Animal

L'entreprise Aux Champs d'Élisé est exonérée de tout blâme Le 4 février 2008 - 17:57 | Olivier Caron L'entreprise Aux Champs d'Élisé, qui produit essentiellement du foie gras, est finalement exonérée de tout blâme relativement à une affaire de mauvais traitements envers des animaux. Un organisme de défense des droits des animaux, le Réseau d'action global (RAG), avait dénoncé l'automne dernier cette entreprise de Marieville pour le traitement fait à aux canards. Sur un document vidéo, on voyait entre autres un employé couper violemment le cou d'un canard vivant. Un avocat de la Couronne a estimé que les preuves étaient insuffisantes et qu'il n'y avait pas matière à déposer des accusations. L'entreprise ne compte pas poursuivre le Réseau Action Globale. ça serait bien la cerise sur le sundae http://www.matin.qc.ca

Merci Caro ! Oui c'est tout simplement révoltant et écoeurant !

Il a répondu à cet article et m'en a fait parvenir une copie Merci pour l'article: Voici ma lettre. Bye. Whether this piece is a news article or not, or biased or not is irrelevant. It¡¯s a rare thing nowadays to read anything that purports to criticize animal research, as the professional journalists consistently fail to inform the public about that issue. We can hardly condemn the authors for highlighting problematic and key issues about the use of animals in research, testing and education in Canada . This is already more than what the ¡°real¡± journalists are able to do. The authors should be praised instead of being blamed for any alleged breach of journalism rules. That is not the issue here and unfortunately, some people just can¡¯t see the forest for the tree. The sad reality is that more animals are being used today than in the past. As the article states correctly, over 2.5 million animals were used in 2006, compared to less than 1.5 million in 1997. We learn that UBC annually has 100,000 animals for use in dozens of affiliated research projects. In 2006, some 238,000 animals were involved in regulatory testing of non-medicinal products, while the proportion of animals subjected to the highest level of invasiveness has risen from less than 20% in 1998, to nearly 50% in 2006. That¡¯s over 180,000 animals used in experiments ¡°which cause severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanesthetized conscious animals.¡± Moreover, many animals are not reported because the CCAC¡¯s program assessment is on a voluntary basis. Is there anyone to raise the eyebrows? And what is happening in UBC happens elsewhere in Canada . Instead of reducing, and replacing the number of animals, which is what the 3Rs principle stands for, the number of animals used keeps increasing. How odd is the propaganda telling the Canadian public that animal research is done only when necessary, under strict regulations, and trumpeting researcher¡¯s efforts to minimize pain and use as few animals as possible. Of course, uninformed people who have little knowledge of the science enterprise, readily rely on the opinion of our so-called experts (remarkably, those same groups and individuals whose livelihoods depend on animal research) to make their own. In fact, the research community has done a very poor job as far as the 3Rs are concerned, and justifiably so. Animal research is a self-serving multi-billion business, and research institutions and researchers depend on it for their very existence. It is no surprise that UBC has approved a 20 million budget for another animal facility, which will create jobs and economic wealth in the research community. Unfortunately, those who fail to read scientific papers have little idea about the wasteful and misleading nature of animal research. A look at the literature shows that today¡¯s animal research mostly fails to help find cures and treatments. Let¡¯s ask UBC what significant breakthroughs have been achieved on its campuses in the last decade; they may not have a clue. The question does not really matter, for as long as research is well-funded, it can go on until the end of time. The value of animal research must be evaluated, transparency must prevail, the public must be able to access information, researchers must develop and use alternatives to animal research, and some research projects should be prohibited. There are many steps that remain to be taken to fulfill our moral obligations towards animals. It¡¯s up to the scientists who use animals and public funds to prove the validity of animal experiments. It is not up to the animal [and science] advocates to prove that such experiments are wrong. As good citizens, we expect more than the peremptory and rhetoric allegations that animal research saves lives, to be persuaded. The burden of proof is on researchers. http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=2244

http://fishbase.se/ComNames/CommonNameSearchSpeciesList.cfm?CommonName=Idiotfish Il s'agit de poissons Cé (les sébastes...) - des poissons de fonds je crois Sebastolobus alascanus et Sebastolobus altivelis

