The Newspoll on Pets and Single People, conduted in July 2010, also found that despite this, pets are helping single men and women to make friends, with 36 per cent confirming that they’ve met someone who became a friend as a result of owning their pet.

Pets are not just important in creating friendships; the research clearly shows single Australians consider their pets to be their friends. Of course. For 67 per cent of single women and 51 per cent of single men, the most important characteristic in a pet is a friend who’s always there for them. In fact, the majority of single pet owners (73 per cent of woman and 70 per cent of men) think their pets understand them as well as, or better than, their friends do. Familiar feeling?

If it is a familiar feeling, you know those conversations you regularly have with your pet? Normal – officially! Sixty-one per cent of single women say that they talk things over with their pet. (No research though on the quality of the answers.)

This Newspoll, conducted for the Petcare Information and Advisory Service (an organisation doing great work promoting socially responsible pet ownership) also showed where pets of single men and single women sleep. Thirty-seven per cent of single women and 22 per cent of single men let their pet sleep on their bed. From the bed to the backyard, 28 per cent of single men put their pets out at night, while just 14 per cent of single women do the same.

In a final word to anyone who wants to know more about the single pet owner … it’s all in their pet’s personality! Sixty-three per cent of single men and 54 per cent of single women think that people pick pets with similar personalities to themselves. The pet’s looks were not a high priority in selecting a pet for either single men or women, with just 3 per cent saying it was important.

The global trend for sustainable cosmetics has been largely driven by changing consumer purchasing habits. Consumers not only want to feel good while using products, but feel good about them too. Cosmetics are a luxury item and consumers can invest substanial money in them. The challenge for cosmetics producers is that the industry has a long-held marketing mantra ‘to stand out from the crowd’, so many products come in expressive, elaborate and often unnecessary packaging.   

So, how can the industry make profits and respond to consumer demand for sustainable and ethically produced cosmetics?

Sustainable products have in the past been price prohibitive, but with the acknowledgment of global warming and international agreements to reduce environmental impacts, new business opportunities have grown. The growth in infrastructure businesses such as chemical-free printers, commercial recyclers and green products on the whole are driving competitive alignment, so the cost barrier to engage in sustainable business practices is fast losing steam. In fact, a study conducted by leading US Consulting firm AT Kearney found that post-GFC, companies that were meaningfully committed to sustainability out-performed their competitors by 15 per cent. It is up to cosmetic producers to actively source new and more sustainable ways of producing its products.

In order to work, however, there must be an end-to-end commitment. No longer is it okay to have a product with all-natural ingredients then claim that it is sustainable. This is misleading to the consumer and damaging to the industry as a whole. Cosmetic production, distribution and waste should be transparent for the eco-friendly tag to be permissible.

Government initiatives, school curriculums, benefits of CSR programs and social media are all pushing organisations to build sustainability into their product development so over time the personal care industry will have to shift. However, those companies that are quickest to market with well communicated, detailed programs who are able to deliver quality and value for money, that are most likely to benefit from brand awareness and longer term consumer loyalty in an otherwise saturated and often confusing market.

Founder and Director of Adorn Mineral Cosmetics, Briony Kennedy, is a ten year veteran of the cosmetics industry and former salon owner. She’s committed to animal welfare and the environment, and to  finding better ways to produce, distribute and dispose of personal care products. She regularly writes for the beauty media and supports a variety of social groups and organisations. www.adornmineralcosmetics.com.au

The cosmetics industry until recently has had very little reason to achieve third-hand accreditations, mostly due to its inability to meet standards and criteria. However, the shift in public demand for natural and organic personal care products along with the establishment of product and lifestyle organisations have meant that products are more likely to be held up to closer scrutiny and lynched if manufacturer claims are not backed by certification.

This sentiment was echoed by Jeff Binder from the North American organic make-up retailer Saffron Rouge. A survey of 1,252 of its customers revealed that 77 per cent have trust and confidence in third party certification, whereas 72 per cent did not trust natural and organic claims made by brand owners.

