Serbiananimalsvoice.files.wordpress.com



Dear Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Eurogroup / Intergroup;

As the representative on behalf of EU and Serbian animal welfare campaigners / organisations, I welcome the opportunity to be able to provide the Eurogroup for Animals / all-party Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals with the following details on the current situation in the Republic of Serbia regarding stray dogs and cats.

I very much hope and trust that once a review of the contents of this paper and the photographs (supplied as an additional pack) have been undertaken, you, as representatives of EU citizens, will be able to present written questions to the Serbian authorities / Government relating to issues highlighted in this paper. A list of suggestions for this are outlined in the section headed ‘Conclusion and Request to EU Eurogroup / Intergroup’ found at the end of this paper.

I thank you for your time and consideration of this paper which has been prepared simply to attempt to improve the lives and welfare conditions for many thousands of street / stray animals in Serbia.

With the republic of Serbia currently requesting Accession into the European Union, now, as much as ever, is a good time for the European Union to demand action and changes to current Serbian animal welfare practices. Serbian animal welfare legislation does exists; its implementation is simply ignored by those in positions of authority to do it.

This paper has been produced by animal welfare campaigners with the hope of improving welfare conditions for animals in Serbia. Everything provided in this paper has been produced solely on a voluntary basis.

Thank you; with hope for a better future for Serbian animals;

Yours Sincerely,

Mark Johnson

Mark Johnson - Singlewell, Kent, England, Uk. - 24th February 2008.

[pic]

Serbian Dog and Cat Corpses Deposited on the City Refuse Dump - Novi Sad City 

Please Note – this paper is intended to be read in conjunction with a separate attachment containing a selection of photographs. Where necessary in this paper, reference is made to these photographs in numerical sequence – ‘Photograph 1’, ‘Photograph 2’, etc. I ask that the photograph attachment document also be made available during the review of this paper.

Executive Summary

The Republic of Serbia is aiming for accession into the European Union (EU). Serbian national legislation regarding animal welfare is established. Unfortunately, experience has shown that implementation of this national legislation is non existent. Commercial organisations are employed throughout Serbia to undertake stray dog and cat control. These organisations are not specialists in any form of animal welfare – they are at best, simply ‘pest’ controllers, clearing towns and cities of stray and street animals on behalf of regional authorities.

Serbia already has existing national animal welfare legislation as stated. Causing suffering or death to an animal under existing Serbian law can result in custodial sentences for those involved. And yet, these same commercial organisations (ie. the ‘pest’ controllers) undertake, with the local / national authorities approval, vile acts of animal cruelty each and every day without any form of prosecution.

And so it can be declared that, despite national Animal welfare legislation existing in Serbia, all those concerned with its implementation are simply turning a blind eye and ignoring the suffering being caused. Serbia is failing to implement its own national animal welfare legislation.

EU animal welfare organisations consider that vitally important changes are necessary within Serbia prior to any Serbian EU Accession. It is considered that the current “European Convention Protecting Pets and Stray Animals” forwarded by Mr. Alain Hutchinson MEP (Belgium) is paramount in obtaining EU Parliament approval and thus leading the way forward and establishing animal welfare standards for future Accession by non member states, including Serbia. Until the EU has an community wide policy on the protection of pets and stray animals, it is considered by many that nations applying for EU Accession will never raise their current standards or practices of welfare to give animals the respect and treatment they are entitled to.

The European Union needs to set the standard for current European, and also for future member states currently applying for EU Accession. Europe cannot wait another 20 years to set this standard; it has to be done now, in the shortest time possible.

EU animal welfare organisations consider implementation of better animal welfare standards in Serbia is basically a two stage process:

1) Approval of and EU wide implementation of the current “European Convention Protecting Pets and Stray Animals”; as proposed by Mr. Alain Hutchinson MEP,

And only when this has been introduced;

2) Then, and only then, approval of Serbian Accession into the EU.

If it is considered that “1” (above) will not be possible prior to Serbian EU membership, then with immediate effect, and prior to accession to the Union, Serbia must be strictly informed that its current animal welfare standards are not acceptable to the vast majority of current member states of the EU, and that a major policy change is required, needs to be understood and shown to be being implemented by the Serbian authorities and Government.

EU animal welfare organisations are committed to helping Mr. Alain Hutchinson and other pro-welfare MEP’s to introduce the European Convention Protecting Pets and Stray Animals. The hope is that with EU wide legislation, new member states will have to raise their national level of animal welfare standards rather than just continuing as they do at this present time viewing the “No Legislation for Pets and Stray Animals” that we have in the EU as their ‘standard’ guide.

EU welfare organisations consider that rather than continue with its current national policy of ‘seek and destroy’ (slaughter) towards stray animals, Serbia should be informed by the EU that the only way to reduce stray animal numbers is to adopt a Sterilisation programme which, over a relatively short period of time will reduce the numbers of stray animals on the streets of Serbia. This sterilisation “No Kill” technique is the only way forward for stray animal number reductions in many parts of Europe, including member states such as Greece and Romania, and this again is an issued covered by the Convention proposed by Mr. Alain Hutchinson MEP.

The current situation for stray animals both within the EU and in states requiring Accession into the EU is currently completely unsatisfactory, and we ask the ?? to please seriously consider our points and concerns as defined in this document.

-Refer to Photograph 1 – Caged Street Dogs Awaiting Destruction-

Introduction – The Present EU Position for Pets and Stray Animals

Mr. Alain Hutchinson, a Belgian MEP, is committed to co-operate for animal welfare and to get a “European Convention Protecting Pets and Stray Animals” passed as soon as possible.

EU Commissioner Kyprianou who has responsibilities including animal welfare, had already proposed, on September 2006, an European Convention on this subject. However, when it was presented to the Member States, it could not be voted in as it lacked the necessary quotas of approval: At least 55% of all votes cast, at least 55% of Member States, and at least 65% of countries of the European Union.

The above three criteria are unable to be modified and as a result of the failing, the Convention never progressed.

These criteria are obsolete and certainly do not take into consideration the situation of animals in the new EU member states. As a whole, it is probably quite genuine to declare that the current plight of stray animals has deteriorated throughout Europe. A European Convention was signed in Strasbourg on 13/11/1987. European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals - Strasbourg, 13.XI.1987



The Council of Europe is supposed to meet every five years to bring this Convention up to date but unfortunately this has not been followed through. Romania and Bulgaria, very recent member states of the EU are particularly representative of the cruelty perpetrated on stray animals. Serbian membership of the Union will only add to the list of nations which are cruel to stray animals. If the European Parliament and the European Union want to be consistent with the values that they preach, they need to bring in legislation to protect pet and stray animals throughout the entire Union, and they need to do it as soon as possible.

Every single day animal welfare organisations across many EU member states receive cries of help relating to the massacres perpetrated on both stray and domestic animals. It is common to witness the aggressive capture of stray animals, which is then soon followed by a long-lasting and usually agonising death. These images are shocking. These methods of capture and death, especially of stray animals, is of great concern to EU animal welfare campaigners, particularly in relation to regions of Europe such as the Republic of Serbia.