La Couronne aurait tranché pour exonérer les Champs d'Élisée de tout blâme, faute de preuves suffisantes ... Si vous trouvez cette nouvelle dans les journaux aujourd'hui, s.v.p. venir afficher le lien

je crois que c'est celle qui s'arrachait les poils avant son opération ... (?)

Le lien qu'il avait ajouté concernant cette mention ne fonctionne plus Cé, mais j'essaierai de trouver ce que c'est... IDIOTFISH is an acceptable seafood name: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/fispoi/fishlist/canalphafolder/icanalphamastere.shtml

Article sur le site du Capt. Watson 5/4/2006 . . . But more to the point, seal products may threaten human health . . . Guest Commentary by Debbie MacKenzie Seal oil leaves a fishy aftertaste... while idiotfish*, but not seal meat, is a formally accepted name for Canadian seafood But more to the point, seal products may threaten human health. Seal products may pose human health risks What are the health risks? Brucellosis (found in Canadian seals) Trichinosis (found in Canadian seals) Botulism (associated with ingesting seal oil) Who knows what else? (chemical pollutants, viruses in seal meat that can kill mink, nasty skin diseases, etc.) What should be done about the poor health of Canadian seals? Admit seals are not fish, but mammals, and can transmit significant infectious diseases to people. Stop eating seals and using their tissues for any purpose, including furs. Leave them alone. What are the veterinarians saying? What about the idiotfish*? http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_060504_1p.html

Je me demande bien qu'est-ce qui peut lui causer ce problème ! As-tu essayé de lui changer sa nourriture hop ? C'est sûrement parce qu'elle a souffert de la faim quand elle était petite ! Depuis plusieurs mois, je donne des croquettes diète à la Fanie, mais jusqu'à maintenant, elle n'a pas perdu une seule livre ! Elle a toujours faim elle aussi

OK Cé... Il le lira en revenant

Il y a des lois qui protègent les animaux dans ce pays ? Pourquoi alors sont-ils maltraités et torturés à l'année longue...

p.s; j'ai envoyé une copie de cet article à David Ruffieux...