So who are the main players in cosmetic endorsement and what does is mean if a product has been either registered or certified with them?

 Choose Cruelty Free:  CCF is an Australian independent, non-profit organisation which actively promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. They encourage producers and service providers to adopt a cruelty-free ethic and their criteria for accreditation is one of the most rigid of all accreditations.

CCF will not accredit a manufacturer if any of its products contain any ingredients that are:

• Derived from an animal killed specifically for the extraction of that ingredient
• Forcibly extracted from a live animal in a manner that occasioned pain or discomfort
• Derived from any wildlife
• That are by-products of the fur industry
• That are slaughterhouse by-products of a commercially significant value

CCF also will not accredit companies unless all parent and subsidiaries are also accredited. This is one of the reasons that lists produced by other organisations may include companies that CCF would not accredit. Companies applying for accreditation by CCF must sign a legally-binding contract to the effect that what they have said in their application is the truth about their practices.

CCF regularly updates its list of accredited companies. This can be found on the CCF website

Founder and Director of Adorn Mineral Cosmetics, Briony Kennedy, is a ten year veteran of the cosmetics industry and former salon owner. She’s committed to animal welfare and the environment, and to  finding better ways to produce, distribute and dispose of personal care products. She regularly writes for the beauty media and supports a variety of social groups and organisations.

Sometimes ‘100 per cent natural’ is not ‘100 per cent’ natural at all, so we’ve invited Briony Kennedy, Founder and Director of Adorn Mineral Cosmetics – who create and sell only cruelty-free, vegan and environmentally sustainable products – to share a few of her home truths …

Moisturisers: We have been conditioned to believe that moisturisers are essential. Dry skin is a sign of photo-ageing and thus moisturisers become a useful camouflage as the years pass. Moisturisers plump up the epidermis temporarily by increasing its water content. They have no long term benefit but there is no harm in using one if it is understood that the effect is temporary. Oily, acne or eczema prone skin has special moisturising needs. For sensitive skin or skin with dermatitis, a moisturiser is necessary. Usually, a thicker moisturiser is recommended as more moisture retention is required. If your skin is oily or acne prone, use a moisturiser low or free of oils.

Cleansers: Cleansers should be simple and not overly drying. A cleanser removes the oily top layer of the skin in which daily grime largely inhabits. A separate eye make-up remover is recommended as the eye area is traditionally dry. Lines around the eye is one of the first signs of ageing. An oil-based eye make-up remover with camomile is particularly effective for the removal of makeup, but also for its naturally relaxing qualities. A handy tip: if you use an oil-based make-up you must use an oil-based make-up cleanser to remove it. Similarly, if using water-based make-up, then use a water-based cleanser. It’s simple – water and oil do not mix, and one will not clean the other.

Exfoliating: As we age, the ability to turn over and create new skin cells becomes sluggish, leaving the skin looking dull.  If you use loose, mineral foundation then you have the added benefit of a light exfoliation each day from the mechanical process by which you apply your foundation (best with a Kabuki brush).  I recommend one to two times per week exfoliating your entire face (avoiding your eyes), neck and chest area with Bicarb of Soda or rice powder mixed with your cleanser until you get a gritty consistency.  Apply as you would normally when using an exfoliant.  Avoid exfoliating if you are sunburnt, have recently had a chemical peel, are using any acne medications or are having regular dermabrasions.

Toners: Toners dry the skin unnecessarily and should not be used.

Make-up: Your make-up should be hypoallergenic because allergies may develop over time. For acne prone skin, products should be non-comedogenic (non-pore-clogging).  Mineral make-up is best and generally suits all skin types.  Be sure to check if your brand is pure and does not contain talc or any synthetic chemicals and fillers.  Since its popularity has increased, some brands have come on board offering products that appear or suggest that they are pure minerals when in fact they are not and are simply no better for your skin than traditional forms of make-up. 

