The League Against Cruel Sports’ discovery of 16 fox cubs held captive in a barn located just 200 metres from the Middleton Foxhound’s kennels is big news.

That’s not so much because it involves a high profile hunt whose members have multiple convictions for illegal hunting – although that’s true.

It’s rather that it sheds light on the widespread practice of ‘fox farming’ apparently associated with hunting – undermining the hunting lobby’s last line of defence, that they provide an essential wildlife management service.

It also casts doubt on the idea that foxes are only killed accidentally in the course of perfectly legal drag hunting, and suggests that police should investigate possible breaches of the Hunting Act 2004.

The evidence in this case firmly disputes the Middleton Hunt’s conflicting claims that the fox cubs were nothing to do with them. We filmed their terrier man, an employee of the hunt whose registered address is the hunt’s kennels, going into the shed.

The Hunt also claimed that the foxes were being looking after by the hunt for their welfare. DNA analysis carried out by the police revealed the cubs were from four separate litters. The prospect of the hunt being called upon to care for any orphaned fox cubs, let alone 16 cubs from four separate litters, is laughingly absurd.

Capturing foxes to be hunted is widespread

In just the last 15 months, the League’s Wildlife Crimewatch hotline has received information about 20 different hunts capturing foxes to be hunted. It was one such tip off that led to the discovery of those 16 cubs. While the scale of the fox ‘factory’ discovered in that barn is shocking, it is not the first time hunts have been caught with captive foxes.

In 2012, an employee of the Fitzwilliam Hunt was convicted under the Animal Welfare Act for holding a pregnant vixen captive in appalling conditions. During the height of the campaign for a ban on hunting, both the Sinnington Hunt and Cottesmore Hunt were caught keeping fox cubs captive for hunting.

According to Clifford Pellow, a kennelman and huntsman for 23 years and now retired, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg:

“I’ve worked with many hunts across the country and seen foxes kept in milk churns, cages and sheds and encouraged to breed in artificial earths so there’s a ready supply to be hunted. I’ve even seen a fox deliberately strung up in a tree to send the hounds into a frenzy, so it’s no surprise to me this cruelty carries on.

“Though hunts insist they are there to provide a wildlife control service, the fact they break the Master of Foxhounds Association rules over and over again shows that this just isn’t the case. They’re still in it purely for the blood ‘sport’, with a nasty, cruel streak and no respect for the law.

“The hunting world’s last possible justification for repealing the Hunting Act has been well and truly blown out of the water.”

Encouraging foxes with artificial earths and feeding

Pre and post ban, anti-hunt campaigners have witnessed and recorded evidence of hunts building homes and providing food for wild foxes, all to ensure a ready supply of animals to be hunted.

In 2011, six years after the hunting ban came into force, a League Against Cruel Sports investigation found that the use of artificial earths – man-made structures designed to mimic fox earths, usually made out of drain pipes or concrete blocks and designed provide a place for foxes to breed and shelter – was widespread.

Evidence of structure maintenance and supplementary feeding of foxes was recorded at sites in 14 counties, on land used by 21 hunts. In November 2014, ITV broadcast footage of the North Cotswold Hunt dumping dozens of dead chickens, rabbits and eggs at an artificial fox earth over a period of several weeks, and then hunting in the same area, made national headlines.

In May 2015 we received footage of dead chickens being dumped outside an artificial fox earth where the Pytchley Hunt had been filmed hunting just months before.

Lest you think these are just a few bad apples, the 10th Duke of Beaufort confirms the prevalence of artificial earths in his 1998 book Fox Hunting:

“In countries where earths are scarce it is sometimes found necessary to make artificial earths, to provide somewhere for local foxes to have their cubs; in other words, for breeding purposes. An additional advantage is that if an artificial earth is left open, it will only take a few minutes to bolt a fox. Also if it is a blank day, one knows where to go with some certainty of finding a fox.”

Why would hunts encourage or rear foxes?

For all the pro-hunt lobby’s claims of fox control and wildlife management, hunting is really about prestige. Ensuring that foxes are killed when esteemed guests ride with the hunt, and on important days such as the final meet of the year, is important for the hunt’s reputation.

Providing food and shelter for wild foxes means the hunt will always know where to find them on hunting day. And of course, when the hounds come across foxes during the course of an apparently legal drag hunt, the resulting fox kill can be put down as an unfortunate accident.

Rearing fox cubs in captivity could serve several purposes. Some may be released during ‘cub hunting’ season in early autumn when young hounds are taught how to track and kill by chasing fox cubs. Others may be released at artificial fox earths dotted throughout the terrain, thus providing ‘quarry’ for the upcoming hunting season.

In some cases the purpose could be even more disturbing. For several years our Wildlife Crimewatch line has received reports of a trade in foxes, with hunts in areas with healthy fox populations providing foxes for those in areas where the animal is scarce. While technically this is wildlife management, it’s not the ‘natural’ kind that hunts claim to provide.

No justification for a return to hunting

All of this evidence demonstrates what anti-hunt campaigners have known for decades; hunting has absolutely nothing to do with fox control or wildlife management – and it certainly isn’t natural.

Fox cubs belong with their parents and adults should have to forage for food, not have it delivered to their doorstep. The truth is that hunting is simply a cruel sport without any justification.

We urge all MPs to stand against this cruel and unnatural treatment of wild animals and vote against repeal of the Hunting Act.

Action: The League Against Cruel Sports is currently offering people the chance to contact their MP about the Hunting Act. Take the simple League Against Cruel Sports action.