Most notable, perhaps, has been the continued use at UBC of non-human primates in neurological experiments. Recently, the rhesus macaque, an Asian species, has been used extensively in Parkinson’s disease research. The monkeys are typically subjected to brain damage which models the degenerative disease, and then treated with various methamphetamine and electroconvulsive shock therapies. Such usage of non-human primates in neurological experiments is an area that has received particular criticism from many in the scientific community. Because of considerable anatomical and physiological differences, alternatives to animal testing can often provide more relevant findings in relation to human applications. In the words of Professor Mountford, there is “clear evidence that research findings in other creatures frequently do not translate into reliable knowledge about human responses to drugs and situations.” Remarkably, the conservative and authoritative US National Research Council concluded in a 2007 report that due to the cost, time requirements and fundamental flaws in the translation of results, “over time, the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced and possibly even eliminated.” It would appear then that perhaps the mainstream scientific community is coming to accept the desirability, at the very least, of a diminution of animal experimentation. Back here at home So where does this leave us? Have we reached the twilight hour of the age of animal experimentation? Apparently the UBC administration doesn’t think so. “We’re expanding quite rapidly now,” says Harvey-Clark. “We’re about to open a very large 100,000 square foot centralized facility, north campus.” The director is referring to the Centre for Comparative Medicine which, according to UBC’s 2007-2008 Budget Summary Book, “will relocate and consolidate animal care facilities from south campus, as well as other locations around campus.” According to the BSB a $20 million budget has been approved thus far for the Centre. The number of staff at the ACC is already increasing in anticipation of the scope of the new facility. If, considering the alternatives, the entire field of animal experimentation is increasingly redundant, ineffectual and costly, not to mention ethically ambiguous, why is UBC rapidly expanding its program? Professor Mountford wonders if it might be “an exercise in revenue generation” for the university. He may be correct, as an increasing proportion of the rats and mice bred at UBC are transgenic—animals which can easily carry a $1000 price tag. The priorities of the university, however, may be part of a larger trend that goes beyond the profitability of specialty rodents. “We’re certainly in a period of wild success in research on this campus,” says Harvey-Clark. Whereas research is traditionally an area which loses money for universities, nowadays, the Director says, it’s turning a profit. In fact, UBC is at the forefront of this financial success. With a “research grant fund capture approaching half a billion dollars,” says Harvey-Clark “UBC is kind of leading the pack.” As to the fate of the existing animal care facilities? “Well these buildings here, are sitting squarely in the middle of what you drove past on your way here, which is development,” says Harvey-Clark. Just past UBC Farm, the existing ACC is one of several facilities on south campus that will or have already been shut down and demolished to make way for the creation of infinitely more profitable enterprises like condo developments. When asked about the future use of animals in research, Harvey-Clark spoke on behalf of his colleagues and stated that “all of us involved, would certainly like to see the replacement [of animals] where we can.” As far as specifically which areas of research such replacement might be likely to occur, the director responded that “it’s hard to pick an area where it’s more or less justifiable, really hard to put more value on one project than another.” As a member of the Animal Care Committee, the very body responsible for the approval and monitoring of the use of animals in any UBC affiliated research, Harvey-Clark’s indecisiveness hardly provides assurances of discretion. Nor does the director instil the sense that UBC has any intention of curtailing its future use of animals in research. And what does the UBC student body think of all this? Hard to say, as it seems unlikely that they’ve really been asked. It is worth noting that of all the student clubs and organizations at the University, not a single one is devoted to the issue of animal rights and welfare. A quick internet search shows UBC to be perhaps the only major university in Canada without one. Are UBC students unusually apathetic towards animal welfare? Is it possible rather, that under the clever subterfuge of an under-publicized ‘Animal Care Program,’ its activities have simply been well hidden enough to escape notice. With the basic theoretical foundation for the use of animals in research crumbling, perhaps it’s time for the students of UBC to express their opinion of the annual ‘consumption’ of more than 100,000 animals by their university. For which purposes and to what ‘degree of invasiveness’ are we as a community comfortable subjecting animals to? And which species of animals, if any? Certainly the issue has never been more pertinent than at this juncture, as the investment of at least $20 million in a new facility will not only maintain UBC’s legacy of animal experimentation, but expand and extend it far into the future. VOIR LES COMMENTAIRES... SI VOUS AVEZ LE TEMPS http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=2244