Sunscreen: Use at least a SPF 20+ sunscreen daily, but avoid sunscreen abuse. Sunscreen is important but no substitute for sun avoidance.

In some cases, 100 per cent natural ingredients aren’t necessarily best for humans, the earth or animals, so steer clear of products containing:

• Carmine: crushed then boiled, dried insects, usually the female insect-cochineal. Used as a dye for its red colour.
• Palm oil, palm oil derivatives: Palm oil plantations are endangering the orangutan and it is said these beautiful creatures will be extinct in the next ten years if their habitats are not saved from further palm oil plantations.
• Talc: is derived from the mineral magnesium silicate. Its ability to absorb oil and moisture strips the skin and leaves it looking and feeling dry.  It can be hazardous to one’s health, and is toxic with prolonged inhalation. Some talc is found to contain amphibole particle, which is typically found in asbestos, which is cancer causing and a known lung irritant. Scientific studies have shown that women who use talc in the genital area are 3.28 times more likely to contract ovarian cancer (Journal Cancer 1982).
• Bismuth Oxychloride: This is considered a heavy mineral and requires ongoing buffing. Mineral make-up companies advise this in order to force it into the skin and pores to keep it from sliding off of your face. Over-buffing of minerals can cause irritation and ongoing inflammation of sensitive skin types. It can also make acne cystic by congesting pores and cause rosacea to flare.  Put simply, a real no no if you have sensitive skin, just had laser treatment or a chemical peel. If you use a mineral foundation, make sure to double check the ingredients list.
• Kaolin (clay) in foundations: This ingredient also ‘bulks’ up a product and is used for its silky feel on the skin.  While I feel it is an ingredient that can be used in other cosmetics without irritation – using clay in foundations is not something I endorse.  Just like talc, it dries the skin out due to its oil absorbing qualities.  This is why when using face masks you rarely leave them on for more than 10 minutes –they dry out your skin! 
• Mineral Oil: A liquid mixture of hydrocarbons gathered from petroleum. It coats the skin like plastic, clogging the pores. It interferes with skin’s ability to eliminate toxins, promoting acne and other disorders. It slows down skin function and cell development, resulting in premature aging. Used in many products (baby oil is 100 per cent mineral oil!) any mineral oil derivative can be contaminated with cancer causing PAH’s (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons). Manufacturers use petrolatum because it is cheap.

I will be touching on synthetic chemicals, fragrance and parabens in an upcoming article and their impact on our health and our environment, if you have any comments or would like to share or your experiences please contact me at info@adornmineralcosmetics.com.au .

Briony Kennedy is a ten year veteran of the cosmetics industry and former salon owner. She’s commited to finding better ways to produce, distribute and dispose of personal care products, and to the environment. She regularly writes for the beauty media and supports a variety of social groups and organisations. www.adornmineralcosmetics.com.au

Ann Walker has lived with animals her entire life. She currently lives with three dogs, three cats, a pony and a donkey. Now in her seventies, many people ask what she’ll do with her animals once she ‘moves on’. But as Ann explains, thanks to a bequest program she no longer worries about her charges.

Many of us have heard elderly people say, usually with deep regret, that when their beloved cat or dog dies, ‘I can’t have another one, it wouldn’t be fair to them, for what on earth will happen if I die?’

It is a funny thing, but we all tend to say, ‘If I die, if something happens to me …’ not ‘When I die, or when something happens to me.’ Yet we all know that the only certainties in life are death and taxes, and none of us are immortal.

Dogs and cats have a much shorter lifespan than people, but that certainly doesn’t mean they’re never orphaned. Giving a home to a dog or cat when you yourself are in your seventies carries a real risk of this happening, for just as with people, companion animals are living longer. That is, if they survive the hazards of the first year of life. The greatest of these is being discarded when the appealing and cute puppy or kitten becomes a less cuddly adolescent.