- Refer to Photographs 2 – 2B – Capture of Street Dogs – Serbia-

Tenets of the Framework Law Proposed by Mr. Hutchinson include:

• Severely punish those who publicly abandon an animal;

• Animals should be identified upon purchase by their owner with an electronic chip as the law foresees across Europe as of 2007;

• Severely punish all mistreatment of animals in accordance with a future law to be applied throughout the European Union; and

• Establish a policy of birth control, i.e. draw up a budget with the aim of:

o Organizing and funding a Europe-wide trap, neuter, release and vaccination program for millions of stray animals in Europe;

o Constructing shelters that conform to the norms in place within the EU;

o Subsidizing these shelters to ensure that the animals are comfortably housed, fed and treated in time; and

Financing the post of a shelter director for each shelter and ensure that his role is carried out to a minimum Europe wide standard.

European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals - signed in Strasbourg on 13/11/1987. Explanatory Report

1. The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, drawn up within the Council of Europe by the ad hoc Committee of experts for the protection of animals (CAHPA), was opened for signature by the member states of the Council of Europe on 13 November 1987.

2. The text of the explanatory report prepared by the ad hoc committee of experts and submitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe does not constitute an instrument providing an authoritative interpretation of the text of the Convention, although it might be of such a nature as to facilitate the understanding of the provisions contained therein.

Preamble

CHAPTER I – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1 – Definitions

1. By pet animal is meant any animal kept or intended to be kept by man in particular in his household for private enjoyment and companionship.

2. By trading in pet animals is meant all regular business transactions in substantial quantities carried out for profit which involve the change of ownership of pet animals.

3. By commercial breeding and boarding is meant breeding or boarding mainly for profit and in substantial quantities.

4. By animal sanctuary is meant a non-profit making establishment where pet animals may be kept in substantial numbers. If national legislative and/or administrative measures permit, such an establishment may accept stray animals.

5. By a stray animal is meant a pet animal which either has no home or is outside the bounds of its owner's or keeper's household and is not under the control or direct supervision of any owner or keeper.

6. By competent authority is meant the authority designated by the member State.

CHAPTER II – PRINCIPLES FOR THE KEEPING OF PET ANIMALS

Article 11 – Killing

38. Because the killing of pet animals and stray animals can lead to much suffering if done by persons who do not have the necessary skill and knowledge, it was agreed that normally such animals may only be killed, and anaesthetised in connection with this killing, by a veterinarian or another person who has the skill and ability to kill a pet animal in accordance with the requirements under this provision, and that physical and mental suffering of the animal should be avoided as much as possible.

An exception to this provision may be made if, under abnormal circumstances, the welfare of the animal required immediate killing by another person, or in any other emergency situation, where the killing by another person is allowed under national legislation.

39. The methods of killing which are to be prohibited are listed in paragraph 2 (Note – not detailed in this presentation), even if these prohibitions can be understood to follow from the other principles. The methods of suffocation which are prohibited have been interpreted as meaning any method by which an animal is deprived of an adequate supply of oxygen and thereby loses consciousness or dies as a direct consequence. However, this does not exclude a method involving the administration of anaesthetic gases such as C02, provided that it is administered with an adequate level of oxygen in the inhaled air, in such a way as to anaesthetise the animal and not simply cause it to suffocate. The prohibited methods include electrocution, unless preceded by immediate loss of consciousness.

CHAPTER III – SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES FOR STRAY ANIMALS

Article 12 – Reduction of numbers

40. Article 12 stipulates that, when a party considers that the numbers of stray animals present a problem, it must take the legislative and/or administrative measures which it considers appropriate to reduce these numbers in a humane way.

41. Paragraph a does not impose the obligation on public authorities to capture, keep or kill stray animals if these present a problem, but, if they decide to do so, public authorities must use humane methods.

42. Under paragraph b, parties must in general take into consideration certain measures, but may decide themselves whether or not to implement them.

43. By "finder" is understood a person who takes a stray dog or cat into his custody. Parties must consider encouraging such a person to report to the competent authority, which may take action in accordance with national legislation, as one of the objectives should be to return, where possible, a stray or lost animal to its owner for the benefit of the animal.

Article 13 – Exceptions for capture, keeping and killing

44. It was agreed that, in the execution of emergency programmes established by governments for the control of zoonotic diseases such as rabies, the provisions of the Convention on the capture, keeping and killing of stray animals could be waived.

CHAPTER VII – FINAL PROVISIONS

Articles 17 to 23 – Final provisions

48. In general, the final provisions in this Convention follow the usual pattern of final clauses adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for conventions and agreements drawn up within the Organisation.

Article 19 – Accession by non-member states

49. It was agreed that the Convention should be open to accession by non-member states, as is the case with all conventions in the field of animal protection drawn up within the Council of Europe.

Serbia 2008 – The Current Situation

Over the past eighteen months, animal welfare campaigners from existing EU member states including the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy have been establishing daily liaison with fellow campaigners within the Republic of Serbia. The news and reports emerging from Serbia are one of continual abuse and suffering inflicted on stray animals.

Serbian campaign groups have formed the ‘Alliance for Animal Rights’, which was founded on the 18th January 2007 and is comprised of the following member organisations: 

• Animal Protection Society " NIS ",Nis town, - Contact: Jelena Kostic;

• Animal Protection Society "ZOV", Sombor City, - Contact: Snezana Tadic;

• Animal Protection Society "SRECKO", Negotin City, - Contact: Zvezdana Radojcic;

• Vegan Portal , Belgrade , - Contact: Jelena Zaric

• APS CEIRI, Nis town, - Contact: Oliver Velickovic;

• Independent activists for animal rights, from many cities all over Serbia -Primary

Co-ordinator is Goran Grujin;

• Animal friends Friend-EPAR/OIPA member league, Subotica City,

- Contact: Slavica Mazak Beslic . .yu

 

It must be said at this point that in effect, Serbia does have some good national animal welfare legislation. It must also very much be emphasised that the Serbian authorities are doing nothing on a national basis to implement any of this legislation. In effect, Serbian national legislation for the protection of animals is basically useless.

Current Serbian Animal Welfare Legislation Includes:

As stated, Serbian national legislation already exists for the protection of stray and street animals. Unfortunately, implementation of this same legislation is being routinely ignored or flouted by authorities and politicians across Serbia. Serbian National Legislation for animals includes:

- from 1st January 2006, the Criminal Code of Serbia. Article 269,

• Paragraph 1: anyone who is cruel to, inflicts violence or kills an animal as defined by this law, must be punished by up to 6 months imprisonment;

• Paragraph 2: if suffering or death is carried out on more than one animal, the person who inflicted this suffering can be sentenced with up to 3 years imprisonment.

• any person who is cruel, violent or inflicts death on any animal making up the ‘special protection’ group of animals  (as for example, the wolf or the brown bear) can again be sentenced to up to 3 years imprisonment.