Il s'agit de l'université de la Colombie-Britannique (Canada) ------------------------------------------------ http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=2244 Marc Serpa Francoeur Friday, January 25th, 2008 Tucked away somewhere on south campus is the Animal Care Center (ACC), the current locus of animal experimentation at UBC. Unbeknownst to most students, UBC is one of the largest bio-medical campuses in the country. The ACC annually distributes some 100,000 creatures, both large and small, to dozens of UBC affiliated research projects. Alternate Realities 10:57am, UBC Animal Care Center 6199 South Campus Road A fat, black sky weighs heavy as I roll through the barbed-wire perimeter of the ACC complex. A spate of “Restricted Access: Authorized Persons Only” signs welcome me, as a familiar odour, dark and caustic, creeps through the vent and welds to the back of my throat. I know that smell…but why? I park near the rodent-breeding center, a drab, single-level concrete bunker. That foul smell grows stronger as I move toward the administrative wing of the complex. Inside reception, flies buzz in the fetid air. The floor beneath my feet is sticky and streaked red. From somewhere in the labyrinthine halls before me, the drone of a large drill ricochets down the hall, nearly cloaking the muffled squeals of some wretched animal. In the corner, the niece of Frau Blücher sits at her desk and gnaws on a chunk of strange, dark meat. Ah, yes… that would explain the smell. With a feral twitch, she glances up at my entrance then screams over her shoulder in some brutish Teutonic vernacular. With the good Frau still a-bellow, a whistling attendant comes round a corner and breezes past with a dolly full of carcasses. Mangled, furry legs of a lesser ungulate protrude through a twisted mat of rigor-mortic albino mice. The thick, blue arm of an ape hangs limply over the side, sticky crimson dripping from the thumb of its upturned paw. The director emerges from his office. He wears a bloodied butcher’s apron and pair of rigger boots well-worn in the toes. “So, you’re the reporter, eh? Good, good…” He smiles and clamps a meaty hand down on my shoulder. “Let’s show you around.” His fingernails are dirty…very dirty. I cough, then mention that I didn’t know there was a BBQ today. “What? Oh, yes. Well, you must be hungry. Frau, let’s get this boy some meat.” And she scuttles off down the hall. I ask if it’s a special occasion. “Well,” he winks at me, “we do run on a lunar calendar.” I waggle my head knowingly and we join in a chuckle. Good, I think. This is exactly what I expected. Back to reality Well, not so much. Perhaps in the halcyon days of unfettered progress and unanaesthetized vivisection, such blithe environs could indeed be found in the noble corridors of academia. Surely in this great era of The Body Shop and vigilant watch groups, the macabre spectre of animal experimentation has withered like so many other embarrassing little pastimes. Hasn’t it? According to the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), the numbers of animals used in ‘science’ in Canada have increased significantly in the past decade, with over 2.5 million animals in 2006, up from less than 1.5 million in 1997. In fact, 2006 saw the highest number of animals used in research since 1975. As the home of a sizable and rapidly expanding industry of animal experimentation, UBC appears to be at the forefront of these trends. “Depending on who you believe,” says Dr. Chris Harvey-Clark, UBC is “the second largest biomedical campus in Canada.” Harvey-Clark is the director of the university’s Animal Care Center, an institution currently responsible for the distribution annually of some 100,000 animals for use in dozens of UBC affiliated research projects. Many students may be entirely unaware, but UBC maintains over thirty animal care facilities across its campus and throughout the rest of the city. With over thirty full-time staff at the centre, not including UBC Plant Ops staff, a sizable portion of the animals used are the product of the ACC’s extensive rodent breeding program. Harvey-Clark describes a recent shift in Canadian research from the use of companion to farm animals, and from larger to smaller animals in general; a process he characterizes as the “refinement” of research practices. “Pigs are probably the main large animal that’s used,” says Harvey-Clark. “We haven’t seen dogs used in research at UBC since 1992.” While the wide majority