treatment of animals too … an amazing man.

In my own campaign for the welfare of British wild animals, I have been greatly inspired by Virginia McKenna, who, through her Born Free campaign, has managed to educate – to convince the majority of the English speaking world that it is no longer cool to go out and shoot wild animals in Africa. In Save-Me we have the job of extending this enlightened view to BRITISH wild animals – to wake up a nation of supposed animal-lovers to the realization that we, too, are privileged to have magnificent wild creatures around us, who must remain free, and must be recognized as having legitimate needs in order to raise their families, free from persecution. We hold it self-evident that all creatures are worthy of respect. So we fight against the awful cruelty of Badger Baiting and Dog fighting, against Mr Cameron’s determination to bring back the hideous blood sports of fox-hunting, hare coursing, and hunting stags with dogs, and we work to try to stop the morally unjustifiable slaughter of thousands of mainly heallthy badgers by a government, which it’s increasingly obvious is under the virtual control of Farming interests.

Today we will hear from eminent speakers on 3 aspects of Animal Welfare. These are the main aims of this conference.

1) to look at how humans affect animals – either indirectly through the way we affect climate change and bring about loss of habitat, or directly through neglect or abuse.
2) to consider the ethics of this impact on animals.
3) to try to understand why severe harms are inflicted on animals when there seems to be no reasonable justification, and what solutions there might be to end such injustice.

Science is increasingly providing the hard evidence, if it were needed, of sentience, emotion and cognition in animals – confirming the fairly obvious truth that animals feel pleasure and pain very much as we do. And science has helped quantify the devastating harms we have caused to animals. But science is not without its blind spots too, since so much pain has been inflicted on innocent animals in the name of science.

Ethics has progressed to the point where, at least, it is almost universally accepted that - in principle - the infliction of pain on other sentient animals is a serious moral issue. This seminar is an essential reminder that ‘Nature’ or ‘Planet Earth’ isn’t simply a set of systems that function solely for the benefit of our species.

Yet, humanity’s impact stretches to every corner of the world. Even the most remote areas of wilderness - and their animal inhabitants - are now affected by our pollution, despite our species being a relative latecomer to the animal kingdom. The Arctic now stands on the precipice of incalculable damage as nations and oil companies compete to carve it up to exploit its minerals, for profit.

Last year I contributed a talk to STARMUS, an astronomy conference that was celebrating humanity’s efforts to explore space. To a lecture theatre packed with astronauts, I had the temerity to ask … What are we doing in Space ? Are we worthy to take our seed into the wider Universe ? Are we justified in trying to extend our behaviour – our wars, our pollution, our cruelty to each other, and our wanton destruction of every other species, out into other worlds ? Do we deserve to go off and populate other planets when we have effectively trashed this one? And, supposing we found the other life-forms we seek, out there, how would we treat them ? – and how would they treat us if they had the power to do as they wish; would we not be outraged if they treated us in the way we have treated the whales, the orangutans, the badgers, the wolves, the fish, etc. ?

I was very nervous, as you can imagine, delivering this message amongst all the enthusiasm for space travel in that conference room. But I was well received by the astronauts, and I will be eternally proud that Neil Armstrong himself cited me in his closing address. Armstong, who forever will be the first man to step on another world – the Moon - cares, passionately. He is one of us.

But it is the third aim which provides the main focus for both this seminar and the work of the new Centre for Animals and Social Justice. This involves trying to understand why it is that humans are cruel. It’s about power and inequality – for example, how does commercial self-interest manage to have more influence on law and public policy than ethical principles and public opinion? What is the role of privilege in perpetuating legalised antisocial behaviour ? Why is tradition regarded as a justification for cruelty ? What psychological need is fulfilled by causing pain to a defenceless animal ?

If we are to make headway in bringing about a compassionate, decent society, it is vital to engage with these questions of power and politics - and psychology.

The participants in today’s seminar represent some of the pioneers of the politics of animal protection. There can be few areas of academic endeavour that are more important to our future, and whose impact on the world is more needed.

We need to look at the way national and international bodies, their membership, remit and powers currently function. Governments, hopefully, work towards goals such as equality, the eradication of poverty, and the protection of the environment. But if there are no targets to improve animal protection, and animal welfare isn’t directly incorporated as a factor in assessing various policy options, we can safely assume there is a lack of official value placed on the welfare and lives of other animals. I believe this is an immediate inditement of our present government … which, bafflingly, claims to be the Greenest government ever, yet resists all attempts to implement safeguards against cruelty to animals, whether it be the location of cameras in abbatoirs, the protection of foxes and badgers against persecution, or even the simple ban of the use of wild animals in circuses. This reluctance also indicates a lack of understanding of a fact of which the FBI is very cognisant – that animal abuse is directly linked to abuse of children, plus various other antisocial behaviours. In fact it has been shown that levels of abuse to animals are a perfect barometer – an indicator of how far levels of civilisation have slipped in any community. A policy of zero tolerance to animal cruelty is a necessary starting point in the quest for law and order, and civilisation. Ghandi said : You can measure the humanity of a society by the way they treat their animals” . Looking around us, it seems to be true. All the ‘good people’ in the world seem to be the ones who care about animals.

It was recently revealed that a donation of a quarter of a million pounds to the Conservative party will buy you lunch with the PM. It’s hardly necessary to point out the massive divide between ethical principles and an often cynical political system – a system dominated by career-conscious professional politicians, with no experience of the normal life of the man in the street, and little regard for honesty, compassion, or ethics.
How can we expect a house of commons filled with such ambitious people to deliver a decent society ?