Dr Toni Shephard is Head of Policy and Research at the League Against Cruel Sports.

To find out why foxes don’t actually need to be ‘controlled’, go to the League Against Cruel Sports Foxycology page.

A US government department hid its concerns about Shell’s test of its containment dome system, which would be deployed if there was an oil well blowout.

Earlier this year, the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said that the March 2015 test of the dome in the waters of Puget Sound, off the Washington coast, was “successful“.

But a letter obtained by Freedom of Information request reveals that BSEE had several concerns about safety issues that arose during the test. Shell hadn’t disclosed the incidents either.

This comes as US government regulators are now considering Shell’s specific plans for boring two exploratory oil wells in the Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska.

This week Shell already gained a permit to disturb Arctic mammals, though not to harm them. It also managed to extricate its Polar Pioneer drilling rig from Seattle escaping Kayaktivists trying to stop it.

The ‘containment dome’, which is effectively meant to to put a lid on any leaks, is carried on – and deployed from – the Arctic Challenger barge. It’s a key piece of safety equipment: BP had issues deploying containment domes at the Deepwater Horizon spill site after the blowout in 2010 – and we all know how that ended up.

‘Crushed like a beer can’

Shell didn’t officially need to test its containment dome as it had already been certified. But it may have undertaken the exercise to inspire confidence in its operations after its previous containment dome tests in 2012 ended up with the gear malfunctioning and being “crushed like a beer can” by pressure after sinking 120 feet (shown above).

BSEE’s regional director for Alaska, Mark Fesmire wrote to Shell on 16 April to state his concerns about the test of the equipment. His main issue was that the anchor of a tugboat – which was anchored near the Challenger – dragged until it was “abreast of the starboard side of the Arctic Challenger”. The boat had to be pushed back into position “against wind and seas” by two small workboats, Fesmire states.

He was also concerned at the inability to establish radio contact with the tugboat, named the Corbin Foss, “in the early part of the Corbin Foss’ traverse while dragging anchor” – highlighting “an operational or technical deficiency which must be addressed.”

Fesmire also underlined concerns about what procedures would be followed if the Challenger was operating in conditions with gas plumes and the wind carries gas towards the vessel, and for staff operating in hazardous conditions during the deployment of the dome.

The Challenger also had a small 24-gallon oil spill in 2013 during another round of containment dome testing. The hydraulic oil spill occurred when a hose on the containment dome was broken by a remote-operated vehicle around 600 feet under water.

Worst case accident: 25,000 barrels a day for 30 days

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over 77 years – the period of oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea – according to the latest environmental impact report. Shell’s own worst case scenario for a spill in the sensitive environment off the coast of Alaska would see 25,000 barrels per day released for 30 days.

It is not certain what proportion of any spill Shell would recover, as this is not clear in its spill response plan, which has been approved by regulators. A study commissioned by the US government suggests the harsh conditions in the Arctic would severely restrict the ability to respond to an oil spill in the region.

Recently the capping stack, another part of the system to contain a spill, was also tested – though it also had its certification.

The containment dome will be stationed at Kotzebue, Alaska, which Shell says is eight days journey from the drill site – a day further than required by proposed Arctic drilling standards.

Shell’s mooring of vessels at Kotzebue Sound also “conflicts with indigenous open water subsistence use areas and important habitat for subsistence species”, a US government employee wrote in an email also obtained by FOI.

Shell has not responded to Energydesk’s requests for comment. Again.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk. Additional reporting / editing by The Ecologist.

More information

• Factcheck: How to clean up an Arctic oil spill in four steps (and why it is unlikely to work)
• Comment: A history of screw-ups – and its own plans – raise doubts about the ability of Shell to safely drill in the Arctic
• Interview: ‘There is no way they could ever clean it’ say Indigenous leaders on Arctic oil spill

In the latest development of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia, a strategy of reorganising and strengthening US military capabilities in the Pacific, the islanders of Pagan and Tinian are being told to make way for a “simulated war zone“.

After decades of living at the behest of American military priorities, they are still resisting moves to encroach on their homelands – and their chances of success are as slim as ever.

Both islands are part of the US-associated Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Their strategic location, midway between the US Pacific Fleet headquarters in Hawaii and the Asian mainland, with further logistical support available at the naval facilities in nearby Guam, make them attractive locations for the US military’s purposes.

Tinian also has a prime place in geo-strategic history: it is home to the airfield from which the Enola Gay took off to carry out the bombing of Hiroshima, marking the dawn of the nuclear era.

The provisional plans for these islands so far released by the Pentagon suggest that they have been earmarked for amphibious landing training, live ammunition manoeuvres, bombings and heavy artillery target practice.

The islanders’ appeal to stop their displacement is only the lastest in a long line of disputes. Small Pacific island communities have faced a long history of disruption and displacement thanks to the machinations of distant ‘great powers’.

Out of the way

At the start of the 20th century, islanders in Micronesia were relocated to provide a workforce for phosphate mining operations, such as those on Nauru and Banaba. It was not until the Japanese arrived as part of the post-World War I League of Nations mandate system that Micronesian islands started to be fortified – a direct contradiction of the mandate’s terms.

More islanders were displaced under Japanese rule, and then as a result of the Allies’ invasion during World War II. After Japan was defeated, the US took control of these islands as the United Nations’ Strategic Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.

Also in the Pacific, the residents of Bikini atoll in the Marshall Islands were notoriously relocated in 1946 to make way for the US nuclear testing programme.