of the animals used each year are rats, mice, and fish, there are over 5000 subjects from other species, including larger mammals like sheep, pigs, rabbits, cats, and non-human primates. Harvey-Clark views the use of these animals in research as a “consumptive use,” and equates it to the use of animals in food production. With a veterinary background, Harvey-Clark feels it his responsibility to maximize the welfare of the animals under his care. He purports with pride that ‘housing’ conditions for animals used in research have improved significantly at UBC over time and compare well with other facilities across the country. That’s all good and well, one might think, but how have these developments affected the once sensational ethical concerns about animal experimentation? What of the great outcry of bygone years, as in 1981, when the very office occupied today by Director Harvey-Clark was firebombed by activists? While the housing for research animals might well have improved, has their welfare in terms of actual usage as experimental subjects changed drastically? The Stats According to the CCAC, experiments in Canada are divided into four different “Categories of Invasiveness,” In 2006, while about one third, or over 800,000 experiments caused “little or no discomfort or stress,” another third caused “moderate to severe distress or discomfort.” Additionally, over 7per cent, some 180,000 animals, were subjected to the highest level of invasiveness, “severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of unanaesthetized conscious animals.” This quantity is more than double proportionately, and well over three times in number than the mere 55,000 or 3per cent of animals used in this way in 1998, less than ten years earlier. As far as the nature of the experiments, while some 30per cent were related to medical purposes in 2006, roughly 10per cent, some 238,000 animals were involved in the “regulatory testing” of non-medicinal products. While the number of animals consumed for this purpose has been relatively consistent over the past decade, the proportion subjected to the highest level of invasiveness has risen from less than 20per cent in 1998, for instance, to nearly 50per cent in 2006. All told, non-medicinal product testing represented well over 60per cent of the total number of animals subjected to the highest level of invasiveness in 2006. While animal experimentation may receive less media attention today than in the past, not only is the consumption of animals in research at a thirty-year high, but both the quantity and proportion of highly invasive procedures show no sign of abating. These trends come at a time when the basic tenants of animal experimentation are, if anything, under greater scrutiny than ever before. In light of modern technological developments, the basic justification of animal testing is increasingly dubious. According to Clive Perraton Mountford, a UBC professor of philosophy who specializes in environmental ethics, there is little continued rationalization for the use of animals in research in light of advances in “computer modeling and tissue culture work.” Surprisingly perhaps, these alternatives are typically far cheaper and faster than animal experimentation. Not simply collateral damage The use of animals in research is “hugely costly,” Harvey-Clark readily concedes. “It’s costly from a financial viewpoint, and it’s costly ethically; so, you have to be assured that their use is necessary.” Nonetheless, when asked about some of the successes achieved by animal research at UBC, Harvey-Clark, director of the ACC for three years now, had difficulty providing concrete examples. “It’s probably an example of how we don’t sell ourselves particularly well that I can’t give you a list of websites to go to.” When asked, UBC Public Relations failed to provide a listing of current UBC affiliated projects involving animal experimentation. Motivated perhaps to considerable extent by corporate interests, a degree of redundancy is also present within the field of animal research. Dr. Alka Chandna, a senior Researcher at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) headquarters in Virginia, summarized some of the more controversial practices employed by UBC in the last few years. Among others, she described smoking experiments using guinea pigs despite, as she says, the ready availability of “plenty of information on the impact of cigarette smoke on humans through clinical studies.” ...2