Change is what we need. A wind of change. We need a massive change, and such things are hard to bring about. But not impossible.

None of us believe that we will achieve all the changes we need just as a result of this conference. But we can sow seeds. We can be part of accelerating a new awareness, which in time, will do for animals what Wilberforce did for human slaves. We, assembled here, are all about freeing the rest of creation from slavery.

Forgive me if you’ve heard this story, it may be very simple, but it still moves me and motivates me when I get despondent.

THE STARFISH STORY

There’s a little girl on the beach, surrounded by hundreds of starfish that have been washed up from the sea, rapidly drying out in the hot sun, and dying. A man come up to her and smiles condescendingly, and says “This is very touching, little girl, but I’m afraid you’re wasting your time. There are hundreds of these creatures - surely you can’t imagine that you can save them all ? The little carefully picks up a starfish, and throws it back into the water. She says, “I saved that one!”

Thank you."

no jumping for joy for these little lambs - they just look miserable!!!

COULD A FOX REALLY EAT A HUMAN BABY?

Argus 19.3.12 Could a fox really eat a human baby? - AS A pest control officer, I am always drawn to letters and stories in The Argus regarding urban foxes (March 6). A recent story referred to a “giant fox” in East Grinstead weighing 35lb.... I often remove what I consider to be very large foxes from domestic gardens in the Eastbourne area… There was an article in a regular pest control journal recently which described an experiment carried out by a south London pest controller. He placed a dead piglet in a pushchair wearing baby clothes and played the sound of a crying baby. He filmed the results – the video can be viewed on the internet… The video emphasises their willingness to exploit any food source. The sound of a crying baby signals weak or injured prey. My own view is that we will see more attacks on children in the coming years. Tom Keightley, Pest Company.

Note he left out his town and address.

What a load of utter crap from this rotter. He'd be the first to complain if he was done out of business because people believed his bile and started a fox killing frenzy. For goodness sake, foxes do not, I REPEAT, DO NOT OVERBREED!!! NOR DO THEY KILL AND EAT CHILDREN!! THEY NEVER HAVE, AND THEY NEVER WILL!! If they did, then maybe this prat would have been devoured as a baby and spared us his ridiculous comments. It makes me so angry!!
Judi

LETTER re shortage of foxes and the COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE
Byline: PHYLLIS CAMPBELL-MCRAE

Dear Editor, - Leaked Countryside Alliance The Countryside Alliance (CA) is a British organisation promoting issues relating to the countryside such as food, farming and country sports (hunting, shooting and angling).  documents complaining about a 'shortage of foxes' have blown apart the myth at the heart of the hunters' argument - that the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled.

The memo from Simon Hart, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, refers to a letter sent in March this year by Lord Daresbury, chairman of the Master of Fox Hounds Association, criticising landowners for not doing enough to encourage foxes to breed on their land.

The memo confirms the reality that the hunts - which account for only a tiny minority of the foxes killed in this country - have cynically fabricated the pest control pest control n → control m de plagas

pest control n → lutte f contre les nuisibles

pest control pest n  argument as just another means of justifying their cruel and unnecessary 'sport'. This latest revelation comes as no surprise to IFAW IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare (animal protection group) , whose hunt monitors have frequently uncovered hunts around the country using artificial earths and food trails to encourage foxes onto their land.

The pro-hunt lobby has lost both the argument and the campaign within the democratic process. It is now time for the ban - and time the hunters gave up this cruel sport and found themselves a more humane pastime.

PHYLLIS CAMPBELL-MCRAE Director, IFAW UK

COPYRIGHT 2004 Birmingham Post & Mail Ltd
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated:

Despite a legal threat against him, John Bryant has allowed Digging Out to expose Jim/James Barrington for what he is, see:

http://www.diggingout.org/blog/campaign/james-barrington-animal-welfare-consultant

Please show you support for John and post a positive comment. And ask like-minded friends to do likewise.

Thank you,

Sam
On behalf of the Campaign For the Abolition of Terrier Work
www.diggingout.org

A BRILLIANT LETTER BELOW - NOT TO BE MISSED!!

LETTER FOR PUBLICATION From Alan Kirby M.Sc
Sir,
A menacing gang scours its territory, looking for vulnerable targets to attack. It is heedless of, even rejoices in, the terror of its victims-to-be, careless of the rights and feelings of those whose property it invades and whose lives it disturbs. Its members feel untouchable. They think the law should and almost certainly will not impede their selfish and brutal urges, for experience has taught them they nearly always escape justice. Their numbers and their arrogant and threatening demeanour deter challenge from most normal, decent citizens, for they are likely to abuse and assault any who stand in their way. Even the police are wary of them and hold back. Mob members communicate to ensure their forces attack the chosen target in strength. It is ripped open, left in ruins and trophies are carried grinningly away, amid gleeful cries of triumph and the initiation of their youngsters. They offer the most spurious and mendacious explanations for their gratuitous, heartless and antisocial viciousness. Some in the media swallow these self-serving lies unquestioningly and parrot their defences of the indefensible. 
For myself and fellow monitors, this has, for many years, been our experience of those 'gangs' of bloodsports fanatics called Hunts.
Our Prime Minister has been a member of such a gang and remains a sterling backer of his local 'homies', the Heythrop Foxhounds, a mob [his friend Rebekah Brooks is also a follower] with a proud record of violence and intimidation against monitors almost second to none. He has long promised to repeal the inconvenient Hunting Act for the 'Heythrop Massive' and the rest of his hunting 'bloods' - even though it is so full of loopholes and so rarely enforced that many of them ignore it in spirit and letter with an impunity to which he turns a blind eye.
He, of course, has also delighted in shooting helpless birds and deer for 'sport' and would doubtless love to be able to join his fellow hyper-privileged hooligans in paying thousands to be allowed to blast grouse to bits on the 'Glorious Twelfth', as Tory PMs always used to.
There is indeed a 'sickness' in parts of our society, Mr. Cameron - but it is far from restricted to our sink estates.
I find it very hard to accept hectoring lectures on civilised behaviour, respect for others and the protection of the vulnerable from a creature that endorses and indulges in persecution and slaughter of defenceless animals for fun, connives at the law-breaking of his like-minded friends and seeks to overturn legislation to allow them to more easily terrorise and kill.
Though special and persuasive to me, this is just one of many reasons to doubt David Cameron's capability, suitability, and moral fitness to lead, unite and heal our fracturing nation. He is bereft of any real experience or understanding of how much of society has to live, or genuine empathy with ordinary people. It is a task to which he has already proved spectacularly unsuited so that many sectors have become antagonised or alienated. The morale and stability of our society is being seriously undermined, and eruptions of nihilistic or despairing anarchic lawlessness seem likely to become commonplace.
The Conservative Party should replace him urgently with somebody who doesn't just spout either phoney moral indignation or feelgood soundbites but actually possesses a personal moral compass, doesn't just pretend to respect modern sensibilities and is not merely, at heart, a self-important, if glib, overgrown public-school bully.
yours faithfully,             Alan Kirby, M.Sc