In addition to Article 269, Article 46 of the Serbian Veterinary Law declares:

• that animals have a right to life. There is no law declaring euthanasia has to be undertaken as a means of stray / street animal control.

• each local community in Serbia has an obligation to provide care for abandoned dogs and cats

• each community has an obligation to finance stray animal care, including the building of shelters

• each community has an obligation to finance sterilisation, medical care and food for the (stray) animals

• volunteer prizes can be given as an alternative for payment to people who volunteer and are directly involved with  jobs that include  the care and protection of abandoned / stray dogs and cats.

Since current Serbian Veterinary law does NOT ALLOW the killing of stray animals, money which is currently being used by authorities for (the therefore) illegal animal killings in the communities, should actually be re-directed into providing care for those same animals. This is exactly what Article 46 of the Serbian Veterinary Law declares – current Serbian legislation.

Because of ignorance shown by the Serbian authorities when approached by welfare campaigners citing the Serbian national legislation, and the very little progress in relation to the atrocities being undertaken on defenceless stray animals, Serbian and Uk animal welfare campaigners decided that it was necessary to at least broadcast the current Serbian situation to the people of the World. A “Care2” Petition site was established specifically on the Serbian stray animal situation. This can be found at and to date has gained around 5,214. The comments also left on the site by persons from current EU member states show that the current situation in Serbia is something that many EU citizens feel needs urgently addressing. The wording (shown in Blue text) and some sample signatures from the petition are given directly below.

Petition: Serbia Suffering

Target:

5,000

Sponsored by: 

"Alliance for Animal Rights" - Serbia

We the undersigned wish to issue and register a formal complaint to the European Union Commission regarding animal welfare atrocities perpetrated by the Serbian Authorities.  They (the Serbian authorities) stand accused of acts in contravention of their own current Serbian Legislation Article 269.

These acts involve wilful and planned slaughter of thousands of dogs and cats in contravention of Article 46; Article 138; of the Veterinary Legal Code.  Article 269 of the Criminal Code of Serbia states that any person guilty of acting in contravention of the Criminal Code, is liable of up to 3 (three) years imprisonment, if found guilty of illegal slaughter of animals  and cruelty.  These animals are collected by dog catchers (named 'shinters' ) specially employed for the task by the local authorities.  Once caught both dogs and cats are held captive together and they may be kept locked in cages without food and water for several days.  This often results in aggressive and destructive behaviour, with cannibalism being the result of starvation.  Hygiene in relation to the caaptive animals welfare during detention is also very much an issue of concern.  The animals are eventually put to death by any of the following methods:-

1.  Injections of drug T-61 into the lungs causing paralysis and a prolonged and painful death.  In 1988 drug T-61 was withdrawn from manufacturer in the United States of America, as it is considered unsuitable for euthanasia.  In 1994, it was considered unsuitable for use in Canada. (ref 1.)

2.  Killing with pitchforks.

3.  Killing by the use of Mallets.  In other words, beating the animal to death.

4.  Killing with Nuvan and Kreozan poisons.  These cause death by suffocation after the following prolonged effects - headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, excessive sweating, salivation, blurred vision, tightness in the chest, weakness, muscle twitching, and confusion.  Also convulsions, severe respiratory depression, unconsciousness, and eventual death.

We are aware that dogs and cats cannot make us aware of headaches and nausea, but these have been found to be present in humans who work with these toxins.  Therefore there is no reason to doubt that animals might also suffer from these effects.

5.  Live animals are also dumped on rubbish tips in plastic bags.

6.  Live animals are also hung, hanging suspended until death.

7.  Live animals are thrown into 'compacting' (crushing machines).  The 'crusher' or 'compactor' is part of a refuse vehicle used by the authorities.

8.  LATEST !! - 29 June 2007 - It has been brought to our attention that dogs are being buried alive in the town of Novi Sad; Serbia.  A hole is dug and then the dog catchers (shinters) throw the live dogs in and cover them with soil.  This has been reported by Mrs Jelena Tinska a known Serbian actress, and also reported in the Serbian paper named as KURIR. 

All the facts listed above are in direct contravention of the Veterinary Legislation of Serbia which demands a duty of care for all animals, and forbids the killing of stray animals.  We the undersigned as full citizens of the European Union (EU) and citizens of the World,  call on the Enlargement Commission of the European Union (EU) for Serbia to be excluded from admission to the European Union, until they are able to show and prove that they are willing to abide by their own legislation.  We also ask that admission to the EU should only be considered when Serbia has maintained the ability to abide by their own Legislation for a period of time decided upon by the EU Commission.

Ref 1.  T-61 :  T-61 is an unacceptable injectable drug combination containing a local anaesthetic, a general anaesthetic, and a neuromuscular blocking agent.  It has been removed from the market by the manufacturer in the United States.  It is intended to be given intravenously at a precise rate of injection (1cc for 5 seconds) that is almost impossible to maintain.  Most importantly, if improperly administered, T-61 can cause animals  intense pain after administration and a curare-like paralysis of respiration (suffocation) before the animal loses consciousness.  Because of these limitations, T-61 is an unacceptable euthanasia agent.

Information on T-61 from reference sources at the Humane Society of the United States;  Washington DC  

We the undersigned wish to issue and register a formal complaint to the European Union Commission regarding animal welfare atrocities perpetrated by the Serbian Authorities.  They (the Serbian authorities) stand accused of acts in contravention of their own current Serbian Legislation Article 269.

These acts involve wilful and planned slaughter of thousands of dogs and cats in contravention of Article 46; Article 138; of the Veterinary Legal Code.  Article 269 of the Criminal Code of Serbia states that any person guilty of acting in contravention of the Criminal Code, is liable of up to 3 (three) years imprisonment, if found guilty of illegal slaughter of animals  and cruelty.  These animals are collected by dog catchers (named 'shinters' ) specially employed for the task by the local authorities.  Once caught both dogs and cats are held captive together and they may be kept locked in cages without food and water for several days.  This often results in aggressive and destructive behaviour, with cannibalism being the result of starvation.  Hygiene in relation to the caaptive animals welfare during detention is also very much an issue of concern.  The animals are eventually put to death by any of the following methods:-

1.  Injections of drug T-61 into the lungs causing paralysis and a prolonged and painful death.  In 1988 drug T-61 was withdrawn from manufacturer in the United States of America, as it is considered unsuitable for euthanasia.  In 1994, it was considered unsuitable for use in Canada. (ref 1.)

2.  Killing with pitchforks.

3.  Killing by the use of Mallets.  In other words, beating the animal to death.

4.  Killing with Nuvan and Kreozan poisons.  These cause death by suffocation after the following prolonged effects - headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, excessive sweating, salivation, blurred vision, tightness in the chest, weakness, muscle twitching, and confusion.  Also convulsions, severe respiratory depression, unconsciousness, and eventual death.

We are aware that dogs and cats cannot make us aware of headaches and nausea, but these have been found to be present in humans who work with these toxins.  Therefore there is no reason to doubt that animals might also suffer from these effects.

