Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news41~9.htm/text0078.txt

Internet Message Format | 1998-04-03 | 14.3 KB

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



>Bangkok Post
28 May 97
Tougher steps on
              cross-border cattle
              movement

              Anthrax scare brings about changes

              Anjira Assavanonda

              The Public Health Ministry and the Livestock Department have
              stepped up measures to control the cross-border movement of
              cattle in order to prevent the transmission of communicable
              diseases from animals to humans.

              The measure will also apply to aliens crossing the border.

              Concerned about falling beef sales due to an anthrax scare a few
              months ago, government organisations have joined hands in an
              attempt to assure the public that the situation is now under
              control.

              Senior officials from concerned agencies on Monday went to
              Sangkhla Buri in Kanchanaburi to examine the border
              checkpoint and a quarantine unit for animals to see if enough
              measures were in place to prevent an outbreak of communicable
              diseases.

              Deputy Public Health Minister Sunthorn Vilavan disclosed that
              illegal immigration to Thailand via the 26 border provinces was
              one cause of epidemics.

              These communicable diseases are sometimes caused by insects
              carrying the viruses or parasites.

              The deputy minister explained that about 50,000 heads of cattle
              were being imported to Thailand each year but only a few were
              illegally smuggled. He insisted that measures were already stiff
              enough to prevent imports of infected animals from neighbouring
              countries.

              A recent Public Health Ministry report says that in all 34 anthrax
              victims were discovered in the country, nine in Tak, 12 in
              Bangkok, 6 in Sukhothai, and 7 in Uthai Thani.

              Mr Sunthorn said after the outbreak of the disease, the
              authorities worked hard to put the situation under control by
              educating beef traders and staff of slaughterhouses on how to
              screen cattle, taking beef sold in the market for examination, and
              tightening measures on cattle imports.

              He said cattle can be imported in Kanchanaburi via 16
              checkpoints in five districts; Sangkhla Buri, Thongphapoom, Sai
              Yoke, Makham Tia, and Muang District. Between 800-1,000
              heads of cattle were imported per month from each checkpoint
              and taxed 200 baht per head. However, imports are now down
              to only five per cent per month.

              Livestock Department director-general Suwit Pollarb explained
              that before importing the cattle, traders are required to submit a
              form to seek permission from the quarantine unit chief or the
              livestock provincial office so that the animals can be quarantined
              on arrival.

              He said cattle in quarantine are vaccinated, examined and
              undergo blood tests before being given the greenlight for release.
              After 10 days, the animals are sent back to owners with a mark
              on their right ear showing they are legally approved.

              To curb cattle smuggling, special checkpoints have been erected
              in many provinces including Thongphapoom district. A cattle
              without a mark of permission on its ear is returned to customs
              officials.

              Preecha Poonboon, a livestock district official, Region 7,
insisted
              that current measures were enough to effectively tackle with the
              problem of infections.

              Dr Nara Nakvattananukul, deputy director-general of the
              Communicable Disease Control Department, said anthrax was
              caused by bacteria which could be easily killed. It is not a
              dangerous disease and is completely curable.

              He said 98 percent of anthrax cases occur through skin contact.

              However, a source from the international Communicable Disease
              Control Division said he could not guarantee all the cattle
              imported to Thailand were free of anthrax bacteria.

              "I can guarantee that all cattle were already vaccinated just to
              prevent certain diseases, but not for anthrax of which the
              vaccines will be given only to animals in the outbreak zone," said
              the source, adding that there are still ways and means to smuggle
              cattle into the country.

              Some owners just pay 100-200 baht to have their cattle
              vaccinated and see the need for animal quarantine as a
              time-wasting process.

              He said the best way to prevent anthrax is to cook the meat
              thoroughly for at least 30 minutes so that the bacteria is killed.

              Meanwhile, Dr Surapong Tantanasrikul, a Kanchanaburi public
              health official said it was tough to deal with communicable
              diseases in the province because about 300 km of its border is
              connected to Burma.

              The exact number of immigrants is unknown because there were
              many passes along the border, while the only legal pass is at
              Chedi Sam Ong checkpoint.

              According to Dr Surapong, 81 percent of Kanchanaburi
              residents consisting of Mon, Karen, and Burmese are aliens.

              Other infectious diseases found in the province included malaria,
              elephantiasis, brucellosis, dysentery and tuberculosis.

              Medical treatment was hard to dispense because the aliens
              always moved from place to place.

              Dr Surapong said these problems would be hard to overcome
              since they were caused from political conflicts in neighbouring
              countries and labour demands in Thailand.

              Another problem is unclear border policies which are hard to be
              implemented, and the public health units had to shoulder a heavy
              burden to prevent diseases from being transmitted to Thais which
              needed the injection of large funds.

              Moreover, communication and transportation in the area is
              inconvenient. Some areas are too dangerous to approach in the
              rainy season. Language is also one major obstacle since there
              are different nationalities in the area and officials find it
hard to
              communicate with them.

              He said Kanchanaburi is now facing serious problems from
              illegal immigrants because those arrested in other provinces were
              usually sent back to Burma via Kanchanaburi in which there are
              many border passes which also allows them to return easily
              through the province.