Sir/Madam,
Our forthcoming campaign to defend our wildlife is more important than ever as Speilman sentences thousands of badgers to death by allowing farmers to take matters into their own hands. I've no doubt her poor rhetoric might convince a few people in the UK that free shooting these animals is the right thing to do, but it will open up a can of worms the like of which no government as ever witnessed before, with regard to animals.
Animal rights and welfare campaigners along with many ordinary animal lovers will bring this rotten government, already on its knees, down. You cannot hide behind lies or deception forever. You would have thought they had learn't this lesson by now after the hacking scandal ? But lies seem to come easy to politicians. The so called science that Spielman talks about is not science at all, but is led by ignorant farmers who seek to make badgers a scapegoat for their own bad husbandry.
But I predict this government will soon be even more unpopular (if that's possible) as they make badgers suffer for a crime for which these already persecuted animals are not even guilty. A badger has a thick hide and skull and many will simply run off and die of terrible wounds and infection after being shot.
I am so very sad today and cannot sleep because of the suffering about to be unleashed upon defenceless animals in what appears to be mediaeval England.
I now understand that in politics as in life - there are three kinds of people in this world - the good, the bad and the ugly. Unfortunately right now we are seeing the extreme ugliness of a government with no morals.
Judi Hewitt

I went on line to order what seems an excellent book BUT it costs £50.  Well worth asking your local library to get a copy for you.
Derek

Associate Fellow Publishes Trailblazing Work on Animals and Social Work
2 June 2011 (publication date 24 June 2011)
Dr Thomas Ryan, an Associate Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, is to soon have published a trailblazing work on animals and social work.

In Animals and Social Work: A Moral Introduction, Dr Ryan, a practicing social worker, argues that since the early twentieth century the discipline of social work has demonstrated a thorough going moral indifference to the needs and wellbeing of our fellow animals. His book is focused on the key question – is this indifference morally justifiable?

Dr Ryan argues that this indifference is remarkable given that animals have always been part and parcel of the human world within which social workers practice, and that their invisibility is odder still given our species embeddedness with the natural world. He contends that our biological continuity entails moral continuity.

Ryan presents cogent arguments as to why it is that animals ought to matter morally to social workers, and engages in a sustained critique of the key moral principles that are deemed to underpin practice. He articulates an alternative moral principle that respects individuals irrespective of their species membership, and which informs a revised code of ethics that has profound theoretical and practical implications for social work and its practitioners.

Animals and Social Work: A Moral Introduction is the most recent publication of the Palgrave Macmillan Series on Animal Ethics. The Series is produced in partnership with the Centre and aims to provide a range of key introductory and advanced texts that map out positions on animal issues.

More information about the book can be found here http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=411269,

and the book can be ordered from

http://www.bookdepository.com/Animals-Social-Work-Moral-Introduction-Thomas-Ryan/9780230272507, and http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animals-Social-Work-Introduction Macmillan/dp/0230272509/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307051782&sr=8-1

The author can be contacted at tomahimsa@hotmail.com, and review copies can be requested from reviews@palgrave.com.

Dear Judi,

You may know about this already but in case you don't, here are the details:

Retrospective Planning Application No. W/24449
Applicant: Mr. Dylan Jones
Address:  Beili Bedw Farm, Llanllwni, Pencader, Carmarthen SA39 9DP
Application for the use of an agricultural shed as dog breeding kennels

Council details (for objections):

Mr. Stuart Willis, Planning Services,
Carmarthen Council,
40 Spilman Street,
Carmarthen,      SA31 lLQ.

Although I've written to the above, believe objections can be sent via email.

It seems that this scummy farmer is already breeding puppies and this Application is to increase the numbers.  Stuart Willis was unable or unwilling to give me a deadline for submitting objections.  I'm also not sure if it will even go before their planning committee and may well be rubber stamped by means of Delegated Powers.

I've also written to the Licensing Department: Carmarthenshire County Council, Carmarthen, Wales, SA31 lJP.

They've already granted a license, some time in the past, and Jones clearly wants to increase breeding this poor pathetic creatures.  Dog rescues all along the border counties are awash with animals desperate for homes with many ex-farm collies & sick inbred puppies coming from Wales.  I should be grateful if you would circulate these details; objections to be sent within the next week!