5.  Live animals are also dumped on rubbish tips in plastic bags.

6.  Live animals are also hung, hanging suspended until death.

7.  Live animals are thrown into 'compacting' (crushing machines).  The 'crusher' or 'compactor' is part of a refuse vehicle used by the authorities.

8.  LATEST !! - 29 June 2007 - It has been brought to our attention that dogs are being buried alive in the town of Novi Sad; Serbia.  A hole is dug and then the dog catchers (shinters) throw the live dogs in and cover them with soil.  This has been reported by Mrs Jelena Tinska a known Serbian actress, and also reported in the Serbian paper named as KURIR. 

All the facts listed above are in direct contravention of the Veterinary Legislation of Serbia which demands a duty of care for all animals, and forbids the killing of stray animals.  We the undersigned as full citizens of the European Union (EU) and citizens of the World,  call on the Enlargement Commission of the European Union (EU) for Serbia to be excluded from admission to the European Union, until they are able to show and prove that they are willing to abide by their own legislation.  We also ask that admission to the EU should only be considered when Serbia has maintained the ability to abide by their own Legislation for a period of time decided upon by the EU Commission.

Ref 1.  T-61 :  T-61 is an unacceptable injectable drug combination containing a local anaesthetic, a general anaesthetic, and a neuromuscular blocking agent.  It has been removed from the market by the manufacturer in the United States.  It is intended to be given intravenously at a precise rate of injection (1cc for 5 seconds) that is almost impossible to maintain.  Most importantly, if improperly administered, T-61 can cause animals  intense pain after administration and a curare-like paralysis of respiration (suffocation) before the animal loses consciousness.  Because of these limitations, T-61 is an unacceptable euthanasia agent.

Information on T-61 from reference sources at the Humane Society of the United States;  Washington DC  

[pic]signature

goal: 5,000

 

Bottom of Form

 

[pic]

We signed the "Serbia Suffering" petition!

# 5059:

Jan 20, 2008, Sylvia Johnston mccosh, United Kingdom [pic] Delete

A country and its people can be judged by the way they treat their animals. Serbia, you are doing yourself no favours by acting in this barbaric way. Stop now and show the world that you are a civilised nation because until you do many people will not wish to visit your country.

# 5058:

Jan 20, 2008, Anonymous, France [pic] Delete

c'est horrible!!

# 5057:

Jan 20, 2008, Florence Martin, United Kingdom [pic] Delete

People in the uK who respect animals are horrified by the reports from reliable sources that stray dogs in Serbia are being killed in inhumane and illegal ways, including burial alive, burning alive and injection into the heart of detergent. In particular Mrs Mila Scepovic in Kraljevo has ordered the burning alive of dogs at the shelter there. Hundreds of caring people in Scotland alone are unable to sleep as we are traumatised by this appalling brutality and the agony these innocent animals will suffer and are already suffering. It is cruel enough that they are shot, but these methods are illegal and the world will not tolerate it. Serbia will have no tourist trade if this continues, as nobody wants to visit a country where such crimes are not brought to justice. You must act immediately.

# 5056:

Jan 20, 2008, Ginny R, Netherlands [pic] Delete

Please, let show that you have a heart. Stop the slaughtering of cats and dogs in the countrys that ressort under the European Union. It's disgracefull for Europe and human kind.

# 5054:

Jan 20, 2008, RUTH FINLAY, United Kingdom [pic] Delete

I am very concerned to read of the inhumane slaughter methods which are used for stray dogs, including the burying alive of these animals. If resources to home these animals are not available, there are humane slaughter methods which can be found. I have been very concerned by a communication from an animal welfare group indicating that consideration is being given to burning dogs alive in stone ovens. There is a necessity to find more humane methods of killing, if the animals require to be killed, not to introduce more cruel ways, as animals can feel pain as much as humans and they are in these circumstances through no fault of their own. I hope that some progress cn be made and some resolution reached on these issues.

# 5053:

Jan 20, 2008, Carmen Henkens, Belgium [pic] Delete

You should be ashamed of yourselves ! I will never set foot on your soil and I hope a lot of others will do the same, you barbarians ! RESPECT the animals, STOP ABUSE !!

# 5052:

Jan 20, 2008, Joan Oswald, Austria [pic] Delete

Animal cruelty says everything about the Land and the people who live in it,is better when I do not write the words that I combine with these individuals.J.Oswald

Examples of Non-Compliance of Animal Welfare Legislation by Local or National Serbian Authorities Include:

A new law regarding ‘Animal Welfare’ is being presented to the Serbian Parliament in the next few weeks. The Serbian Government is claiming that the new (proposed) legislation will be excellent because, animals (ie street strays) which have been rounded up by the Serbian authorities will be kept in pounds for 30 days before they are destroyed. They declare this is much better than many EU nations, who kill animals after 7-15 days. This is the ‘sweetner’ being used to push through the new legislation – ie. Serbia is better than much of Europe because it keeps animals alive for longer.

The proposed legislation, which will be named ‘Article 73’, states that after 30 days, stray dogs and cats can be euthanased if nobody adopts them.

What this legislation will mean is, stray animals the entire length of Serbia who have been rounded up by the Shinter teams will be killed after 30 days in the local authority pound, if they have not been adopted by members of the public, of which there is a very slim chance. Within Serbia, this could mean a potential 1,000 stray dogs and cats being destroyed every single day. There are big concerns amongst Serbian welfare campaigners that animals captured could be destroyed within only a few days of capture, and the necessary paperwork associated with these animals adapted to show animals have allegedly reached the end of their 30 day ‘pound keep’ period.

Some Serbian welfare organisations, including EPAR,

have written to the Serbian Veterinary Department many times in opposition to this newly proposed legislation. ORCA, Belgrade’s animal welfare organisation, has been one of the co-authors of this legislation.

The real answer to the massive street animal population in Serbia is for all authorities to adopt a sterilisation programme. A ‘NO KILL’ policy. Some sterilisation is being undertaken in certain regions within Serbia but nowhere near enough; it must be a national priority to reduce the number of stray animals over time. At the moment, the situation is so bad, even animals which have been sterilised and are then returned to the street with idents on them to show that they have been treated, are still being rounded up again by the Shinters (round up / kill teams), put back into the compounds and eventually killed !

This newly proposed legislation will basically give carte blanche to the authorities to do exactly what they want to with animals lives. The 30 day retention period will often not be adhered to by the authorities and many animals will be killed before this. Serbian authorities and legislators simply sees this new legislation as a way of ridding the streets of stray animals under alleged ‘vary good, better than the EU’ wording. IT IS NOT, but simply a Passport to permit the Serbian Government to kill, kill, kill with no forward vision of any stray animal control.

Once this legislation has possibly been approved within the next few weeks, Serbia will then press on for Accession (membership) of the European Union.

