![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thursday, March 11, 1999 Published at 15:04 GMT UK Mink farm's £5,000 cruelty fine ![]() Video nasty: An animal rights group filmed the evidence A company that runs a mink farm has been fined £5,000 with £15,000 costs after admitting 15 charges of cruelty and breaches of animal welfare rules.
But all the charges against the farmer, Terence Smith, 73, whose farm trades under the name of TT Smith (Mink) Ltd, were dropped.
The RSPCA called for automatic disqualifications in animal cruelty cases.
Respect for Animals' evidence was passed to the Ministry of Agriculture and the RSPCA who made their own inspections. They found that some of the mink were suffering some horrendous injuries - some had tails missing, one was found to have died of blood poisoning - yet none of the injured appeared to have been given any veterinary attention. Maggots and faeces Oba Nsugbe, prosecuting, said: "Some of the cages had faeces piled up underneath them. Some of the cages were missing nesting boxes and nipple feeders were broken.
The court heard some of the animals were so badly hurt that bones were protruding from infected wounds, some of which were inflicted by other mink. Some were in such a bad condition that they had to be put down. 'Chaos' after attack The company's lawyers explained that there had been attacks on the farm by animal rights activists a few months before the inspection in which several cages were damaged and mink were released. It was claimed that the chaos caused by that incident led to some of the mink being in such a bad condition. The mink are normally separated from family groups - making it less likely that the mink would attack each other - but that order had been destroyed. The UK Government is supporting a Bill currently before Parliament calling for an end to fur farming by 2001. A Ministry of Agriculture spokesman said: "While fur farming is still going on the Ministry will enforce the highest possible welfare standards. "We are pleased this prosecution has been successful and will not hesitate to take further action where there is any evidence of cruelty."
The animal rights group objected to an advert placed in House Magazine, which is circulated widely in Parliament, by the British Fur Trade Association. It claimed the advert "blatantly" tried to discredit animal rights groups. Complaints were made against four parts of the advert and two were upheld by the ASA. However, the ASA dismissed a complaint by the group that fur farming was cruel, stating it was a matter of opinion and not a factual statement. A spokeswoman for the British Fur Council accused those campaigning against the fur trade of distorting the facts. "People are being misled by animal rights propaganda directed against the fur farming industry," she said.
|
UK Contents
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||