There is a widespread and totally erroneous belief that only a young animal will settle in a home and bond with its owner. I have taken in many middle-aged and even elderly dogs and cats over the years and found that they almost invariably settle quickly into a new home. Once they have learned the basic house rules and the timetable, they not only bond with but also unstintingly give their love and devotion to a new person. I do not think it beyond the bounds of possibility that they understand they have been given a second chance to love, and be loved.

Patricia Bell has been an animal carer for many years and has taken into her home middle-aged and even elderly cats. Patricia has a great love and understanding of cats, and knows that they are not the cool, distant creatures some believe them to be, but extremely sensitive and affectionate creatures, to each other as well as to their human friends.

Patricia is part of the RSPCA’s bequest program and currently shares her life with two bequest cats, Thomas and Broadie, who came to her from the same home after their owner passed away. She feels strongly that it was bad enough for Thomas and Broadie to lose their human family and home, without also being separated from each other, especially as they grew up together. 

When an elderly person like Patricia becomes a foster carer to a bereaved animal it is a win–win situation for everyone. The carer does not have to worry about the expense of caring for the animal, as all veterinary bills are covered by the bequest. In the event that the carer can no longer keep their new companion, the animal returns to the custody of the bequest program. In all other instances, the animal belongs just as much to the carer as if it had always been the carer’s own pet – the animal has a home again and the carer has the infinite joy of animal companionship once more.

Under the RSPCA bequest program, the animal is registered with the program and money is left in the owner’s will to cover its ongoing expenses should they pre-decease it. For the rest of its life, the animal will be primarily the responsibility of the RSPCA; they will place it in a new home with registered carers who will, to all intents and purposes, be the animal’s new owners.

The new owners will be responsible for feeding, housing, registration and exercise. Those who volunteer to be carers understand that animals, just as people, can suffer the trauma of loss and grief, and offer love as well as care. In addition to paying veterinary expenses, the RSPCA also offer free boarding each year to allow the foster carers to take a holiday. They always keep in touch with the carers to keep them informed of the animal’s state.

The RSPCA’s bequest program does its utmost to match orphan animals and carers. They aim to place the animal in a home as similar as possible to the one they have lost. On registration, lots of questions are asked about the animal, such as their sleeping arrangements, diet, interactions with other animals and children, travel requirements and medications.

Jennifer Richardson is a carer for Sooty, a Spaniel cross Labrador, who came to live with her and her cats five years ago as part of this program. The cats, Oliver and Tabitha – taken in by Jennifer as small waifs – are now themselves registered on the program. Together, they all share a happy household. 

Dogs and cats are the most common animals registered for bequests, but no creature is exempt. Pet birds, horses, chooks and even fish can also be registered. Once registered and accepted, if the animal is a dog or a cat a medallion is issued for it to wear on its collar. This has the animal’s number within the program and the number to ring in case of emergency. The owner is also given a fridge magnet with the words IN EMERGENCY in large letters, as well as information stating that bequest animals reside in the residence. The telephone number to call for priority assistance follows. A similar wallet-sized card is also issued. The RSPCA bequest program is free to join, as provision for your pets is made in your will.

I have registered all of my eight animals with RSPCA Victoria’s animal bequest program, and it gives me great peace of mind. My animals are a precious gift and I’ll die happy knowing they’ll be well looked after. So if you’re in your twilight years and yearn for another animal companion, then this could be the solution for you. And if you adopt from a shelter, not only will you be helping to save a life, you’ll have a wonderful companion for the rest of your days.
 
Ann Walker has a blog at http://apps.annwalkerbooks.com/Blog/

Sue Evans’ job is telling her husband where to go. She does it quietly but very forcefully, and he always does as he is told. When it comes to the animals, however, Liz Swanton discovers it can be an entirely different story.

Together Sue and Simon Evans form the dynamic racing duo whose accolades include consecutive Australian Rally Championships – the Formula One of gravel racing in Australia.