At a meeting with campaigners in early February, Mrs Sanja Celebicanin - the Chief of Veterinary Inspections of Serbia , declared that e mail correspondence is NOT counted as useful by the Serbian authorities/Government; only hard (written) mail.. Her address is:

Sanja Celebicanin, Nacelnik Veterinarske Inspekcije, Uprava za veterinu, Omladinskih brigada 1, 11070 Beograd, 381 Serbia.

She asked that ‘people’; ie. animal welfare campaigners, do not to write her as much as they have done previously because she was ‘very busy’. Busy doing what ? – making the killing of street animals an easier thing for the future !

Instead of a time period of 30 days being defined as the maximum for keeping animals within the pound before commencing their destruction, Serbian animal welfare organisations require that instead of this, legislation defines that there is a ‘NO MAXIMUM’ period of time defined by law, and that with the help and assistance of animal welfare organisations, animals can be kept within the pounds indefinitely, until the necessary sterilisation, vaccination and fitting of ident tags to the animal(s) is undertaken. Then, and only then, can the animal(s) be released back onto the street, if necessary and if no other alternative, such as adoption, can be achieved. - A no kill sterilisation policy is the ONLY WAY to control street animal numbers for the future.

Shinters/dogcatchers are not animal control agencies - they are simply communal enterprises working on controlling the stray dog and cat ‘pest’ populations.

Attachments provided within this document are primarily comprised of reports given to EU welfare campaigners from same within Serbia. In addition, attachments also include copies of a letter provided to the Serbian Embassy in London, Uk from the author of this paper. To date, some two months on from delivery, nothing has been returned to the sender.

The following is a bullet point summary of issues experienced, witnessed and / or reported by Serbian animal welfare campaigners to their EU counterparts over the past year or so:

• Animals captured by Shinter teams employed by Serbian local authorities are transferred into ‘pounds’ before destruction. They can be held there for several days, with minimum or no food or water. Animals of all breeds and sizes are often kept together in a pound; and it has been known for stray cats (Felines) to be put into the same pound as that containing stray dogs (Canines).

• As a result of the above, cannibalism is quite often seen in pounds holding animals for destruction – animals are desperate for food and will fight to the death to acquire it.

• Animal pounds are usually outdated and open to all the elements, as shown in the photographs below. Flooring is nothing more than concrete. Urine from the animals freezes in extreme conditions and covers the floor of the pound.

• Because of the small sizes of many pounds, live animals often have to clamber over dead animals which have succumb to cold, hunger, thirst or injury whilst in the pound

- Refer to Photographs 3 and 3A – Typical Serbian Authority ‘Pounds’, Exposed and Outdated -

----- Original Message -----

From: epar

To: Mark Johnson

Cc:

Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:11 AM

Subject: Re: Carla Lane / Serbian Animals

- Refer to Photographs 4 – 4B - Negotin Pound – February 16th, 2008 -

Dear Mark,

These people in Serbia are really mad !

I don`t know what can I do for rescue  more than 20 dogs in Negotin. Desperate women who call me by phone  is Zvezdana Radojcic- president of APS "Luky"  said me, that  they - she and her friends  will go  again tomorrow morning on city dump -called FEKALNA STANICA and  they will make photoses. Today , shinters ban them photoses make.She  said there are more than 20 dogs- some of dogs are dead.It is very cold , and because  dogs are on concrete flor into their excrements , on ice, some of dogs  be seated on dead dogs .Shinters  doesn`t give  to dogs any food or water - they said - "what for , they will be killed- it isn`t need   they eat and drink, Monday morning they will be finish".

I tryed call mrs. Sanja Celebicanin - no answer, Mr. Marinkovic-no answer, and I  tallked to  main vet inspector of region of Bor, mrs Dragana Antic, mobil phone ++381 648680257 , because Negotin is in that region.She  was very rude, but  I  expected that and I  was very kind but I insisted that she demand care: mark, vaccination sterilisation, rehoming  all strays and  that she stop killings  which  shinters  have plan for Monday.I said her that we will inform  about that killings( in Negotin ,  in last 5 months was killed more than 800 dogs and cats .Every dog and every cat  who was catch  , was killed ).

In dog shelter LuKY  was 150 dogs, and  vet inspector  mrs.Tijana Jakovljevic  mobil phone   ++381 63 573 260 and ++ 381 64 868 0260  is responsible and ,mayor of Negotin: mrs Radmila  Gvero  and City manager mr.Dragan Radojevic are  responsible -  they did`nt want help in spite we  wrote  many times  request  for help ,  and  almost all dogs daied from hunger  and gipsey killed them  into  shelter -  APS Lucky  and Alliance for Animal Rights have bring  charge to  the police - but  killers are   since today and today,  unknown.. so ,  there are  just 11 dogs at the shelter...

It is  need  that vet inspector  chief  mrs Dragana Antic ,on Monday morning demand  care  and  that shinters be transport dogs to the shelter Lucky in spite kill dogs,  authorities must  finance daily budget of the shelter - because   president of APS Lucky ,Zvezdana Radojcic , cannot finance  that  ( as I do here in Subotica trough many years , with my personal money) , because  Zvezdana is poor women .

These killings  in Negotin   very support

1.mayor of Negotin -mrs.Radmila Gerov  

mobil ++ 381 63415 534  and

2. city manager mr Dragan Radojevic 

 mobil phone ++ 381 06380 80 494.

 

I will send you  photoses  of these poor dogs at  city pound Negotin , as soon as I`l receive its.

 (It is terrible .they will killed these dogs on Monday  if we will not  do  action for stop, and  it is shame  to me  because every  weekends  these bastrads do  these mads. -  

 Marinkovic  and Celebicanin , who didn`t do their job in agreement to laws, make  all our nightmare , and today was Friday - killing day in OVCA  Belgrade,  we have nonofficial information - vets killed  more than 50 dogs  today in OVCA, but at the same time ORCA MAKE  actions for  make Contract to city managers of Belgrade  for 5 years collaboration .They  both are content and they  move  money  from city budget to ORCA  bank-account , 55 millions dinars .I  feel that  we must do everything for rescue these poor dogs in Negotin, and at the same time   it is need  always  when somebody  write or talk to mrs.Sanja Celebicanin or Mr.Marinkovic -  talk  for ban  work of OVCA city pound  where   vets do mass killings  by T-61 - every Friday am.Now , it is very cold night , dogs in Negotin are on ice into  dorty cage into  their own excrements, without water and food and  they  will be killed on Monday morning .

I am so sorry , I really shame on me , but I  please you  if  you agree that our group try help these dogs in Negotin and in OVCA .I will send  photoses of dogs in Negotin  but    situation in OVCA you all still have.

Thgey are very perfid in OVCA.

Vets are very perfide in OVCA, they have  so-called commission for " triage " - but  these commission  demand killings  of healthy ,joung dogs and cats .Manz of those  dogs are in  dog shelter EPAR - these vet commission will kill them but we fight to them very hard.

Excuse me for long letter.Tommorow I will be verz short and I hope I  will be able to send zou photoses from Negotin.