Many thanks,        Wendy (Clark) in South Shropshire

Dear *****,
Thank you very much for your email  27/4 and for your assistance in the whole sorry saga of the ALLEGED "fox" attack claim, made by the Koupparis couple.

So, we now know that Nick Koupparis didn't actually IMPORT any Hybrid Cat himself during 2010 - that's  ALL  we have established.

However, the whole essence of my original email was the question:

WHY ON EARTH WOULD NICK KOUPPARIS FLY OFF TO THE USA DURING TOTAL MAYHEM ???

WHAT CONNECTION DID THE USA HAVE  WITH THE MAULING  and
 
DID THE CULPRIT OF THE MAULING HAVE A CONNECTION WITH THE USA ???

Yet in your email, there is NO mention of the US trip and its PARAMOUNT SIGNIFICANCE, only that Hackney Police didn't mention his "business trip" to the States - well that is no surprise, as it was a well kept secret !!!! Please don't tell me Mr "Cloak and Dagger" himself,  T***** W******s, denied ALL knowledge of it ?!!! Or, that the US trip is unconfirmed - so that will be  the end of that. However, I do understand that 'protocol' does not always allow you to give out  information, and I appreciate that.

At the time, many folk online were asking "Where is the father", why isn't he around ?"  Now, anyone told of his trip all say the same thing: that it SCREAMS LIES about the whole Koupparis account:

" Well, my 2 babies have been rushed to hospital, one has been put on a ventilator (by my wife causing aspiration) and could die within the next couple of hours, there is a panic button being installed in my house, plus a Police guard on my doorstep as well as the world's press, tyres being slashed in my street  - you know what ? I think I will go to the United States; after all, I have business commitments and an aging aunt to visit, y' know, and these are far more important than my 'flesh and blood'. Bye bye" !!!!!!!!!!
 
Or there may be another explanation - that maybe Nick Koupparis suffers with some sort of psychosis and is out of touch with reality; perhaps he copes with problems by running away from them ? I would have thought this kind of illness wouldn't go down to well with his job though - therefore its highly unlikely !!!!

So, (as one of the most logical explanations for his impromptu trip to the US ) Koupparis for all we know, could have taken back half a dozen Hybrids and we would be none the wiser, as there is no paperwork involved, they are just booked in as luggage with "no chance" of any paperwork or description recorded  at the US end either !!!! It appears in the UK paperwork is done with imports; yet the US who receives exports from the UK which in turn are THEIR IMPORTS,  there is NO paperwork !!!!!    Marvelous !!!    Terrific !!!!!    Fantastic !!!
 
I apologize for assuming it was the Fox Project who offered DNA tests; I  can now tell you that it was indeed Riverside Rescue who offered the Koupparis' DNA sampling and I can also quote that they "WERE DENIED ACCESS TO THE SCENE OF THE INCIDENT "  by the Koupparis' AND HACKNEY POLICE ! Oh dear. At the time, it was rife on the internet that they had refused DNA sampling. Now, we were NEVER going to see that in the press, radio or TV, were we ?!!  So your comment about the refusal of 'deterrent procedures' by the Fox Project, quote :

 "........this is very different from turning down the offer of an investigation into the facts..... DNA wasn't refused as such - only help in deterring foxes from the property......" -  can now be totally and utterly disregarded.

THE DUO REFUSED DNA SAMPLING, LOUD AND CLEAR, ***** !!!

Riverside originally asked if they could look for fur/hair at the scene - it is quite obvious that the culprit would have been in the room for quite some time, so the chances of finding hair/saliva would have been highly likely indeed.
You ask where and what DNA testing would be taken from, if the wounds had been wiped ? Well, DNA would have been everywhere; on the childs' skin, deeper inside the wounds where the wipes may not have reached initially, on the flooring, inside the cot, gnaw marks on the cot, the mattresses that the Police had removed, the kids' clothing, bedclothes; a lot of urban foxes have mange so therefore there would have been an infestation of the bedding if a "fox" with mange had been present....... shall I continue with the list ???!!!! Oh, and don't forget, as I mentioned in my original email, the doctor at the Royal London said that "considerable force" was used when inflicting the bite marks, so therefore if a 'fox cub' was involved,  milk teeth would have been lying all over the place.
 
At the time of the incident, a member of A and E staff had come online to say that whenever a child ( or adult for that matter ) came in with an animal bite, it was the routine procedure  NO MATTER WHAT, to take photos and DNA swobs to then determine whether or not a criminal investigation was necessary by Police, and I would have thought  ESPECIALLY so in the Koupparis incident, where the twins' injuries were extensive. So this clearly didn't happen here. WHY ? When the Hospital staff heard it was meant to be a "fox" that caused  the twins' injuries, surely they must have known it was an unique claim, so all the more reason for DNA sampling, surely ? What had the Koupparis' ( or Police )  said that was so convincing that the Hospital neglected normal procedure  ?

You say the Police "did quite a thorough job", in spite of the 'limitations' of the 'investigation' due to it not being 'criminal'. Well surely, as in the cases of  claims of animal bites, this could only be decided once forensics had been taken, like the A and E staff member had mentioned above ??  There were no 'experts' at the scene that's for sure. How could the Police be so sure of everything ?? Wouldn't you admit their 'quick as a flash' assessment and believing the parents so readily, was rather rash, *****? I'm not quite sure what this 'investigation' you talk of entailed. It seems all the gullible Police did was 'drop leaflets' in the area  -  (scaremongering, without evidence !!) -  and pander to the "nice" " respectable" nouveau riche couple...... Oh  dear.