Article copyright Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd 1997
Reprinted for non-commercial use only.
Website: http://www.bangkokpost.net

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 20:34:03 -0700
From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Desertification in Ethiopia
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ethiopian News Agency

Charcoal-burners devastate natural forest

May 20, 1997

NAZARETH (ENA) - Some 500 charcoal-burners in zone 3 of Afar are
devastating forestry resources, head of the zonal agricultural
department said.

The forests, located along the Addis-Asab road covering a distance of
300 kilometers will be completely depleted leaving the land barren in
three years time unless measures are taken to curb tree felling,
according to Ato Musa Ahmed.

The department due to financial constraints could not launch controlling
mechanisms he said, and urged the regional agriculture bureau to take
measures to stop the unlawful act.
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:43:03 +0800 (SST)
From: Vadivu Govind <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (HK) Animal Welfare in Hong Kong
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



Sorry. The article was cut off at one part in my previous post.
This is the article in whole.

Vadivu
_________________________________________________________

>Hong Kong Standard
28 May 97
Looking out for animals
By Pet Talk by Simon Safe

ANIMAL welfare covers a broad range of legal and ethical issues.

It is a sensitive issue especially in Hong Kong because animal welfare
standards are often changing throughout the world and on occasions, Hong
Kong, has been lagging.  Practices which were acceptable 10 to 20 years ago,
are no longer tolerated by many individuals and welfare groups.

The principal objective of animal welfare is to prevent suffering and
install and sustain a state of well-being for animals.

Unfortunately, a program of welfare and well-being involves a considerable
degree of subjectivity and can be difficult to assess quantitatively.

What may be acceptable for one species of animals may be unacceptable for
another _ or should it?

Should we have a set of standards which apply to domesticated pet animals
such as cats and dogs and another standard for food animals which are
slaughtered for human consumption?

Who wouldn't argue that denying an animal water regardless of species is an
act of cruelty.

Water is a fundamental requirement of any animal species and deprivation
leads to suffering and, ultimately, death.

Obviously the unnecessary physical abuse of any animal is again intolerable,
irrespective of species.

Where we enter a grey area is when we address issues such as animal
husbandry and management providing for a physically comfortable environment
which is free of stress for various species of animals.

There are specified standards for the farming, transportation and humane
slaughtering of various species of animals.

But many people would argue in the case of, say, pigs and cattle slaughtered
in Hong Kong, that these standards are not adequate and that enforcement is
lax.

In an ideal world we would certainly improve these standards and have more
stringent enforcement programs.  But as any government in the world will
tell you it all costs money, and ultimately these costs need to be borne by
consumers and the taxpayer.

Are we as a community prepared to pay these costs?

As we all know in Hong Kong, Chinese people have for many years consumed dog
meat at certain times of the year, albeit illegal.

Most Europeans consider the practice abhorrent. But why?

What is the difference between slaughtering a dog and a pig?

Why do we consider it an acceptable practice in some species of animals and
not others?

Provided the standards are the same, should we legalise this practice or
should we swing the other way and become vegetarian?

I suspect that neither will occur.

Animal welfare is an emotional subject which is attracting more public
attention, and rightfully so.

But it all gets back to community attitudes and defining appropriate
standards for all species of animals.

Most importantly, we need to install educational programs in the schools
which will cultivate an awareness in the community about these issues.


Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 20:35:43 -0700
From: Andrew Gach <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Wolves - Good News or Bad News?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Yellowstone wolves are prospering

Copyright ⌐ 1997 The Associated Press

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. (May 27, 1997 05:55 a.m. EDT) -- While
Yellowstone's buffalo, elk and deer struggled to survive the winter, it
was a different story for transplanted Canadian wolves. To say they
prospered would put it mildly; they have gone forth and multiplied --
like crazy.

Eight of Yellowstone's nine wolf packs have produced 11 litters this
spring. Yellowstone wolf biologist Douglas Smith said the number of pups
this year may double the park's total wolf population of 47; not all
have been counted yet.

Two packs produced two litters each, and another had three litters. Such
multiple litters are "heartening" indications of success in the effort
to restore the predator to America's first national park, said David
Mech of St. Paul, Minn., one of the nation's top wolf experts.

"It's an indication that a pack is doing well, getting plenty of food,"
said Mech, a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Interior Department.

Thirty-one gray wolves were transplanted to Yellowstone from Canada in
1995 and 1996 in a federal program to re-establish the big predators
where they were wiped out some 70 years earlier.

Eight packs remained inside the park. Only one has moved out, settling
in a national forest northwest of Dubois, Wyo.

"That flabbergasts us," said Ed Bangs, head of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service program. "We never thought that would happen, me
especially. Wolves are extremely long-range animals."

The reintroduction program includes Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Canadian
wolves were brought to Yellowstone and central Idaho, but they had been
migrating naturally into Montana since the mid-1980s.

The program was extraordinarily controversial, and it still has plenty
of critics.

Ranchers fear the growing wolf population may lead to the decimation of
their cattle and sheep herds.

Federal agents shot four wolves believed to have killed or maimed seven
cattle at a southwest Montana ranch in 1995; the wolves had migrated
into Montana from Canada. And one of the Yellowstone wolves was killed
in January, shot several times and left in a river north of the park.

Five Yellowstone wolves live alone, in addition to the 42 that live in
nine packs. Packs can range from two to 20 animals but usually range