Although the islanders were initially told that this would be a temporary measure, there has been no seriously implemented return and resettlement programme, despite much lobbying by the Bikini islanders and their international supporters.

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.

Similarly, the Chagossians of Diego Garcia have fought a lengthy legal battle with the UK government ever since they were forced to make way for the US military to use of their land, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, without the inconvenience of local residents.

The UK Chagos Support Association has recently made the most of publicity surrounding the 800-year anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta by referring to clause 39, which states that no free man should be exiled “except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

But of course, the principle of equal treatment before the law is often stretched when sticking to it would conflict with ‘higher order’ strategic interests.

Who gives a damn?

Although he subsequently denied it, the former National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, has been repeatedly quoted as responding to a question about the fate of Marshall Islanders affected by the US nuclear test programme with the words:

“There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?”

Whether or not he actually used those words, they are a perfect distillation of the sentiments that have governed US policy in these islands. Whenever these populations’ hopes, dreams and wishes run counter to great powers’ interests they are dismissed and displaced – especially when military might is at stake.

That said, some aspects of the world have changed beyond all recognition since the late 1960s, and the islanders have new means to make themselves heard. Today, a great many people not only give a damn, but can also connect with each other and organise to take action.

An online petition calling for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian has already received more than 100,000 signatures.

This campaign platform was simply not available to the Bikini islanders immediately after World War II. It was not until US Peace Corps volunteers visited the Marshall Islanders in the 1960s that some of them began to lobby the US on behalf of the islanders.

But given the history, it seems unlikely that the protests of a relatively small community of islanders can defy US geo-strategy and all the logistical and financial commitments it entails. However much the world has changed since the 1960s, Henry Kissinger’s apocryphal words are still all too apt.

Roy Smith is Principal Lecturer, History, Languages and International Studies at Nottingham Trent University.

Petition: Call for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The League Against Cruel Sports’ discovery of 16 fox cubs held captive in a barn located just 200 metres from the Middleton Foxhound’s kennels is big news.

That’s not so much because it involves a high profile hunt whose members have multiple convictions for illegal hunting – although that’s true.

It’s rather that it sheds light on the widespread practice of ‘fox farming’ apparently associated with hunting – undermining the hunting lobby’s last line of defence, that they provide an essential wildlife management service.

It also casts doubt on the idea that foxes are only killed accidentally in the course of perfectly legal drag hunting, and suggests that police should investigate possible breaches of the Hunting Act 2004.

The evidence in this case firmly disputes the Middleton Hunt’s conflicting claims that the fox cubs were nothing to do with them. We filmed their terrier man, an employee of the hunt whose registered address is the hunt’s kennels, going into the shed.

The Hunt also claimed that the foxes were being looking after by the hunt for their welfare. DNA analysis carried out by the police revealed the cubs were from four separate litters. The prospect of the hunt being called upon to care for any orphaned fox cubs, let alone 16 cubs from four separate litters, is laughingly absurd.

Capturing foxes to be hunted is widespread

In just the last 15 months, the League’s Wildlife Crimewatch hotline has received information about 20 different hunts capturing foxes to be hunted. It was one such tip off that led to the discovery of those 16 cubs. While the scale of the fox ‘factory’ discovered in that barn is shocking, it is not the first time hunts have been caught with captive foxes.

In 2012, an employee of the Fitzwilliam Hunt was convicted under the Animal Welfare Act for holding a pregnant vixen captive in appalling conditions. During the height of the campaign for a ban on hunting, both the Sinnington Hunt and Cottesmore Hunt were caught keeping fox cubs captive for hunting.

According to Clifford Pellow, a kennelman and huntsman for 23 years and now retired, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg:

“I’ve worked with many hunts across the country and seen foxes kept in milk churns, cages and sheds and encouraged to breed in artificial earths so there’s a ready supply to be hunted. I’ve even seen a fox deliberately strung up in a tree to send the hounds into a frenzy, so it’s no surprise to me this cruelty carries on.

“Though hunts insist they are there to provide a wildlife control service, the fact they break the Master of Foxhounds Association rules over and over again shows that this just isn’t the case. They’re still in it purely for the blood ‘sport’, with a nasty, cruel streak and no respect for the law.

“The hunting world’s last possible justification for repealing the Hunting Act has been well and truly blown out of the water.”

Encouraging foxes with artificial earths and feeding

Pre and post ban, anti-hunt campaigners have witnessed and recorded evidence of hunts building homes and providing food for wild foxes, all to ensure a ready supply of animals to be hunted.

In 2011, six years after the hunting ban came into force, a League Against Cruel Sports investigation found that the use of artificial earths – man-made structures designed to mimic fox earths, usually made out of drain pipes or concrete blocks and designed provide a place for foxes to breed and shelter – was widespread.

Evidence of structure maintenance and supplementary feeding of foxes was recorded at sites in 14 counties, on land used by 21 hunts. In November 2014, ITV broadcast footage of the North Cotswold Hunt dumping dozens of dead chickens, rabbits and eggs at an artificial fox earth over a period of several weeks, and then hunting in the same area, made national headlines.

In May 2015 we received footage of dead chickens being dumped outside an artificial fox earth where the Pytchley Hunt had been filmed hunting just months before.

Lest you think these are just a few bad apples, the 10th Duke of Beaufort confirms the prevalence of artificial earths in his 1998 book Fox Hunting:

“In countries where earths are scarce it is sometimes found necessary to make artificial earths, to provide somewhere for local foxes to have their cubs; in other words, for breeding purposes. An additional advantage is that if an artificial earth is left open, it will only take a few minutes to bolt a fox. Also if it is a blank day, one knows where to go with some certainty of finding a fox.”