Like I have already mentioned, any sane, normal couple would have jumped at the chance of DNA sampling to prove what they were saying was true; but not the Koupparis Duo. Koupparis himself said that when he first phoned the emergency services, he had to keep repeating himself, as the operator couldn't quite believe what he was hearing, a sure indicator that people were not going to believe the Koupparis version of events.  Then when the backlash against them took off almost immediately, resulting with the police guard on the door, panic buttons installed in their home and car tyres on their street being slashed, simply because people did not  believe their account, YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD JUMP FOR JOY AT THE OFFER OF DNA SAMPLING and be encouraged to do so by Hackney Police, to prove what they were saying was true, get their opponents to 'back off'  and then wear the results like a 'badge of honour'. But they REFUSED RIVERSIDE RESCUE'S VERY FEASIBLE  OFFER..... and WHY ?

                     Because they knew damn well the results would come back ...... NOT FOX !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why were the Police and Authorities so quick to believe the Koupparis' and then declare war on Wildlife, so damn fast ???
It says a lot that Hackney Police backed up their refusal of DNA sampling; of course R****, the Police had no reason to " doubt their truthfulness " like you say: " Now, we mustn't go upsetting that "nice" "middle class" (nouveau riche ) couple, must we ?? They are SO different to the usual 'scum' we deal with, so whatever they say MUST be 'GOSPEL' ................

 
Here is a FACT R****; if the Koupparis' had been a low income, manual worker, plebeians, the Police and Authorities would have taken a very different stance; a very different stance indeed, and  the Authorities would have insisted on many questions to be answered and tests to be done. ( Certainly, if a neighbour had claimed a 'dog' was present at the scene, like you say ? !!!!  This must have filtered back to the Police and other Authorities, surely ??!! ) As  Hackney Police deal predominately with the "Great Unwashed", when they come across a law abiding (well I don't know if the K's have any form !) "middle class" - whoops! nouveau riche -  family in the man-made, fashionable part of Hackney, go inside their house and see the trappings of a nouveau riche lifestyle, well, an Officer's "head can be turned", y' know !!!!

At the time, the media had this embarrassing habit of continuously writing the value of their property which was totally irrelevant; the point they were trying to make by doing this was to ensure we were all brainwashed into understanding these parents were not council flat 'riff raff', in  which case it would definitely be their fault, and a very different line of  'inquiry'  would have got underway. The general consensus at the time was that the Police had this attitude too, LOUD AND CLEAR.

I see there has never been any explanation from the Police, as to why the Koupparis couple first said that "two foxes were seen running from the house" - which they had declared in an official statement to the RSPCA.  Why not ?
 
So the first Officers on the scene said they "saw a fox numerous times in the garden".  Really ?!!!  A fox, in a garden, on a warm Summer's evening - Oh, come on !!!!!!  Then a blurry photo was taken of a fox cub outside the patio door; what was the point and purpose of this photo ? To show us what a fox looks like, or to prove they are photogenic ? I wonder what age this WPC was who took the snap  -  and then went running to her superiors shouting; " Look Sir, I've got the suspect, I've got the suspect !!" What great detective work !!  Really gives the public great faith in Law Enforcement Officers !! Er, I really don't think we can claim a fox was looking for babies from a photograph, do you ? Lol !!

What that photo CLEARLY INDICATED was that foxes will return to REGULAR FEEDING SPOTS which is EXACTLY what this young fox was merely doing, or picking up the food that the Koupparis' had possibly thrown out to encourage them to the house, no doubt. It was claimed by a neighbour, who had told someone they worked with that the Koupparis' HAD been feeding the foxes in their garden.....but unfortunately this person would not step into the limelight to say it to all. And of course, the Koupparis' would NEVER admit to it. The cub was there for barely a few seconds, I heard. How easy would it be for anyone to creep to a window at night with their camera phone and catch a glimpse of a fox, and just as they were about to click, make a noise, intentionally or non intentionally, and the fox would look up and run !! However, that little cub did have a " C'mon then !!!" look in his eye, so he must be the guilty one !!!!  I  hope the Police got back up, as rumour has it,  the cubs mates were hiding around the corner heavily  armed with chicken drumsticks, lol !!!!!! !! Someone joked at the time that  Hackney Police were like something out of a Pink Panther film, laughingly saying  "Inspector Clouseau rides again !" Many thought it all rather comical.

AND SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN,  IF THE POLICE HAD  NOT  RELEASED  THAT PHOTO WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION OR EVIDENCE, AS UP UNTIL THEN, IT HAD BEEN AN 'APPARENT' OR 'ALLEGED' FOX ATTACK AND HACKNEY POLICE, WITHOUT QUESTION, WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN KICK STARTING ONE OF THE MOST VICIOUS  MEDIA CAMPAIGNS AGAINST OUR WILDLIFE  EVER SEEN IN MODERN TIMES.   FACT.

Then an officer claimed the "fox" was "scratching at the door" - what to come back and finish eating the babies, lol !!! If a "fox" had entered the house and witnessed all that commotion, he would have run to the Borough of Camden, never mind Hackney, at that stage. For a "fox" to come "scratching at the door", the chances are the fox would have contracted  rabies !!!  And as there are no known cases in the UK, this is highly unlikely !! The Officer in question may have come from a 'Country Alliance' background ( I'm keeping an open mind ! ) therefore would dramatize the situation, or quite simply, been "in league with the devil". I'm still waiting for a hedgehog, squirrel or a pigeon to come scratching at my back door, but I shall not be holding my breath !! Lol !!!!