AGISSEZ MAINTENANT EN FAVEUR DE L’ADOPTION D’UNE BONNE LOI PORTANT SUR LA CRUAUTÉ ENVERS LES ANIMAUX! Les Canadiens doivent se faire entendre afin d’empêcher l’adoption, à la Chambre des communes, d’une loi portant sur la cruauté envers les animaux qui serait inefficace et dépassée. Le projet de loi S-213, un projet de loi émanant des députés, a été déposé au Sénat. Il a été adopté au Sénat puis, en deuxième lecture, à la Chambre des communes. Il est présentement en attente d’un débat, qui aura probablement lieu cet automne, devant le Comité de la Justice et des Droits de la personne. Le projet de loi S-213 ne modifierait EN RIEN la loi actuelle qui est archaïque et inadéquate dans son ensemble : il ne fait qu’alourdir les sanctions. Certes, cela est important, mais cela ne change rien si les infractions sont si problématiques qu’il est impossible, dans la plupart des cas, de poursuivre leurs auteurs en justice. Le projet de loi S-213 : rend difficile la poursuite en justice de ceux qui font preuve de négligence, même lorsque des dizaines d’animaux sont morts de faim. permet d’entraîner des animaux dans le but d’organiser des combats de chiens, de coqs ou d’autres genres de combats entre différentes espèces animales. permet de tuer des animaux errants ou sauvages sans raison particulière. fournit une protection supplémentaire pour les bovins et d’autres animaux mais une protection moindre pour les animaux errants ou sauvages. n’érige pas en crime le fait de tuer un animal de façon brutale ou barbare. considère la cruauté animale comme une infraction contre les biens. n’offre aucune protection particulière pour les animaux d’assistance policière. Le projet de loi C-373 est la clé Le projet de loi C-373, un projet de loi émanant des députés déposé à la Chambre des communes, règlerait les problèmes précédents en plus d’alourdir les sanctions. Ce projet de loi est pratiquement identique à un autre projet qui est passé à un cheveu d’être adopté en 2003 alors qu’il recevait l’appui unanime de la Chambre. Un très grand nombre d’industries utilisant des animaux et représentant des fermiers, des trappeurs, des chercheurs scientifiques, des vétérinaires, des associations policières et des groupes de protection animale soutenaient également ce projet. Malheureusement, le Sénat a bloqué ce projet de loi qui est mort au moment de la dissolution du Parlement. Les groupes de l’industrie animalière Certaines industries animalières militent avec force en faveur du projet de loi S-213. Elles ont réussi à convaincre plusieurs politiciens d’appuyer ce projet de loi en faisant circuler des informations trompeuses sur la manière dont le projet de loi C-373 s’appliquerait aux groupes de l’industrie animalière. On a affirmé que le projet de loi C-373 ferait de la chasse et de la pêche des activités illégales et qu’il aurait des effets négatifs sur l’élevage, la recherche scientifique et diverses activités légales impliquant des animaux. Ces affirmations sont fausses. Le projet de loi C-373 offrirait le même niveau de protection en ce qui a trait aux activités légales impliquant des animaux que la loi actuelle ne l’a fait au cours des 115 dernières années. L’article du Code criminel portant sur la cruauté animale concerne les crimes et les mauvais traitements intentionnels contre les animaux, de même que la négligence criminelle à l’égard des animaux. Elle permet que l’on tue un animal et même qu’on le fasse souffrir dans le cadre d’activités légales soit en s’adonnant à l’élevage, à la chasse, à la pêche, à la trappe et à la recherche scientifique. Cependant, elle ne permet pas aux éleveurs, aux chasseurs, aux trappeurs et aux autres utilisateurs d’animaux de faire souffrir un animal inutilement. Ces personnes doivent se conformer aux normes et aux pratiques de l’industrie dans le cadre de leurs activités. Le projet de loi C-373 ne modifierait aucunement cela. La bonne nouvelle, c’est qu’un certain nombre de groupes de l’industrie et de politiciens ont donné leur appui aux deux projets de loi : C-373 et S-213. Et vous, comment pouvez-vous aider? Participez à notre campagne de cartes postales ! Cliquez ici pour commander vos cartes postales gratuites demandant au premier ministre de rejeter le projet de loi S-213 et d’appuyer C-373. Demandez-nous des cartes aditionnelles que vous pouvez partager avec vos proches ! ÉCRIVEZ AU PREMIER MINISTRE ET À VOTRE DÉPUTÉ. Vous pouvez l’envoyer telle quelle, mais si vous la personnalisez, cela aura plus d’effet. Vous n’avez pas à mettre un timbre. Envoyez votre lettre à : Chambre des communes Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6 http://cfhs.ca/law/lois_f_d_rales/