Why would hunts encourage or rear foxes?

For all the pro-hunt lobby’s claims of fox control and wildlife management, hunting is really about prestige. Ensuring that foxes are killed when esteemed guests ride with the hunt, and on important days such as the final meet of the year, is important for the hunt’s reputation.

Providing food and shelter for wild foxes means the hunt will always know where to find them on hunting day. And of course, when the hounds come across foxes during the course of an apparently legal drag hunt, the resulting fox kill can be put down as an unfortunate accident.

Rearing fox cubs in captivity could serve several purposes. Some may be released during ‘cub hunting’ season in early autumn when young hounds are taught how to track and kill by chasing fox cubs. Others may be released at artificial fox earths dotted throughout the terrain, thus providing ‘quarry’ for the upcoming hunting season.

In some cases the purpose could be even more disturbing. For several years our Wildlife Crimewatch line has received reports of a trade in foxes, with hunts in areas with healthy fox populations providing foxes for those in areas where the animal is scarce. While technically this is wildlife management, it’s not the ‘natural’ kind that hunts claim to provide.

No justification for a return to hunting

All of this evidence demonstrates what anti-hunt campaigners have known for decades; hunting has absolutely nothing to do with fox control or wildlife management – and it certainly isn’t natural.

Fox cubs belong with their parents and adults should have to forage for food, not have it delivered to their doorstep. The truth is that hunting is simply a cruel sport without any justification.

We urge all MPs to stand against this cruel and unnatural treatment of wild animals and vote against repeal of the Hunting Act.

Action: The League Against Cruel Sports is currently offering people the chance to contact their MP about the Hunting Act. Take the simple League Against Cruel Sports action.

Dr Toni Shephard is Head of Policy and Research at the League Against Cruel Sports.

To find out why foxes don’t actually need to be ‘controlled’, go to the League Against Cruel Sports Foxycology page.

A US government department hid its concerns about Shell’s test of its containment dome system, which would be deployed if there was an oil well blowout.

Earlier this year, the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said that the March 2015 test of the dome in the waters of Puget Sound, off the Washington coast, was “successful“.

But a letter obtained by Freedom of Information request reveals that BSEE had several concerns about safety issues that arose during the test. Shell hadn’t disclosed the incidents either.

This comes as US government regulators are now considering Shell’s specific plans for boring two exploratory oil wells in the Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska.

This week Shell already gained a permit to disturb Arctic mammals, though not to harm them. It also managed to extricate its Polar Pioneer drilling rig from Seattle escaping Kayaktivists trying to stop it.

The ‘containment dome’, which is effectively meant to to put a lid on any leaks, is carried on – and deployed from – the Arctic Challenger barge. It’s a key piece of safety equipment: BP had issues deploying containment domes at the Deepwater Horizon spill site after the blowout in 2010 – and we all know how that ended up.

‘Crushed like a beer can’

Shell didn’t officially need to test its containment dome as it had already been certified. But it may have undertaken the exercise to inspire confidence in its operations after its previous containment dome tests in 2012 ended up with the gear malfunctioning and being “crushed like a beer can” by pressure after sinking 120 feet (shown above).

BSEE’s regional director for Alaska, Mark Fesmire wrote to Shell on 16 April to state his concerns about the test of the equipment. His main issue was that the anchor of a tugboat – which was anchored near the Challenger – dragged until it was “abreast of the starboard side of the Arctic Challenger”. The boat had to be pushed back into position “against wind and seas” by two small workboats, Fesmire states.

He was also concerned at the inability to establish radio contact with the tugboat, named the Corbin Foss, “in the early part of the Corbin Foss’ traverse while dragging anchor” – highlighting “an operational or technical deficiency which must be addressed.”

Fesmire also underlined concerns about what procedures would be followed if the Challenger was operating in conditions with gas plumes and the wind carries gas towards the vessel, and for staff operating in hazardous conditions during the deployment of the dome.

The Challenger also had a small 24-gallon oil spill in 2013 during another round of containment dome testing. The hydraulic oil spill occurred when a hose on the containment dome was broken by a remote-operated vehicle around 600 feet under water.

Worst case accident: 25,000 barrels a day for 30 days

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over 77 years – the period of oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea – according to the latest environmental impact report. Shell’s own worst case scenario for a spill in the sensitive environment off the coast of Alaska would see 25,000 barrels per day released for 30 days.

It is not certain what proportion of any spill Shell would recover, as this is not clear in its spill response plan, which has been approved by regulators. A study commissioned by the US government suggests the harsh conditions in the Arctic would severely restrict the ability to respond to an oil spill in the region.

Recently the capping stack, another part of the system to contain a spill, was also tested – though it also had its certification.

The containment dome will be stationed at Kotzebue, Alaska, which Shell says is eight days journey from the drill site – a day further than required by proposed Arctic drilling standards.

Shell’s mooring of vessels at Kotzebue Sound also “conflicts with indigenous open water subsistence use areas and important habitat for subsistence species”, a US government employee wrote in an email also obtained by FOI.

Shell has not responded to Energydesk’s requests for comment. Again.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk. Additional reporting / editing by The Ecologist.

More information

• Factcheck: How to clean up an Arctic oil spill in four steps (and why it is unlikely to work)
• Comment: A history of screw-ups – and its own plans – raise doubts about the ability of Shell to safely drill in the Arctic
• Interview: ‘There is no way they could ever clean it’ say Indigenous leaders on Arctic oil spill

In the latest development of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia, a strategy of reorganising and strengthening US military capabilities in the Pacific, the islanders of Pagan and Tinian are being told to make way for a “simulated war zone“.