However, a renowned Wildlife rehabilitater, Laura Nirenberg, said in her own words; "IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO TEACH YOUNG FOX CUBS NOT TO TRUST HUMANS, BECAUSE THEY "IMPRINT" VERY QUICKLY................So, if the Koupparis' HAD been feeding the foxes as claimed, then the ONLY reason a little cub MIGHT have scratched at the door, having turned up for the very first time that night, would in all innocence be to get his food.......and for his trust, naivety and innocence, the little fella had to pay with his life. Just like the other foxes trapped in the Koupparis garden, after the incident.
 
Then there was the garbage that the "fox sat like a family pet at the top of the stairs" and wouldn't budge.That is of course after the "fox" fixed Ma Koupparis with a " steely gaze" in the kids 'bedroom' ( and wouldn't budge from there either ! ) - Yeah, right !!
WHY does the fox adopt this 'patent pending' exclusive behaviour, ONLY ever seen around the Koupparis household ?? I've spoken to many, many people who are in contact with foxes and they have NEVER experienced behaviour like this ?? Weird.  It's akin to saying a cat was rolling on his back and washing himself when two German Shepherds were going for him !!!! Also, surely the smell of cooked meat in the kitchen would be much more appetizing to a fox than gallivanting up a load of stairs looking for babies !!!!  In the real world - as opposed to the Koupparis' make believe one - a fox would have just grabbed the food and run. Their version just doesn't make any sense. There is something else the Koupparis' forgot to 'add' in when they were concocting their 'tale'; when a fox is terrified, which he clearly would have been with the fiasco going on around him, they will loosen their anal glands, and  a strong odour will be let off - but there was NEVER any mention of this odour by the Koupparis'.
AS far as I'm concerned, they really should have 'searched the net' on fox behaviour before pulling a fast one on the public, not to mention hapless Hackney Police.
Apparently the ambulance arrived on the scene very promptly, within around 4 minutes and in that very short time, Koupparis managed to take pictures of his injured babies (sick)  but not of the "fox" sitting all relaxed like a" family pet at the top of the stairs"  -  funny that....................

Here is another example of how the Duo made fools out of the Authorities. Ma Koupparis told BBC Radio that she had already complained about the "foxes" to Hackney Council, where she claimed that previously her eldest child had been bitten by a "fox". It was indeed VERY STRANGE that she would say this, and protest that the 'foxes' were a 'nuisance', but NEVER take any preventative measures to ensure they kept their distance ??? The Council said this 'complaint' about the 'bite' would have definitely been logged; yet when they delved into the archives to comment, they could not find any record of it, not one single recording anywhere. Of course Ma Koupparis was  all - a - fluster, and I presume blurted out any old nonsense at the time; well, she would  wouldn't  she ? Hubby had run off to the US and left her "all alone and vulnerable". On realizing her faux pas, the woman never mentioned it again. Once more, something else that should have set off alarm bells and, off course, was never mentioned in the media.

Well, like you say, not only did Leopard Films, the company Nick Koupparis works for, line their own pockets with  'that  documentary'   - it seems  the  'wannabe'  Koupparis' themselves were getting closer to being "middle class " with all the proceeds from the publicity machine they so willingly created. They gladly obliged, possibly getting money from papers they knew full well were paying them for pro - hunt propaganda purposes.  Here's  Nick Koupparis ' hamming ' it up for the media by doing what he does best ? and keeping that money rolling in.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/06/13/fox-left-my-baby-girl-struggling-to-breathe-says-dad-115875-22329084/

It can be confirmed 100% that the reason the baby was " left struggling to breath " and put on a ventilator, was due to the mother giving milk in the back of the ambulance which  the child  inhaled into her lung, causing ASPIRATION which can kill. The mother said so herself on the Vanessa Feltz radio show ! But, Oh! I forgot !!! -  Koupparis would n't have known she revealed this on air would he, as he ran off to the USA  when she was doing her 'rounds' with the media !!! So how can anyone trust a word that comes out of Koupparis' mouth ??

It was rather hilarious the way the media claimed that the Urban Fox had now become so terribly bold, and were almost practically tame !! Yet in Russia, a prominent scientist  Dmitri Belyaev  began a breeding project to domesticate/tame the Silver Fox,which is exactly the same species and family (Vulpes vulpes) as our Red Fox, and yet it took these EXPERTS ALMOST FIFTY YEARS to create a generation of bold/tame foxes !!! Yet scientifically illiterate idiots, like the Daily Mail and it's trashy little sister, the Sun, reckon the Urban  Fox will be tame within 24 hours by feeding them an old McDonald's, lol !! The British  Fox's behaviour is no different to what it was, say thirty years ago for example, the only difference being people are a lot less tolerant. God help those folk, like Ma Koupparis, if they lived in a country where there were gigantic spiders, snakes, wild boar, bears......THESE PEOPLE ARE TRULY PATHETIC.