The pair race an extremely powerful, specially built Corolla for the Toyota Racing Developments (TRD) rally team. Simon is the ‘steering wheel attendant’; Sue is the co-driver, or navigator, who dictates coded instructions to her husband as they compete, warning him of the road conditions ahead and the speed at which they can be traversed.

It is the trust and talent of the driver/co-driver combination that wins rallies and championships, and Sue and Simon are at the top of their game. When they are not – literally – racing all over the countryside, however, there is a very different side to this cool, quick pair, who run a busy concreting business and a home chock-full of various animals.

‘You know how they say animals are like their owners,’ says Sue. ‘Well, we have a house full of nutty people and I think we’ve probably got paddocks full of nutty animals!’

The Evans’ household includes two dogs, Buffy and Daisy; the new pony, Shadow; a rabbit, Tiffany; two guinea pigs, Squeaker and Elvis; and five chooks – oh, and teenage children, Jackson and Eden.

‘Only one of the chooks has a name now. That’s Simon’s chicken – Foghorn Leghorn. It struts around a bit like Simon would if he was living in a chicken coop,’ says Sue, laughing.

‘But Simon wouldn’t lay eggs and it [Foghorn Leghorn] doesn’t lay eggs either – useless!’ says Sue. ‘But the other four are ISA Browns and they’re good layers. Jackson always refers to them as the “Angry Mob”.’

The menagerie has actually reduced in number in recent times. There used to be another dog, but last year she decided to move next door with the neighbour who lets her sleep on the couch – the Evans didn’t allow this. There was also a Blue-tongue Lizard that relocated to Sue’s sister’s house, and an Angus bull, who has also, err … relocated. .

‘Eight Ball was his name – he was black,’ says Sue. ‘Simon named him. We had him until he ran through all the fences and tore up the backyard one day. It was actually a very stressful time in our lives …  and I remember thinking “I wonder if we have caused this, maybe this is our fault”. It was like watching him and understanding how he might be feeling. I thought “I really understand where you are coming from, buddy”, but he had to go. So I rang Simon’s dad, who breeds Angus [bulls], and told him to come and get it. I believe Eight Ball has turned up at a few local barbecues – but not at my house!’

Sue laughs gingerly at this, admitting she cannot confess to daughter Eden this was Eight Ball’s fate. ‘She’s not a very big meat eater and refers to all meats as the type of animal they are, so it’s “are we having cow tonight mum”, or “are we eating pig”. The association of meat coming from an animal is hard enough for her; the meat coming from an animal she knows – no, we just don’t go there.’

The biggest battle in the Evans’ household involves Daisy, a Jack Russell, and her attitude towards the guinea pigs, the rabbit and the chickens. ‘Daisy struggles to understand that while we might encourage her to chase wild rabbits in the paddocks, we do not want her chasing the pet rabbit or trying to eat through the cage.’
And there was a more alarming incident which proved a very valuable lesson – in running a ‘farm’ not all animals are congenial.

‘Daisy did kill two of the chickens, which was my fault because I was determined they should be free range and just wandering around the property,’ says Sue. ‘And it happened when Simon had broken his leg in a rally crash and was wandering around on crutches. So I’m saying “let the chickens and the dogs get used to each other” because I wanted everyone to get along and be great together and Simon’s saying “this is a bad idea” – and unfortunately Simon was right.’ 

Sue says it was a definite learning curve in animal management. ‘I guess you can put it down to the fact that we’re not farm people. We live on five acres and we’re trying to be farm people. We’re learning.’

The big issue is saying no to the children when they want another animal. Technically, they have the space, but the logistics – when rally season is on and Simon and Sue are away for a week for each event – make it a nightmare.

‘We have a friend who looks after Eden when we are away and so they come together after school and do it all [care for the animals], but our friend’s moving away so that’s something I’m going to have to get my head around for next season. Someone to look after Eden and the animals – another little stress for mum to worry about!’