After decades of living at the behest of American military priorities, they are still resisting moves to encroach on their homelands – and their chances of success are as slim as ever.

Both islands are part of the US-associated Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Their strategic location, midway between the US Pacific Fleet headquarters in Hawaii and the Asian mainland, with further logistical support available at the naval facilities in nearby Guam, make them attractive locations for the US military’s purposes.

Tinian also has a prime place in geo-strategic history: it is home to the airfield from which the Enola Gay took off to carry out the bombing of Hiroshima, marking the dawn of the nuclear era.

The provisional plans for these islands so far released by the Pentagon suggest that they have been earmarked for amphibious landing training, live ammunition manoeuvres, bombings and heavy artillery target practice.

The islanders’ appeal to stop their displacement is only the lastest in a long line of disputes. Small Pacific island communities have faced a long history of disruption and displacement thanks to the machinations of distant ‘great powers’.

Out of the way

At the start of the 20th century, islanders in Micronesia were relocated to provide a workforce for phosphate mining operations, such as those on Nauru and Banaba. It was not until the Japanese arrived as part of the post-World War I League of Nations mandate system that Micronesian islands started to be fortified – a direct contradiction of the mandate’s terms.

More islanders were displaced under Japanese rule, and then as a result of the Allies’ invasion during World War II. After Japan was defeated, the US took control of these islands as the United Nations’ Strategic Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.

Also in the Pacific, the residents of Bikini atoll in the Marshall Islands were notoriously relocated in 1946 to make way for the US nuclear testing programme.

Although the islanders were initially told that this would be a temporary measure, there has been no seriously implemented return and resettlement programme, despite much lobbying by the Bikini islanders and their international supporters.

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.

Similarly, the Chagossians of Diego Garcia have fought a lengthy legal battle with the UK government ever since they were forced to make way for the US military to use of their land, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, without the inconvenience of local residents.

The UK Chagos Support Association has recently made the most of publicity surrounding the 800-year anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta by referring to clause 39, which states that no free man should be exiled “except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

But of course, the principle of equal treatment before the law is often stretched when sticking to it would conflict with ‘higher order’ strategic interests.

Who gives a damn?

Although he subsequently denied it, the former National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, has been repeatedly quoted as responding to a question about the fate of Marshall Islanders affected by the US nuclear test programme with the words:

“There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?”

Whether or not he actually used those words, they are a perfect distillation of the sentiments that have governed US policy in these islands. Whenever these populations’ hopes, dreams and wishes run counter to great powers’ interests they are dismissed and displaced – especially when military might is at stake.

That said, some aspects of the world have changed beyond all recognition since the late 1960s, and the islanders have new means to make themselves heard. Today, a great many people not only give a damn, but can also connect with each other and organise to take action.

An online petition calling for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian has already received more than 100,000 signatures.

This campaign platform was simply not available to the Bikini islanders immediately after World War II. It was not until US Peace Corps volunteers visited the Marshall Islanders in the 1960s that some of them began to lobby the US on behalf of the islanders.

But given the history, it seems unlikely that the protests of a relatively small community of islanders can defy US geo-strategy and all the logistical and financial commitments it entails. However much the world has changed since the 1960s, Henry Kissinger’s apocryphal words are still all too apt.

Roy Smith is Principal Lecturer, History, Languages and International Studies at Nottingham Trent University.

Petition: Call for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The League Against Cruel Sports’ discovery of 16 fox cubs held captive in a barn located just 200 metres from the Middleton Foxhound’s kennels is big news.

That’s not so much because it involves a high profile hunt whose members have multiple convictions for illegal hunting – although that’s true.

It’s rather that it sheds light on the widespread practice of ‘fox farming’ apparently associated with hunting – undermining the hunting lobby’s last line of defence, that they provide an essential wildlife management service.

It also casts doubt on the idea that foxes are only killed accidentally in the course of perfectly legal drag hunting, and suggests that police should investigate possible breaches of the Hunting Act 2004.

The evidence in this case firmly disputes the Middleton Hunt’s conflicting claims that the fox cubs were nothing to do with them. We filmed their terrier man, an employee of the hunt whose registered address is the hunt’s kennels, going into the shed.

The Hunt also claimed that the foxes were being looking after by the hunt for their welfare. DNA analysis carried out by the police revealed the cubs were from four separate litters. The prospect of the hunt being called upon to care for any orphaned fox cubs, let alone 16 cubs from four separate litters, is laughingly absurd.

Capturing foxes to be hunted is widespread

In just the last 15 months, the League’s Wildlife Crimewatch hotline has received information about 20 different hunts capturing foxes to be hunted. It was one such tip off that led to the discovery of those 16 cubs. While the scale of the fox ‘factory’ discovered in that barn is shocking, it is not the first time hunts have been caught with captive foxes.

In 2012, an employee of the Fitzwilliam Hunt was convicted under the Animal Welfare Act for holding a pregnant vixen captive in appalling conditions. During the height of the campaign for a ban on hunting, both the Sinnington Hunt and Cottesmore Hunt were caught keeping fox cubs captive for hunting.

According to Clifford Pellow, a kennelman and huntsman for 23 years and now retired, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg:

“I’ve worked with many hunts across the country and seen foxes kept in milk churns, cages and sheds and encouraged to breed in artificial earths so there’s a ready supply to be hunted. I’ve even seen a fox deliberately strung up in a tree to send the hounds into a frenzy, so it’s no surprise to me this cruelty carries on.