29 janvier 2008 - 18 chevaux saisis à Bassilly (Enghien) On peut dire que nous commençons bien l'année, encore une saisie de chevaux, cette fois, il s'agit de 18 chevaux, outre leur état, ils vivaient dans un semblant de hangar. La hauteur du fumier des box rarement changés était telle que certains chevaux atteignaient le plafond. Nous avons dû gratter dans le fumier damé afin de faire un semblant de rampe pour descendre les chevaux. http://www.sapadflorennes.be/cariboost3/crbst_20.html http://www.sapadflorennes.be/cariboost3/crbst_21.html http://www.sapadflorennes.be/cariboost3/crbst_0.html

February 4, 2008 Malaysia has dropped a plan to round up nuisance monkeys from its cities and sell them abroad as exotic meat or for medical research, after discovering that most of the animals are too ill to be exported.... MALAYSIA: February 4, 2008 KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia has dropped a plan to round up nuisance monkeys from its cities and sell them abroad as exotic meat or for medical research, after discovering that most of the animals are too ill to be exported. In August, the government said it would end a ban on the export of long-tailed macaques after complaints that they were too aggressive and had attacked residents. Animal-rights groups objected, saying the monkeys would be sold to laboratories. But the New Straits Times said on Saturday the government had now reversed its decision after discovering that the monkeys were riddled with diseases and that no one would want to buy them. "They were supposed to fulfil the demand for exotic meat in a few countries in Asia and in the West," the daily quoted Natural Resources and Environment Minister Azmi Khalid as saying. A recent study found 80 percent of urban macaques carried diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and AIDS, he said. "Only 20 percent were healthy and, of this, only half the number were suitable for export," he added. The report also quoted Azmi as saying the diseases could pose a threat to human health, but it gave no idea as to how the government now planned to tackle the problem. Veterinary experts have previously called for relocation programmes, reproduction controls and public education to stop residents from feeding or teasing the animals. (Reporting by Mark Bendeich; Editing by Jeremy Laurence) http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46745/story.htm

10 janvier 2008 Charest chasse l'orignal sans permis Vous ne le saviez peut-être pas, mais le gouvernement Charest a décidé de privatiser un autre pan de nos beaux grands espaces sauvages sans notre permission: la réserve Dunière en Gaspésie. Pour mieux nous faire avaler la couleuvre, l'équipe Charest a, à son habitude, annoncé la nouvelle entre la dinde et la tourtière. C'est Nathalie Normandeau, la pétillante ministre des Affaires municipales et des régions, qui a décidé unilatéralement de remettre la gestion d'une des plus belles réserves fauniques du Québec dans les mains de la Corporation de gestion des rivières Matapédia et Patapédia. Exit la SEPAQ. Bienvenue la CGRMP. Selon ce que nous apprend Le Devoir, Miss Normandeau (qui, incidemment, est aussi députée du quartier Bonaventure où se trouve la réserve en question) a annoncé cette privatisation juste avant Noël sans prévenir ses amis ministres. Bien entendu, la réserve Dunière en Gaspésie c'est loin. Bien plus loin que le Mont Orford. Les voix qui s'élèveront contre cette privatisation auront donc sans doute plus de mal à se faire entendre sur les lignes ouvertes des radios et à la une des journaux. Une fois encore, le gouvernement Charest vend la peau du Québec avant de l'avoir tué. Et cette fois, contrairement au dépeçage du Mont Orford, la balle a été tirée sans sommation et la décision est passée sans consultation. Et tant pis pour ce territoire fabuleux où se baladent en moyenne quatre orignaux au kilomètre carré. Les nouveaux gestionnaires ont d'ores et déjà décidé d'augmenter le nombre de bêtes à abattre. http://henrard.branchez-vous.com/2008/01/charest_privatise_lorignal.html

04 février 2008 La première souris enrhumée pourrait faire avancer la science Agence France-Presse Londres La première souris ayant attrapé un rhume a relancé l'espoir de trouver un remède à cette affection bénigne, mais également à des maladies plus graves comme l'asthme, ont annoncé des chercheurs britanniques. Les scientifiques de l'Imperial College de Londres sont parvenus à modifier génétiquement une souris pour la rendre sensible au virus provoquant la plupart des rhumes, le rhinovirus, qui jusqu'à présent n'affectait que les humains et les chimpanzés. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080204/CPSCIENCES/80204062/1020/CPSCIENCES

4 février 2008-Un accident de la route inusité, mais pas si rare que cela, retient l'attention ce matin. En effet, une dame de Québec a vu son véhicule roué de coups de sabots par un cheval effrayé dont le cocher le conduisait en sens inverse. La bête aurait été effrayée par le passage d'un autobus et s'en serait prise à la voiture de la dame ... Selon des cochers interrogés, ce genre d'accident n'est pas rare, car certaines bêtes ne s'habituent jamais à la circulation. ... http://www.matin.qc.ca/quebec.php