Just before that 'documentary', the TV/radio show host  ******** and her boyfriend, visited the Koupparis'  home to coach them and give advice on how to come across in their  BBC  'interview'. How very cosy!! And wouldn't it have been a much more sensible choice to have had the ULTIMATE PROOF by DNA testing the cot etc..., if they were telling the truth, which they refused, rather than to go through a big 'song and dance' routine to make that 'documentary', where they could say anything they wanted, as it was made by the company Koupparis works for, who also happen to be their friends ? !!! How very cosy yet again!! Also, it was then that the 'baby monitor' came into existence; up until that point, during the whole of June, there had been no mention of one. It was obviously introduced to make the Koupparis family' appear more responsible and that they had not been neglecting their children. If they had had a baby monitor switched on, then I'm sure they would have heard their kids' first screams and been up there before any real damage was done. You could bet they were having a fine old time, wine flowing, music on - although as a rule, the nouveaus don't tend to drink much at their own shindigs, as it makes the face red and the accent slip - telly blaring, shouting, laughing, so much noise that they didn't see or hear a thing, until it was too late. Rumour has it that the Koupparis' were not liked by the neighbours because of all the 'noise' they made. AS IF a "fox" would go anywhere near a house like that, not to mention an alleged " small, gingery coloured dog" roaming around.

Which brings me to say that the fact that the neighbours "did not express any concerns" means nothing at all. Don't forget, nobody from the Hospital ever came forward to say the real reason why the baby was put on a ventilator ( or the Royal London doc and his 'most severiest animal bite' he ever did see -  did he ever explain how a 'fox cub' had more powerful jaws than an adult pitbull ? No, I didn't think so !!) nor did anyone from the Airlines come forward to say Koupparis ran like a madmen to the US within hours of  the incident, did they ??
The Fox Project also claimed that a woman rang them to say she had been a guest at the BBQ/shindig, and that a 'dog' had mauled the twins' - but she refrained from giving her name; also there was the neighbour that told R** a "small, gingery dog" was present at the BBQ - I wonder why these people did not go to the news agencies and make these claims known to all  ??? That's why the authenticity of these claims are questionable.( Also, from a distance a Hybrid Cat, being larger than a domestic cat, could resemble a 'dog'. ?? However, I would never rule out the strong possibility that a DOG could also have been the culprit.)

Please do no not be too hasty and disregard the Hybrid Cat as possibly being the REAL mauler of the Hackney twins, *****. Like I mentioned before, when entering the UK, they are very often documented as DOMESTIC, so will arrive on these shores as a DOMESTIC PUSSY CAT, with not a single trace of their Wildcat ancestry. So to say that only 2 Supercats were imported into the UK in 2010, doesn't really mean much, *****. One of the Koupparis cronies might have imported one and given the Cat to him and was no longer around, although I appreciate this would be most difficult to prove. Also to run to the States at the 'drop of a hat' is not so easy, you need to get a Visa and this takes a bit of time; Koupparis would have had an extended one because of his job.
There is undoubtedly an interest in the EXOTIC FELINE at Leopard Films; they have a sponsorship programme for the Amur Leopard. As I mentioned, online many were saying that the babies' injuries were consistent with an attack by a cat like animal; some thought maybe he had brought a Leopard cub to the house, where the cub was to be used for promotional purposes with  Leopard Films.

Off course, there was the other fake story about a 'fox' attacking a baby in Dartford in 2002.  A man's much loved and cherished German Shepherd had bitten a neighbour's child; he was told that if it happened again, the dog would be put down. It did happen again, this time it was worse, and of course in order to save his beloved dog, the 'fox' once again took the blame. This was proved, lock, stock and barrel. When the truth came out in the neighbourhood, this man had to leave the area very promptly. Of course, the truth was never released by the media. During the Koupparis circus, a repugnant little man by the name of Lindsay-Smith was doing the rounds in the Tory press, who hilariously described himself as a Wildlife Management Consultant; in reality he was nothing more than a half- wit, ex criminal, with a fetish for guns. In 2006, the press claimed that long before he took up his revolting job he had been charged with possessing firearms and attacking a teenager with a gun. Yet referring to the Dartford incident, this person, who even a BBC reporter described as 'vile', told how the 'fox' held the baby's head in its mouth and how he was the one who 'exterminated' this 'fox' -  saying these things as though they were facts!!!!! And the Tory press, lapping up the lies !!!!........... Oh dear.  What can you say ??

As for the Koupparis' Lawyers 'smelling a rat', as far as myself and most of the cerebral population are concerned, the Koupparis' account is nothing more than a lie and a sham and I will never believe otherwise. I will NEVER keep quiet or apologize for being on the side of logic and common sense based on NON EVIDENCE of what appears to be a TOTALLY OUTLANDISH STORY. And if justice won't be brought to this couple, then let's hope KARMA will, and the Duo will get their 'just desserts' in life.
        

In 1999, TIME, perhaps the world's most respected and influential magazine,  named the legendary Philosopher ( and much more !) MAHATMA GHANDI, as the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT PERSON OF THE 20TH CENTURY.

Here is a quote from GHANDI :

"THE GREATNESS OF A NATION AND IT'S MORAL PROGRESS  CAN BE JUDGED BY THE WAY ITS ANIMALS ARE TREATED."

It appears then *****, that this nation has a very long way to go............. a very long way indeed.

Kind Regards
Richard.

WAAC says - It is certainly the case that it was never proved that a fox bit those children - yet the resident fox family werre executed, based on what most of us now believe was a tissue of lies.
Judi

Oh boy! What a week for Caramelo (former Leão), the dog who’s owner was killed by the flash floods in Brazil! He lost his family, kept waiting beside his owner’s grave for days until he was rescued, then taken to a warehouse for vet care, and adopted out. The next day (yesterday), he ran away from his new home.

But things seem to be coming back to normal. He has just been found!

Fabiano, the man who rescued Caramelo from the graveyard, found him once more in a shopping mall parking lot. People say Fabiano didn’t rest until Caramelo was safe again. Caramelo is now back home, with his new owner Marcia.

Thank you Eduardo, Marcia and Roberta for keeping me posted! (Roberta is now fostering a dog, Tatu, from the areas affected by the mudslides. Thanks, Roberta!)