“Though hunts insist they are there to provide a wildlife control service, the fact they break the Master of Foxhounds Association rules over and over again shows that this just isn’t the case. They’re still in it purely for the blood ‘sport’, with a nasty, cruel streak and no respect for the law.

“The hunting world’s last possible justification for repealing the Hunting Act has been well and truly blown out of the water.”

Encouraging foxes with artificial earths and feeding

Pre and post ban, anti-hunt campaigners have witnessed and recorded evidence of hunts building homes and providing food for wild foxes, all to ensure a ready supply of animals to be hunted.

In 2011, six years after the hunting ban came into force, a League Against Cruel Sports investigation found that the use of artificial earths – man-made structures designed to mimic fox earths, usually made out of drain pipes or concrete blocks and designed provide a place for foxes to breed and shelter – was widespread.

Evidence of structure maintenance and supplementary feeding of foxes was recorded at sites in 14 counties, on land used by 21 hunts. In November 2014, ITV broadcast footage of the North Cotswold Hunt dumping dozens of dead chickens, rabbits and eggs at an artificial fox earth over a period of several weeks, and then hunting in the same area, made national headlines.

In May 2015 we received footage of dead chickens being dumped outside an artificial fox earth where the Pytchley Hunt had been filmed hunting just months before.

Lest you think these are just a few bad apples, the 10th Duke of Beaufort confirms the prevalence of artificial earths in his 1998 book Fox Hunting:

“In countries where earths are scarce it is sometimes found necessary to make artificial earths, to provide somewhere for local foxes to have their cubs; in other words, for breeding purposes. An additional advantage is that if an artificial earth is left open, it will only take a few minutes to bolt a fox. Also if it is a blank day, one knows where to go with some certainty of finding a fox.”

Why would hunts encourage or rear foxes?

For all the pro-hunt lobby’s claims of fox control and wildlife management, hunting is really about prestige. Ensuring that foxes are killed when esteemed guests ride with the hunt, and on important days such as the final meet of the year, is important for the hunt’s reputation.

Providing food and shelter for wild foxes means the hunt will always know where to find them on hunting day. And of course, when the hounds come across foxes during the course of an apparently legal drag hunt, the resulting fox kill can be put down as an unfortunate accident.

Rearing fox cubs in captivity could serve several purposes. Some may be released during ‘cub hunting’ season in early autumn when young hounds are taught how to track and kill by chasing fox cubs. Others may be released at artificial fox earths dotted throughout the terrain, thus providing ‘quarry’ for the upcoming hunting season.

In some cases the purpose could be even more disturbing. For several years our Wildlife Crimewatch line has received reports of a trade in foxes, with hunts in areas with healthy fox populations providing foxes for those in areas where the animal is scarce. While technically this is wildlife management, it’s not the ‘natural’ kind that hunts claim to provide.

No justification for a return to hunting

All of this evidence demonstrates what anti-hunt campaigners have known for decades; hunting has absolutely nothing to do with fox control or wildlife management – and it certainly isn’t natural.

Fox cubs belong with their parents and adults should have to forage for food, not have it delivered to their doorstep. The truth is that hunting is simply a cruel sport without any justification.

We urge all MPs to stand against this cruel and unnatural treatment of wild animals and vote against repeal of the Hunting Act.

Action: The League Against Cruel Sports is currently offering people the chance to contact their MP about the Hunting Act. Take the simple League Against Cruel Sports action.

Dr Toni Shephard is Head of Policy and Research at the League Against Cruel Sports.

To find out why foxes don’t actually need to be ‘controlled’, go to the League Against Cruel Sports Foxycology page.

A US government department hid its concerns about Shell’s test of its containment dome system, which would be deployed if there was an oil well blowout.

Earlier this year, the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) said that the March 2015 test of the dome in the waters of Puget Sound, off the Washington coast, was “successful“.

But a letter obtained by Freedom of Information request reveals that BSEE had several concerns about safety issues that arose during the test. Shell hadn’t disclosed the incidents either.

This comes as US government regulators are now considering Shell’s specific plans for boring two exploratory oil wells in the Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska.

This week Shell already gained a permit to disturb Arctic mammals, though not to harm them. It also managed to extricate its Polar Pioneer drilling rig from Seattle escaping Kayaktivists trying to stop it.

The ‘containment dome’, which is effectively meant to to put a lid on any leaks, is carried on – and deployed from – the Arctic Challenger barge. It’s a key piece of safety equipment: BP had issues deploying containment domes at the Deepwater Horizon spill site after the blowout in 2010 – and we all know how that ended up.

‘Crushed like a beer can’

Shell didn’t officially need to test its containment dome as it had already been certified. But it may have undertaken the exercise to inspire confidence in its operations after its previous containment dome tests in 2012 ended up with the gear malfunctioning and being “crushed like a beer can” by pressure after sinking 120 feet (shown above).

BSEE’s regional director for Alaska, Mark Fesmire wrote to Shell on 16 April to state his concerns about the test of the equipment. His main issue was that the anchor of a tugboat – which was anchored near the Challenger – dragged until it was “abreast of the starboard side of the Arctic Challenger”. The boat had to be pushed back into position “against wind and seas” by two small workboats, Fesmire states.

He was also concerned at the inability to establish radio contact with the tugboat, named the Corbin Foss, “in the early part of the Corbin Foss’ traverse while dragging anchor” – highlighting “an operational or technical deficiency which must be addressed.”