When everyone is home, animal feeding is a shared chore – including dishing out a generous supply of seed for the wild birds that live around their home at Nar Nar Goon, on Melbourne’s south-eastern outskirts.

‘Jackson does the dogs and the chooks,’ says Sue. ‘Eden can’t do the chooks because the chook food gives her a rash, and she hates chook poo. So she does the horse, the guinea pigs and the rabbit. So the kids definitely feed all the animals – I think it’s important they have a job.’

Sue admits her closest companion – aside from Simon and the children – is ‘her’ dog, Buffy.

‘She’s supposed to be a Shar Pei/Golden Retriever because the breeders lived in the same street and the dogs got out together one night, but she’s actually a Shar Pei crossed with a Rhodesian Ridgeback.’

Sue found Buffy at the local produce store, in ‘this cage full of gorgeous squished-up puppies.’ As Buffy grew, it became evident that Golden Retriever was not part of her genetic make-up.  

‘Simon insists I love ugly things; I think that’s insulting to him but he keeps saying it! She looks sort of vicious with a scrunched-up head, but I think she’s beautiful.’

Buffy sometimes accompanies Sue on her training runs, but there is a problem with this – she runs faster than Sue.

‘That’s good on the days I’m feeling really energetic,’ says Sue, ‘but on the days when I’m not, it’s a pain. She also comes on my climbs when I’m hiking, but she’s always way ahead and then I have to find her.’

While the menagerie actually causes Sue some stress, she admits Buffy gives her a great deal of pleasure.

‘She’s a hugger. She doesn’t come up and lick you. When you bend down to her, she puts her head on your shoulder. I just love it. When all is crazy around me, I just sit on the deck and she sits next to me, and she doesn’t answer me back like the rest of them do.

‘She’s my sounding board. She doesn’t look at me like I’m an idiot. Simon tells me she has no idea what I am saying, but I know she gets me.’

Photo: Toyoto Australia

A young fur seal has swum more than sixty kilometres to return to where he was hand-fed on fish, choosing a life with humans over that of one with his fellow fur seals. It’s a situation unwittingly created by humans, says relocation team leader Dr Katrina Gregory, and one that now has to be managed with caution, care and continual monitoring. She shares the story of their attempt to relocate the little seal.

In the scheme of things he’s a drop in the ocean, but the little seal who’d become a fixture at the Stony Point boat ramp in 2008 is still close to my heart. He arrived at the boat ramp after what must have been a tough journey, separated at some stage from his nursery and his mother. His birthplace is thought to be Australia’s largest fur seal colony, at the Nobbies just off Phillip Island in Victoria.

There are many lessons for a wild-born seal to learn: how to swim and dive, when and where to rest, what to chase and eat, and where to find food and when. Of course, there are also predators in the water, such as white sharks and sometimes Orcas, so a young seal must also learn to be careful. As well as natural predators, there are other hazards, including discarded fishing lines and hooks, nets and other marine debris such as plastic bags, which look so much like jellyfish.

On arrival at Stony Point on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula, the pup was underweight, hungry and tired. At the boat ramp, he found a safe haven and began to eat the carcasses discarded as rubbish by the fisherman as they cleaned their catch. He soon learned that people in boats would toss him a fish as he swam beside them and that bait fish would come from the pontoons of the boat ramp.

Gradually, the pup regained his strength, but the condition of his eyes was deteriorating through contact with the oil in the water around the ramp, and they were often painful. And some people did not like him around at all – he was getting in the way.

Fur seals are very intelligent and this pup was no exception. He quickly learned to chase boats returning from sea rather than those just launched, that swimming close to boats would entice people to feed him, and how to dodge the propellers of the boats within the tight confines of the ramp.