LETTER re shortage of foxes and the COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE
Byline: PHYLLIS CAMPBELL-MCRAE

Dear Editor, - Leaked Countryside Alliance The Countryside Alliance (CA) is a British organisation promoting issues relating to the countryside such as food, farming and country sports (hunting, shooting and angling).  documents complaining about a 'shortage of foxes' have blown apart the myth at the heart of the hunters' argument - that the fox is a pest and needs to be controlled.

The memo from Simon Hart, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, refers to a letter sent in March this year by Lord Daresbury, chairman of the Master of Fox Hounds Association, criticising landowners for not doing enough to encourage foxes to breed on their land.

The memo confirms the reality that the hunts - which account for only a tiny minority of the foxes killed in this country - have cynically fabricated the pest control pest control n → control m de plagas

pest control n → lutte f contre les nuisibles

pest control pest n  argument as just another means of justifying their cruel and unnecessary 'sport'. This latest revelation comes as no surprise to IFAW IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare (animal protection group) , whose hunt monitors have frequently uncovered hunts around the country using artificial earths and food trails to encourage foxes onto their land.

The pro-hunt lobby has lost both the argument and the campaign within the democratic process. It is now time for the ban - and time the hunters gave up this cruel sport and found themselves a more humane pastime.

PHYLLIS CAMPBELL-MCRAE Director, IFAW UK

Despite a legal threat against him, John Bryant has allowed Digging Out to expose Jim/James Barrington for what he is, see:

http://www.diggingout.org/blog/campaign/james-barrington-animal-welfare-consultant

Please show you support for John and post a positive comment. And ask like-minded friends to do likewise.

Thank you,

Sam
On behalf of the Campaign For the Abolition of Terrier Work
www.diggingout.org

yours faithfully,             Alan Kirby, M.Sc

I went on line to order what seems an excellent book BUT it costs £50.  Well worth asking your local library to get a copy for you.

Derek

Associate Fellow Publishes Trailblazing Work on Animals and Social Work
2 June 2011 (publication date 24 June 2011)

Dr Thomas Ryan, an Associate Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, is to soon have published a trailblazing work on animals and social work.

In Animals and Social Work: A Moral Introduction, Dr Ryan, a practicing social worker, argues that since the early twentieth century the discipline of social work has demonstrated a thorough going moral indifference to the needs and wellbeing of our fellow animals. His book is focused on the key question – is this indifference morally justifiable?

Dr Ryan argues that this indifference is remarkable given that animals have always been part and parcel of the human world within which social workers practice, and that their invisibility is odder still given our species embeddedness with the natural world. He contends that our biological continuity entails moral continuity.

Ryan presents cogent arguments as to why it is that animals ought to matter morally to social workers, and engages in a sustained critique of the key moral principles that are deemed to underpin practice. He articulates an alternative moral principle that respects individuals irrespective of their species membership, and which informs a revised code of ethics that has profound theoretical and practical implications for social work and its practitioners.

Animals and Social Work: A Moral Introduction is the most recent publication of the Palgrave Macmillan Series on Animal Ethics. The Series is produced in partnership with the Centre and aims to provide a range of key introductory and advanced texts that map out positions on animal issues.

More information about the book can be found here http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=411269,

and the book can be ordered from

http://www.bookdepository.com/Animals-Social-Work-Moral-Introduction-Thomas-Ryan/9780230272507, and http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animals-Social-Work-Introduction Macmillan/dp/0230272509/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307051782&sr=8-1

The author can be contacted at tomahimsa@hotmail.com, and review copies can be requested from reviews@palgrave.com.

Dear Judi,

You may know about this already but in case you don't, here are the details:

Retrospective Planning Application No. W/24449
Applicant: Mr. Dylan Jones
Address:  Beili Bedw Farm, Llanllwni, Pencader, Carmarthen SA39 9DP
Application for the use of an agricultural shed as dog breeding kennels

Council details (for objections):

Mr. Stuart Willis, Planning Services,
Carmarthen Council,
40 Spilman Street,
Carmarthen,      SA31 lLQ.

Although I've written to the above, believe objections can be sent via email.

It seems that this scummy farmer is already breeding puppies and this Application is to increase the numbers.  Stuart Willis was unable or unwilling to give me a deadline for submitting objections.  I'm also not sure if it will even go before their planning committee and may well be rubber stamped by means of Delegated Powers.

I've also written to the Licensing Department: Carmarthenshire County Council, Carmarthen, Wales, SA31 lJP.

They've already granted a license, some time in the past, and Jones clearly wants to increase breeding this poor pathetic creatures.  Dog rescues all along the border counties are awash with animals desperate for homes with many ex-farm collies & sick inbred puppies coming from Wales.  I should be grateful if you would circulate these details; objections to be sent within the next week!

Many thanks,        Wendy (Clark) in South Shropshire

Oh boy! What a week for Caramelo (former Leão), the dog who’s owner was killed by the flash floods in Brazil! He lost his family, kept waiting beside his owner’s grave for days until he was rescued, then taken to a warehouse for vet care, and adopted out. The next day (yesterday), he ran away from his new home.

But things seem to be coming back to normal. He has just been found!

Fabiano, the man who rescued Caramelo from the graveyard, found him once more in a shopping mall parking lot. People say Fabiano didn’t rest until Caramelo was safe again. Caramelo is now back home, with his new owner Marcia.

Thank you Eduardo, Marcia and Roberta for keeping me posted! (Roberta is now fostering a dog, Tatu, from the areas affected by the mudslides. Thanks, Roberta!)