B&K are applying for a breeding facility to supply beagles to the animal experimentation industry. They're having a hard time, but the final decision is due soon. Please put an objection in writing asap, it only takes a few minutes if you use the text below.
Please object to the beagle factory!
"We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. They do not exist." - Queen Victoria, British Monarch and Firm Anti-Vivisectionist
In less than eight weeks, the British Home Secretary, Eric Pickles MP, will announce his decision on the B&K Universal beagle breeding facility in the UK.
Those following the campaign against this sordid facility will know that 2,000 beagles will be factory farmed in intensive conditions, all destined for the vivisector's scalpel.
The plans have already been rejected twice and a similar construction stopped at Marshall's Green Hill farm in Montichari, Italy, following a campaign by dedicated anti-vivisectionists.
:: TAKE ACTION ::
We need your help now, more than ever, to stop a single brick being from ever being layed. If you have not done so, please send the sample letter below to Eric Pickles and your local MP to demand the farm's refusal.
On Saturday 7th January 2012, campaigners will March for the Beagles in Hull City Centre in a march of unity and strength. Check out the NAVA website (www.antivivisection.info) for full details.
The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP,
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government,
House of Commons,
London, SW1A 0AA
Find your local MP:
:: SAMPLE LETTER ::
APPEAL REF: APP/E2001/A/11/2156819/NWF.
APPEAL SITE: B&K UNIVERSAL LTD, GRIMSTON PARK, GRIMSTON LANE, GRIMSTON, HULL, HU11 4QE.
DEAR RT HON. ERIC PICKLES MP,
I am against B&K Universal’s appeal proposals for the following reasons:
1. Despite the package of mitigation outlined in Appellant’s Supplementary Transport Statement, I believe the demolition and construction work associated with the proposed development will still prove detrimental to the safe and free flow of traffic on Grimston Road/Grimston Lane because:
A) Grimston Road forms part of the B1242 – a carriageway that links all the main towns along the Holderness Coast of East Riding; not only does the B1242 lead tourists to popular destinations such as Withernsea and Hornsea but it is a key transport route to and from the gas works in Easington. Therefore, the development phase of passing places will inevitably cause congestion and disruption to the aforementioned highway users as Appellant’s HGVs are joined by service vehicles belonging to companies such as the gas and water boards as well as HGVs required by other sites adjacent or leading to Grimston Road/Grimston Lane e.g. local farms.
B) Passing cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians will be at an increased risk of colliding with larger vehicles during the passing places development phase. Another real danger for cyclists are the potholes/uneven road surfaces created during said development.
C) The Appellant states that traffic flow along the carriageways in question is low; this contradicts their claim that creation of passing places is in the highway users’ interest. If traffic flow is minimal, as they state, the creation of new passing places is merely to persuade the Planning Inspectorate to grant planning approval as opposed to alleviating current congestion problems and making highway improvements.
D) One of the proposed passing places will be less than the recommended clearance width for two passing HGVs (5.2m as opposed to 5.5m) due to ‘uncertainty’ of highway boundaries. The Appellant cannot say for certain that ANY of the passing places will have no physical requirement to need 3rd party land, which access to may not be granted.
E) The Appellant makes no comment on proposed turning/manoeuvring places during the development phase of passing places.
F) Widening of rural roads can unintentionally encourage speeding: “Improved visibility and/or increased carriageway width were found to correlate with increased vehicle speeds. Increased width for a given visibility, or vice versa, were found to increase speed” (Source: Manual for Streets, DfT.2007).
G) Reduction of carbon emissions and improvement of road safety are listed as two of East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s overarching goals with regard to transport, neither of which the Appellant can help them achieve (Source: East Riding of Yorkshire Council Third Local Transport Plan, 2011-2026).
2. ‘The Guide to taking part in planning appeals proceeding by written representations – England’ states the following “At the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations. The purpose of planning is to ensure that decisions about development take into account the public interest”. The overall planning proposal contravenes this statement on
A) The Appellant is an American company and their profits will not be invested back into the local area.
B) Jobs created for local people by the proposed facility are negligible. Employees of companies linked to the vivisection industry are frequently targeted by animal welfare groups. This scenario – currently being experienced by breeders Harlan UK – leads to a high turnover of staff.
C) Animal welfare campaigners will demonstrate regularly outside the facility, stretching police resources and attracting media attention; the presence of campaigners, police and the press will disrupt traffic and have a negative impact on community life, house prices and tourism.
D) The facility will be a source of noise pollution (dogs barking, vehicle engines), light pollution (security floodlights) and air pollution (vehicle emissions, smells from dead animals/clinical waste). The latter contravenes East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s mandatory objective to “effectively resolve situations where smoke, fume or gases are being emitted from premises and deemed to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance” (Source: East Riding of Yorkshire Council's Air Pollution Website).
3. The facility – contemporary and industrial – will not be aesthetically sympathetic to the adjacent Grimston Hall. Equally, it may require the creation of new foundations which could destroy a site considered of historical importance. A Grade 2 listed wall must be partly demolished to allow for the movement of construction vehicles.
4. Breeding sentient animals for vivisection is morally reprehensible. A recent expose of Harlan UK in The Sunday Times revealed that ‘lab dogs’ are only given access to the outdoors for 20 MINUTES PER WEEK and exist in cramped, stimulus-free pens. A former Harlan employee witnessed staff members punching and kicking beagles in their care, shaving obscenities into their fur and daubing their faces with marker pen. Fighting between stressed dogs and self-mutilation is common as revealed by a past investigation by British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV, www.buav.org/undercover-investigations/making-a-killing).
Dogs that are not bought for experimentation are used as blood donors and have blood regularly drained from them and sold onto laboratories. ‘Non-conforming products’ (i.e. those dogs not meeting lab requirements) or those found surplus to market demand are routinely slaughtered.
5. Many experiments conducted on beagles are NOT in the name of medical advancement. Instead, the dogs are used to test products such as garden pesticides, food additives, adhesives and clothes dyes. These experiments are NOT humanely regulated as BUAV investigations (www.buav.org/undercover-investigations/ ... suffering/) into the practices of Huntingdon Life Sciences (to whom the Appellant supplies beagles) verifies.
6. The UK’s increased involvement in the vivisection industry is in stark contrast to the wishes of animal-loving UK citizens, GPs (82 % of whom are “concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans” – Europeans for Medical Progress survey, 2004) and a recent European Directive (2010/63/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2010) which recommends a reduction in scientific experimentation on sentient beings amongst its member states and encourages the use of non-animal alternatives, of which there are many. The results of animal experiments are highly fallible.
Humans and animals are NOT the same. The adverse reactions to prescription medicines (all tested for safety on animals) are now the fourth leading cause of death in the western world; killing over 10,000 people a year in the UK and costing the NHS £466 million. Non-animal alternatives are cheaper, quicker and more reliable.
Thank you for taking time to read my objections. I sincerely hope they are taken fully into account when considering B&K Universal’s appeal.