Fesmire also underlined concerns about what procedures would be followed if the Challenger was operating in conditions with gas plumes and the wind carries gas towards the vessel, and for staff operating in hazardous conditions during the deployment of the dome.

The Challenger also had a small 24-gallon oil spill in 2013 during another round of containment dome testing. The hydraulic oil spill occurred when a hose on the containment dome was broken by a remote-operated vehicle around 600 feet under water.

Worst case accident: 25,000 barrels a day for 30 days

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over 77 years – the period of oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea – according to the latest environmental impact report. Shell’s own worst case scenario for a spill in the sensitive environment off the coast of Alaska would see 25,000 barrels per day released for 30 days.

It is not certain what proportion of any spill Shell would recover, as this is not clear in its spill response plan, which has been approved by regulators. A study commissioned by the US government suggests the harsh conditions in the Arctic would severely restrict the ability to respond to an oil spill in the region.

Recently the capping stack, another part of the system to contain a spill, was also tested – though it also had its certification.

The containment dome will be stationed at Kotzebue, Alaska, which Shell says is eight days journey from the drill site – a day further than required by proposed Arctic drilling standards.

Shell’s mooring of vessels at Kotzebue Sound also “conflicts with indigenous open water subsistence use areas and important habitat for subsistence species”, a US government employee wrote in an email also obtained by FOI.

Shell has not responded to Energydesk’s requests for comment. Again.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk. Additional reporting / editing by The Ecologist.

More information

• Factcheck: How to clean up an Arctic oil spill in four steps (and why it is unlikely to work)
• Comment: A history of screw-ups – and its own plans – raise doubts about the ability of Shell to safely drill in the Arctic
• Interview: ‘There is no way they could ever clean it’ say Indigenous leaders on Arctic oil spill

In the latest development of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia, a strategy of reorganising and strengthening US military capabilities in the Pacific, the islanders of Pagan and Tinian are being told to make way for a “simulated war zone“.

After decades of living at the behest of American military priorities, they are still resisting moves to encroach on their homelands – and their chances of success are as slim as ever.

Both islands are part of the US-associated Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. Their strategic location, midway between the US Pacific Fleet headquarters in Hawaii and the Asian mainland, with further logistical support available at the naval facilities in nearby Guam, make them attractive locations for the US military’s purposes.

Tinian also has a prime place in geo-strategic history: it is home to the airfield from which the Enola Gay took off to carry out the bombing of Hiroshima, marking the dawn of the nuclear era.

The provisional plans for these islands so far released by the Pentagon suggest that they have been earmarked for amphibious landing training, live ammunition manoeuvres, bombings and heavy artillery target practice.

The islanders’ appeal to stop their displacement is only the lastest in a long line of disputes. Small Pacific island communities have faced a long history of disruption and displacement thanks to the machinations of distant ‘great powers’.

Out of the way

At the start of the 20th century, islanders in Micronesia were relocated to provide a workforce for phosphate mining operations, such as those on Nauru and Banaba. It was not until the Japanese arrived as part of the post-World War I League of Nations mandate system that Micronesian islands started to be fortified – a direct contradiction of the mandate’s terms.

More islanders were displaced under Japanese rule, and then as a result of the Allies’ invasion during World War II. After Japan was defeated, the US took control of these islands as the United Nations’ Strategic Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.

Also in the Pacific, the residents of Bikini atoll in the Marshall Islands were notoriously relocated in 1946 to make way for the US nuclear testing programme.

Although the islanders were initially told that this would be a temporary measure, there has been no seriously implemented return and resettlement programme, despite much lobbying by the Bikini islanders and their international supporters.

Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll.

Similarly, the Chagossians of Diego Garcia have fought a lengthy legal battle with the UK government ever since they were forced to make way for the US military to use of their land, known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, without the inconvenience of local residents.

The UK Chagos Support Association has recently made the most of publicity surrounding the 800-year anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta by referring to clause 39, which states that no free man should be exiled “except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

But of course, the principle of equal treatment before the law is often stretched when sticking to it would conflict with ‘higher order’ strategic interests.

Who gives a damn?

Although he subsequently denied it, the former National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, has been repeatedly quoted as responding to a question about the fate of Marshall Islanders affected by the US nuclear test programme with the words:

“There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?”

Whether or not he actually used those words, they are a perfect distillation of the sentiments that have governed US policy in these islands. Whenever these populations’ hopes, dreams and wishes run counter to great powers’ interests they are dismissed and displaced – especially when military might is at stake.

That said, some aspects of the world have changed beyond all recognition since the late 1960s, and the islanders have new means to make themselves heard. Today, a great many people not only give a damn, but can also connect with each other and organise to take action.

An online petition calling for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian has already received more than 100,000 signatures.

This campaign platform was simply not available to the Bikini islanders immediately after World War II. It was not until US Peace Corps volunteers visited the Marshall Islanders in the 1960s that some of them began to lobby the US on behalf of the islanders.

But given the history, it seems unlikely that the protests of a relatively small community of islanders can defy US geo-strategy and all the logistical and financial commitments it entails. However much the world has changed since the 1960s, Henry Kissinger’s apocryphal words are still all too apt.

Roy Smith is Principal Lecturer, History, Languages and International Studies at Nottingham Trent University.

Petition: Call for the US to reconsider their proposals for Pagan and Tinian.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The League Against Cruel Sports’ discovery of 16 fox cubs held captive in a barn located just 200 metres from the Middleton Foxhound’s kennels is big news.