 

Thank You and

regards

Slavica

Note – Bold underlining added by author.

During the last month (February 2008), Serbian animal welfare campaigners have managed to attend a meeting held by national representatives in Belgrade. This was initially not easy, as:

• The authorities made no attempt for the campaigners to go with them to the meeting in ‘official vehicles’

• The authorities appear to have given campaigners information that the meeting would be held at one location within Belgrade, when in fact they were holding it elsewhere in the City

• Campaigners, often with no vehicles of their own and little spare money, were having to catch public transport at 5am in order to attend the meeting in Belgrade, at the discovered correct address and not that which they were informed of by the authorities.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jelena Petrovic

To: Mark Johnson

Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:44 PM

Subject: Good news!

Dear Ela, Judy, Jean, Diana and Mark,

  I have good news and, first of all, I need to say that I will never be able to thank you enough for your help. I didn't even believe that pressure on Mr Marinkovic, Mrs Celebicanin and other organisation which are involved  could get us anywhere special. I was so wrong. We won because the whole world knew about this and acted. I don't know which one of you had informed the BBC and some Europian committee, but that was a great idea. All mails helped, each voice was important.

  But, let me tell you all from the start.

  It became quite obvious yesterday that those local authorities do not want to take me to Belgrade with them. 6 of them went by official car (and high daily wages - at the time when they cry because our community has bancropted because of dogs) and not only that they didn't want to drive me there (I had to go by bus at 5 o'clock in the morning), they sent me to the WRONG ADDRESS. Thanks God that I asked Slavica about this and she told me the proper address.

  Mr Marinkovic seamed so much better than I though. At first, the substitute of our Major (Verica Milanovic - and she is quite oposit of what the Major is) said that the whole meeting had no point because of ''disgraceful'' letter. Later I realised that she was talking about my e-mail to Mrs Celebicanin in which I wrote that our local authorities wanted to press charges against Belgrade. I don't think that Mrs Celebicanin gave the letter to Mrs Milanovic and I really can't understan how did she find out about it at the first place. It's a total mistery! Anyway, Mrs Milanovic was talking about so much money which is spent on dogs, on the shelter, food and, esspecially, on indemnities to people who were attacked by stray dogs. Mr Marinkovic told her that et least I was protecting the dogs - which are living beings - and Mrs Milanovic was talking only about the money. Budimir (the worst inspector and the men who literaly hates stray dogs) said that he was the cynologist number 1 in Serbia and that he didn't care about money at all, his only concirn were poor kids which are threatened by dogs (he allways use a bad word for dogs which I can't translate into English). Mr Marinkovic answered him that he was sure that he is more cynologist than Budimir. Budimir than said that ''those fakes'' (that's how he cals us) only cared about the Dogs (again the bad word for them) and not for chicken and sheep which are eaten by dogs at villages. Budimir said that those dogs were wild and that the only ''cure'' for them are hunters - and, fortunatelly, he was a hunter. Mr Marinkovic than said that, although he first promised that each person would have an oportunity to say what he/she wanted, he really didn't have time for stories like that. He didn't want to hear about the hunters. He said that at least 10 comunities in Sebia have guns which only put an animal to asleep and that we should borrow them from those towns. He didn't want to hear any other word from Budimir.

      The director of Sanitary Department was telling his strory. In a way, he was right for complaining. Our Court made a verdict in which they blamed the Sanitary Service and ordered the Service to give so much money for indemnities because they hadn't been killing the dogs. The Court jadgment was based on Rule Book from 1994 where it even says about burning dogs alive. This is a country in which judges do not know that the law has changed. And that was the second degree verdict!

       Mr Marinkovic said that not only justice won at the trials and that our Community needed better laws. It is the same thing that I have been telling them for ages!!!

       Mila Scepovic's substitute was there. He put out several books and lots of pappers in front himself at the table. Many times he wanted to say something, but he didn't have a chance. At the end he only asked what are the criteriums for announcing a dog being agressiv Mr Marinkovic said that even dogs who had a lot of love from their owners could bite the owners when they were hurt or in pain and that wouldn't mean that they were agressiv. He said that we can't say for stray dogs that are dangerous if they attack when they are threatened by humans. He said that really agressiv dogs must be euthanised and that we should form vet boards which would make such decisions. I told him that we had such a board and that the vets were working for the local authorities and they weren't judging as they should. That was the only thing where Marinkovic didn't adree with me. He said that he was a vet and that he couldn't believe than any vet would kill a good or a healthy dog.

    But he is so wrong about this. Maybe he doesn't know how it really is in other towns or he doesn't want to know. I told you that this will be the biggest problem with the new Law.

    Marinkovic and I talked practicaly all the time. I had some photos there and I showed him sweet Tronoskica which was announced agressiv by the vet board. I told him that Ela would sponsor her in front of everybody. I also said that we would do everything to help, just we won't allow killings and abusement of euthanasia. He said to the whole group that killings are to be forgotten! He was telling about microcips and pinishing people who didn't take care of their pets. He mentioned the new Law several times, but, thanks God, he didn't say anything about that 30 days after which the dogs could be killed. I knew that it would be the end if Budimir heard that.

    When the meeting was over none of those people from Kraljevo didn't want to talk with me. I was allready at my way to bus station, when the Sanitary director phoned me and asked to come back. He, the financial menager and I were invited to Mrs Celebicanin office. Than I was told that the ''disgracefull'' letter was mine and that Celebicanin's computer and desk is full of our mails. She asked me if I was aware of the whole mess and fuss we caused while no dog was killed. I tpld her that we needed to act before, not after the killings. She was in total panic.

Did I understand that this thing put bad light into Serbia, that we won't be accepted into EU because of this?

She asked me to inform all of you that there won't be any killing. I said that I thought of that even before she asked me. Then the Sanitary director literaly begged me not to wait until I get home, but to call my mother that very minute and tell her to inform you as soon as possible. I told him that it was not possible because my mother doesn't speak English. Than a journalist from BBC called and didn't beleve Mrs Celebicanin that there weren't any killings, so I had to say it myself on the phone. The journalist asked me if it were all just lies. I said that it wasn't lies, they did want to kill the dogs, but they had changed their opinion because of the international pressure and that we would inform them again if the authorities decide to kill them ever again in the future. The Sanitary director got angry because I said that but I think that I didn't make a mistake.

       Sanja Celebicanin was talking about many organisations which called and asked about this even and I was so shocked by the power we had and I didn't even understand which organisations she was talking abiut (Sorry, Mark, I belive this was the most important moment for you). I really didn't believe in power of mails.

       Anyway, she said that our government doesn't count e-mails as a legal way of comunication and that we should write to her address next time: Sanja Celebicanin

                                                                     Uprava za veterinu

                                                                     Omladinskih brigada 1

                                                                      Beograd (I don't know the post fah, I'll ask about it)

      She asked not to write her as much as we did because she was very busy, but I believe that this is our strongest way to fight. And informing all organisation which have anything to do with EU.