EXPERIMENTATION ANIMALE : LA FONDATION BRIGITTE BARDOT POUR UN DROIT A L’OBJECTION DE CONSCIENCE Paris, le 1er février 2008 - La Fondation Brigitte Bardot remercie Lionnel Luca, député des Alpes-Maritimes, d’avoir déposé à l’Assemblée nationale, le 29 janvier, une proposition de loi pour un « droit d’objection de conscience à l’expérimentation animale ». Ce texte, rédigé avec le concours de la Fondation, prévoit notamment que « tout citoyen qui refuse, pour des raisons d’ordre éthique, le recours à l’animal doit pouvoir bénéficier d’un droit d’objection de conscience et pouvoir orienter sa formation ou ses recherches vers d’autres méthodes expérimentales ». Rappelons que dans le droit européen et national, l’expérimentation animale n’est licite que si elle ne peut être remplacée par d’autres méthodes expérimentales. Avec le développement et la validation de méthodes substitutives au modèle animal, nous disposons désormais d’alternatives fiables qui rendent le recours à l’animal inutile et obsolète. L’un des objectifs de cette proposition de loi est donc d’encourager les étudiants qui souhaitent travailler sur des méthodes scientifiques en phase avec l’évolution observée dans les laboratoires de recherche. Pour Christophe Marie, Coordinateur du Bureau de Protection Animale de la Fondation Brigitte Bardot et membre du Comité national de réflexion éthique sur l’expérimentation animale : « Les étudiants sont de plus en plus nombreux à condamner ces expérimentations jugées, à la fois, moralement inacceptables et inutiles dans la poursuite de leur cursus scolaire ou dans leur vie professionnelle. Il nous paraît légitime et important de respecter cette liberté individuelle de pensée, se refus de recourir à la violence sur des êtres sensibles. C’est pourquoi il est urgent d’adopter en France un droit d’objection de conscience à l’expérimentation animale comme l’ont déjà fait les Pays-Bas et l’Italie. » La Fondation Brigitte Bardot soutiendra le texte auprès de tous les députés. Elle est également intervenue, le 30 janvier, auprès de la ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche pour lui présenter la proposition de loi et lui demander de l’appuyer. Ce thème devrait être débattu lors des « assises de la Protection Animale » qui seront prochainement annoncées par le gouvernement et qui font suite à l’entretien accordé par le Président Nicolas Sarkozy à Brigitte Bardot et son équipe. Pour soutenir cette proposition de loi, la Fondation Brigitte Bardot lance une pétition nationale en ligne : http://www.fondationbrigittebardot.fr/site...tion.php?Id=351

... Université McGill Ken Dewar De nombreuses espèces de singes de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Monde servent d’organismes modèles en recherche biomédicale. Ces modèles de primates non humains étant génétiquement proches des humains, ils peuvent aider à élucider des comportements humains et des maladies complexes que les modèles rongeurs ne peuvent pas révéler. Le singe vervet (Cercopithecus aethiops), est une espèce non menacée de l’Afrique du Sud et un modèle qui se prête bien à l’étude des processus neurologiques. M. Ken Dewar, chercheur principal au Centre d’innovation de Génome Québec et Université McGill et professeur adjoint au Département de génétique humaine à l’Université McGill, dirige le projet de Carte physique intégrée du génome du singe vervet, Cercopithecus aethiops. En comparant la carte du génome du singe vervet et les cartes du génome des humains, des chimpanzés et du singe rhésus, l’équipe du projet déterminera également des régions où il se produit des réarrangements génomiques, pour ainsi mieux comprendre les mécanismes qui contribuent à l’évolution du génome. http://www.genomequebec.com/GQgenomequebec/publications/rapportAnnuel/rapAn20062007Fr.pdf