That’s not so much because it involves a high profile hunt whose members have multiple convictions for illegal hunting – although that’s true.

It’s rather that it sheds light on the widespread practice of ‘fox farming’ apparently associated with hunting – undermining the hunting lobby’s last line of defence, that they provide an essential wildlife management service.

It also casts doubt on the idea that foxes are only killed accidentally in the course of perfectly legal drag hunting, and suggests that police should investigate possible breaches of the Hunting Act 2004.

The evidence in this case firmly disputes the Middleton Hunt’s conflicting claims that the fox cubs were nothing to do with them. We filmed their terrier man, an employee of the hunt whose registered address is the hunt’s kennels, going into the shed.

The Hunt also claimed that the foxes were being looking after by the hunt for their welfare. DNA analysis carried out by the police revealed the cubs were from four separate litters. The prospect of the hunt being called upon to care for any orphaned fox cubs, let alone 16 cubs from four separate litters, is laughingly absurd.

Capturing foxes to be hunted is widespread

In just the last 15 months, the League’s Wildlife Crimewatch hotline has received information about 20 different hunts capturing foxes to be hunted. It was one such tip off that led to the discovery of those 16 cubs. While the scale of the fox ‘factory’ discovered in that barn is shocking, it is not the first time hunts have been caught with captive foxes.

In 2012, an employee of the Fitzwilliam Hunt was convicted under the Animal Welfare Act for holding a pregnant vixen captive in appalling conditions. During the height of the campaign for a ban on hunting, both the Sinnington Hunt and Cottesmore Hunt were caught keeping fox cubs captive for hunting.

According to Clifford Pellow, a kennelman and huntsman for 23 years and now retired, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg:

“I’ve worked with many hunts across the country and seen foxes kept in milk churns, cages and sheds and encouraged to breed in artificial earths so there’s a ready supply to be hunted. I’ve even seen a fox deliberately strung up in a tree to send the hounds into a frenzy, so it’s no surprise to me this cruelty carries on.

“Though hunts insist they are there to provide a wildlife control service, the fact they break the Master of Foxhounds Association rules over and over again shows that this just isn’t the case. They’re still in it purely for the blood ‘sport’, with a nasty, cruel streak and no respect for the law.

“The hunting world’s last possible justification for repealing the Hunting Act has been well and truly blown out of the water.”

Encouraging foxes with artificial earths and feeding

Pre and post ban, anti-hunt campaigners have witnessed and recorded evidence of hunts building homes and providing food for wild foxes, all to ensure a ready supply of animals to be hunted.

In 2011, six years after the hunting ban came into force, a League Against Cruel Sports investigation found that the use of artificial earths – man-made structures designed to mimic fox earths, usually made out of drain pipes or concrete blocks and designed provide a place for foxes to breed and shelter – was widespread.

Evidence of structure maintenance and supplementary feeding of foxes was recorded at sites in 14 counties, on land used by 21 hunts. In November 2014, ITV broadcast footage of the North Cotswold Hunt dumping dozens of dead chickens, rabbits and eggs at an artificial fox earth over a period of several weeks, and then hunting in the same area, made national headlines.

In May 2015 we received footage of dead chickens being dumped outside an artificial fox earth where the Pytchley Hunt had been filmed hunting just months before.

Lest you think these are just a few bad apples, the 10th Duke of Beaufort confirms the prevalence of artificial earths in his 1998 book Fox Hunting:

“In countries where earths are scarce it is sometimes found necessary to make artificial earths, to provide somewhere for local foxes to have their cubs; in other words, for breeding purposes. An additional advantage is that if an artificial earth is left open, it will only take a few minutes to bolt a fox. Also if it is a blank day, one knows where to go with some certainty of finding a fox.”

Why would hunts encourage or rear foxes?

For all the pro-hunt lobby’s claims of fox control and wildlife management, hunting is really about prestige. Ensuring that foxes are killed when esteemed guests ride with the hunt, and on important days such as the final meet of the year, is important for the hunt’s reputation.

Providing food and shelter for wild foxes means the hunt will always know where to find them on hunting day. And of course, when the hounds come across foxes during the course of an apparently legal drag hunt, the resulting fox kill can be put down as an unfortunate accident.

Rearing fox cubs in captivity could serve several purposes. Some may be released during ‘cub hunting’ season in early autumn when young hounds are taught how to track and kill by chasing fox cubs. Others may be released at artificial fox earths dotted throughout the terrain, thus providing ‘quarry’ for the upcoming hunting season.

In some cases the purpose could be even more disturbing. For several years our Wildlife Crimewatch line has received reports of a trade in foxes, with hunts in areas with healthy fox populations providing foxes for those in areas where the animal is scarce. While technically this is wildlife management, it’s not the ‘natural’ kind that hunts claim to provide.

No justification for a return to hunting

All of this evidence demonstrates what anti-hunt campaigners have known for decades; hunting has absolutely nothing to do with fox control or wildlife management – and it certainly isn’t natural.

Fox cubs belong with their parents and adults should have to forage for food, not have it delivered to their doorstep. The truth is that hunting is simply a cruel sport without any justification.

We urge all MPs to stand against this cruel and unnatural treatment of wild animals and vote against repeal of the Hunting Act.

Action: The League Against Cruel Sports is currently offering people the chance to contact their MP about the Hunting Act. Take the simple League Against Cruel Sports action.

Dr Toni Shephard is Head of Policy and Research at the League Against Cruel Sports.

To find out why foxes don’t actually need to be ‘controlled’, go to the League Against Cruel Sports Foxycology page.