 

       She said that dogs could be killed after 30 days by the new Law and I told her that it would mean  mass killings of 700 dogs (Budimir said that we have 700 strays in Kraljevo) because who would ever adopt that many dogs in 30 days. Then she said that we shouldn't do that in Kraljevo because we have already started the sterilisation, but there won't be other way in other towns.

       I think that our local authorities would change their decision about sterilisation as soon as this Low starts.

It is cheaper to ''euthanise'' dog than to make sterilisation, microcipping and vaccination. So, WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS LAW BEFORE IT BECOMES OFFICIAL!!!

 

There is also another problem. The menager of Sanitary Service won't allow any futher sterilisation before he receives any official paper that the verdict of our Court was wrong. Sanja Celebicanin couldn't belive her ears when she heard what our Court decided. She told the Sanitary director to call the Ministry of Justice. Then, the Sanitary director asked me to ask all of you to write to Ministry of Justice. Our Court has made a wrong verdict TWICE!!! They judged by a Rule Book and not by the Law which is more powerfull.

The Sanitary Director told me not to tell this to anybody (he blamed me for telling this whole thing aboout burnings and killing to people from other countries in stead of comming to his door - how should I asked him for help when he wanted to kill the? Nonsense!!!) but I'm telling you: the judge told him to kill the dogs and not to make fuss of the whole thing! The judges are telling people to make crimes in this country! THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH EVERY SINGLE THING HERE!!!

The Sanitary Service do not deserve our help, but, as soon as the new sterilisation starts, more dogs would be of the hook. Noone would kill a sterilisated dog. That's why it is so important to do sterilisation to as many dogs as possible before the new Law. Do you think that we should help the Sanitary Service with this problem and how? I think that we should - only because of dog's sake. If the Sanitary Service starts paying all those indemnities, they will do it first with the money which is for dog food and sterilisation. Dogs would suffer. I wouldn't mind if the Sanitary director and all his service stayed without wages, but they will hurt dogs, noth themselves.

 

      Sorry I didn't write as soon as I came from Belgrade. My internet connection wasn't working. My mobile phone is 00381 65 2 23 23 51, so next time, when something is urgent, you can send me an sms.

 

      THANK YOU SO, SO MUCH. I do not have any words to tell you how gratefull I am to you. I'm afraid that our fight isn't over and there will be many more problems, but, at least, we won this one.

 

      Tomorrow we will have another meeting in local community office. I'll write about it.

                                   

                                 With best wishes, Jovanka

Note – Bold underlining added by author.

ORCA - Money Wasted, Animals Mutilated

• ‘Orca’ – Serbia’s most well known ‘animal care’ organisation. The following is a transcript of a report produced in recent months. Note: this is an English copy of Serbian text and should be read as such.

“Orca” is the most well-known organization that takes “care” about animals in Serbia. The President of Orca, one Elvir Burazeroviæ, is an unfinished veterinary student and is also a Director of Info Center project intentionally formed in order to receive a donation to the Orca. Elvir Burazeroviæ receives a monthly income of 900 € to remain silent about the massive slaughter of innocent animals, and defines himself as a man who took an opportunity to make his living and secure his existence through dead animals.

Orca was a member of the Alliance of Belgrade's animal protection societies with two other organizations, namely “SOS Animals”, whose President is famous movie director Goran Paskaljeviæ, and “Help Animals”, with Zlata Korjeniæ from the “Riska” shelter as its President. Both “SOS Animals” and “Help Animals” have recently left the Belgrade animal protection alliance ().

Orca collaborates with famous worldwide animal welfare organizations such as WSPA and the RSPCA, both of who have donated funds, given professional help and supported Orca. In June 2007 a manager of RSPCA visited Orca and supported their program – a humane solution to problem of abandoned animals (). Do these worldwide animal protection organizations know what they actually supporting ?

Ovèa Dog-Pound – Behind the Scenes

Orca collaborates with local Belgrade's authorities also, as well as with the Veterinary station “Beograd”1, who’s Director Ðordje Ðokiæ (also known as “The Butcher” or “Kasapin”, in Serbian language) works alongside Elvir Burazerovic (President of Orca ), directly responsible for horrible condition in dog-pound Ovèa.

Animals are brutally handled before, during and after sterilization, and they are not provided with either food or water or with a secure and warm place as required by animals to recover after surgery. Most recently (approximately 3 weeks ago), during the extremely cold weather (temperatures reaching below -5 degrees Celsius), a supply of electrical energy was cut off from dog-pound for unknown reasons. The surgery was however still performed in both cold and dark places and the animals were released back onto the streets after a very short post -operational care period, which does not even include giving the necessary medication.

Puppies younger than 4 months are given 3-7 days grace period (usually 3 days). If they are not adopted by anyone, they are brutally killed using T-61 without even being put into general anesthesia. If given by a veterinarian who does not care (which is a case of most veterinarians working in Ovèa dog-pund) or is a rookie in his job, T-61

causes an agonizing death.

1 Veterinary station “Beograd” is undergoing into process of privatization.

2 T-61 is a lethal injection. It is injected straight into the veins or the heart after the dog is put under general anaesthesia; but this is not always the case as detailed above. T-61 can cause internal bleeding when injected into the veins; the animal will start bleeding from the nose and sometimes epileptic behaviour occurs. When injected straight into the heart it is imperative that the needle will go directly into the heart, and not just graze the heart. If this injection is given imperfectly, the dog can suffer epileptic attacks and enormous cramps, and as a result will bite its tongue and lips between his teeth and scream terribly.

Another very annoying fact is that aside from inhumane sterilization, Ovèa dog-pound places microchips implants into sterilized animals. Chipped animals are returned to the other parts of town, and not to the locations that they originate from, thus making an additional unnecessary problem of animals feeling endangered, which leads to possible attacks and territorial fights. It remains unclear why are these dogs receiving microchip implants if they are going to be put back onto the street. Also, it remains unclear why are some of these chipped animals recollected from the streets again. It leads to a conclusion that Orca performs these activities without a central database of chipped animals which is absolutely necessary in order to achieve successful abandoned animal control. They have no excuses such as "we had no money to do that database" as they received a lot of financial support from the city authorities, as described previously and later in this text.

During the last couple of decades over one and a half million dogs and cats have been brutally murdered in Ovèa. Having that said, Ovèa can be described as a mass-murder facility for abandoned animals.

- Refer to Photographs 5 – 5D - Orca, Belgrade – Animal Suffering -

Photographs taken by Tamara Popiæ while working in Ovèa

Legal Aspects

Local authorities are obliged by Serbian national legislation to build non-killing shelters (shelters in which no animals shall be killed unless really necessary due to incurable illness), but, unfortunately, that has not happen yet. Criminal law of Republic of Serbia (from January 1st, 2006) provides sanctions for individuals that cause harm and murder animals. Orca's purpose is to protect animals, and not to provide them with T-61 lethal injections and inhumane care. Many individuals and animal right activists have pointed to what is happening in Ovèa dog-pounds to authorities responsible for that matter, but no one has managed to raise legal accusations and successfully pursue Orca in the court of law ?; would appear not; Why ?

Where did the Money Go?

The city of Belgrade finances Orca's Info Center project (currently over 225.000 € has been invested), and provides them with exclusive business office space (Terazije 3/IX). Orca has used that money to buy high-end computers, technical equipment and arrange the office space very well. That shows how much they care about animals, for that same money would have served its proper purpose much better if being involved in financing the Ovèa dog-pound.

Animals need no fancy furniture, they need food, water, medical care and warm and secure place.

As an addition to this paradox, money that is assigned to solving a problem of abandoned animals is used for everything except for true help and protection of these animals. For example, the city of Belgrade has invested 1,155,000 € (One million, one hundred and fifty-five thousand Euros) last year to support sterilization and vaccination, but only 131,000 € (One hundred and thirty-one thousand Euros) has been spent on those procedures. What has happened to the rest of the money, approximately 1,024,000 (One million and twenty-four thousand Euros) ?

What Happened to the Evidence?

Doctor of veterinarian medicine, Tamara Popiæ has, witnessed the crimes that happened behind the closed doors in Ovèa dog-pound on a daily basis during the year 2006, while she was working as a volunteer member of Belgrade's Alliance. She has recorded that with the 3 Similar situation of inhumane animal care can be found in many dog-pounds and grace-period killing shelters in many other towns in Serbia.

….. camera and presented the evidence to Orca's President, Elvir Burazeroviæ, in January 2007. Unfortunately, original documents and photos have never been given to Vladimir Markoviæ, the member of the city hall and president of committee that resolves problems of abandoned animals. Original documents have been modified and a new report, written personally by Elvir Burazeroviæ, has been sent without original photos to Vladimir Markoviæ. Why are they hiding the truth?

Press Articles (Serbian National)

The Serbian Daily newspapers “Kurir” and “Glas javnosti” have had enough courage and determination to write about the lies and betrayals regarding Orca, Ovèa dog-pound and Elvir Burazeroviæ. Copies of each of these newspaper articles can be viewed by accessing:

•

•

•

•

•

These articles (above) have managed to start a public debate. Shortly after this, Orca released an official announcement, wickedly threatening anyone who have dared to critise their work and deficiencies. This official statement can be viewed at:

•

Conclusion

An announcement such as this is not a characteristic of democratic society and is just a minor glitch if compared to a price that innocent animals had to pay with their lives. However, the truth must break the disguise, lies and betrayals of ethics and NOW it is the time for that to happen. Not for us who still believe in justice, but for animals who have died as martyrs and who have deserved that from us as one last goodbye.

As a warning that this genocide should never be ever forgotten or repeated. And those who could forgive are not alive anymore. Some of the “missing photos” are sent to you independently of this document.

Missing Photographs

Supplied as an addition to this document are some of the photographs taken by Tamara Popiæ while working in Ovèa. Dates and times of images are shown in the bottom right corner. Notice please some pictures show the absolute disrespect to animals – the dogs have been given a lethal injections and they die in the same room where other dogs are encaged.

 

Current Prices of Animal Medical Procedures – Serbia – as of 18th February 2008.

Prices are approximate for both feline and canine.

Sterilisation of female: 2800 to 3000 dinars = 37 Euros = £27 GBP (Uk Pounds Sterling)

Sterilisation of male: 1200 to 1800 dinars = 22 Euros = £16 GBP

Microchipping: 100 dinars = 1. 15 Euros = £1.25 GBP

based on an exchange rate of 1 Euro = 80 Serbian Dinar.

Serbian Government, Veterinarian and Regional Authority Contact Information:

• President of the Republic of Serbia - Mr. Boris Tadic.

kontakt@predsednik.yu

• Prime Minister of the Serbian Government - Mr.Vojislav Kostunica.

lgvozden@.yu mmarkovic@.yu

• Chief of Veterinary Inspection of Serbia - Mrs Sanja Celebicanion.

Mobile ++381 63 753 105

 

 

• Chief of Veterinary Inspection of region of Bor - Mrs Dragana Antic.

Mobile ++381 64 86 80 257

 

 

• Director of Veterinary Department of Ministry of Agriculture - Mr Marinkovic.

++ 381 63 607 489 and ++ 381 64 868 00 00

Minister of Justice of the Republic of Serbia - Mr.Dusan Petrovic.

kabinet@mpravde..yu

(also a member of the Democracy Party of Mr. Boris Tadic)

• Deputy Public Attorney General of the Republic of Serbia,

- Mrs.Gordana Stojanovic Milosevic rjtdz@

• Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Serbia

- Mr.Slobodan Milosavljevic (a member of the Democracy Party of Mr. Boris Tadic)

kabinet@minpolj..yu

slobodan.milosavljevic@.yu

slobodanmilosavljevic@.yu

-

- Democracy Party -Mr.Dragin - Telephone ++381 11 344 3003  and e-mail

address  press@.yu

Please Note - Campaigners will be pleased to undertake research of additional contacts should they be required by the Eurogroup / Intergroup for any communication.

Conclusion and Request to EU Eurogroup / Intergroup

It is hoped that with the data provided in this paper, the EU Eurogroup for Animals / all-party Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals will now have a clear picture of the stray animal control practices being undertaken in Serbia. Both EU and non-EU (Serbian) animal welfare campaigners ask please that action is immediately taken with the Serbian Government, authorities and national / regional veterinary departments to highlight:

• The EU Eurogroup for Animals / all-party Intergroup do have strong concerns regarding the current stray animal welfare conditions operating within Serbia

• The EU Eurogroup for Animals / all-party Intergroup give their support for a ‘No Kill’, Sterilisation and clear identification policy on all animals to be adopted by authorities and veterinary sectors throughout Serbia

• The EU Eurogroup for Animals / all-party Intergroup to ask the Serbian authorities about the current financial situation and the spending associated with Orca, Belgrade

• The EU Eurogroup for Animals / all-party Intergroup to inform the Serbian Government, authorities and national / regional veterinary departments that the current practices and procedures undertaken with relation to stray animal capture, holding and destruction are NOT acceptable to the standards expected by member states of the European Union. As Serbia wishes to gain Accession into the EU within the next few years, major changes need to be shown to be introduced as regular, standard practices by the Serbian Government, authorities and national / regional veterinary departments before EU accession will be allowed to progress.

• The proposed Serbian legislation due to be introduced within the next month, which will be named ‘Article 73’, states that after 30 days, stray dogs and cats can be euthanased if nobody adopts them. Instead of a time period of 30 days being defined as the maximum for keeping animals within the pound before commencing their destruction, the Eurogroup / Intergroup are asked to support welfare campaigners requests that the national legislation defines that there is a ‘NO MAXIMUM’ period of time defined by law, and that with the help and assistance of animal welfare organisations, animals can be kept within the pounds indefinitely, until the necessary sterilisation, vaccination and fitting of ident tags to the animal(s) is undertaken.

Mark Johnson – February 2008.

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download