My concern for him was not just the problem with his eyes or that he was surviving on a poor diet, but that little male seals grow into big male seals. An adult male Australian Fur Seal can weigh up to 360 kilograms. During his formative months he’s been learning that people are a source of food and can provide fish on demand. Some day, when he’s large enough, he may also learn to leap onto boats to get what he wants. Not only could someone be hurt, but ultimately this behaviour would lead to the seal’s death. A 300-plus kilogram seal jumping onto a boat is dangerous and history indicates people would demand he be destroyed. To me, that would be a tragedy, the making of which is in our hands.

To stop the hand feeding – known in animal science as provisioning – and encourage the seal to hunt for himself, signs were erected at the ramp by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) warning patrons that interference with any seal, a protected species, could result in serious penalties. It made little difference and the provisioning continued.

In order for the seal to survive, he needed to be relocated. In conjunction with the crew of the Polperro, a dolphin tour company in Port Phillip Bay – who have been instrumental in setting standards for marine viewing and care in the bay – and the team from Nigel’s Animal Rescue, I formulated a plan to relocate the seal to an environment where he could live with other seals and start to forage for himself.

Realising that the seal’s situation was deteriorating at Stony Point, DSE finally gave their approval to relocate him, and on a Wednesday in March, we carried out our plan.

We started the day before dawn and at first light he appeared. He swam straight to me for breakfast. I allowed him to take a few fish from my hand, and then quietly and gently netted him and pulled him from the water. He struggled a little, seemingly a little angry and frustrated at the sudden confinement, but he soon settled as we travelled the road to the other side of the Mornington Peninsula and the Sorrento Pier where the Polperro boat and her crew were waiting.

We journeyed directly to the haul-out area in the middle of Port Phillip Bay, called ‘Chinaman’s Hat’ – a man-made platform on which seals can rest between foraging expeditions. During the entire journey we were escorted by a large pod of dolphins. On arrival, on the boat’s deck, the pup was carefully examined, measured and given vitamins. Calmly, he was returned to the sack in which he had travelled. The relocation crew lowered him into my waiting arms on the duck board at the Polperro’s stern. I opened the sack. For a brief moment we locked eyes, and then he slid boldly into the crystal clear waters of the bay.

The last we saw of him that day, he was swimming strongly near a group of other seals. During the coming weeks, we planned to monitor his progress as he developed the skills and knowledge he needs to hunt and find food. In the bay, there are plenty of seals to show him how and plenty of fish to practice on.

The next day, the crew onboard the Polperro saw the seal swimming with other seals at Chinaman’s Hat. Sometime between 2.30 that afternoon and 3.00pm on Friday the tiny pup travelled more than 60 kilometres out through the heads and all the way back to the boat ramp at Stony Point, where he began again to chase after fishing boats and ask for food.

An intrepid little seal with incredible determination has made a choice, one which I believe we must heed. His choice is not the one I would have hoped for him, but animal welfare allows the individual the opportunity to make its own choices, It seems the seal wants to stay at Stony Point, so now more than ever we must change our behaviour so the seal can survive. For this little seal to have any future, all provisioning must cease. We must show him that we are worthy friends.

As I wonder if we can meet the challenge, I am reminded of a quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, a French writer and aviator, ‘Many have forgotten this truth, but you must not forget it. You remain responsible, forever, for what you have tamed’.
 
Text & Photography: Dr Katrina Gregory

Dr Katrina is a training and behavioural veterinarian on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria and regularly assists wild creatures. She can be contacted via email: drkat@bigpond.com or visit her website by clicking here.

Like every great magician, Cath Jamison knows the secrets to an entertaining show. Sassy, bold and confidently funny, after 20 years it’s not surprising she’s the number one female magician in the country. Like many before her, Cath includes doves in her show, and as Lisa Louden discovers, this is where the magic really begins.

Working with doves, Cath explains, is more than a trick, it’s about building a relationship. ‘You have to treat them like pets,’ she says. ‘It’s about training and handling and it can take years.’

As with anyone who has or works with animals, we know that each and every one of them has their own personality and certainly that’s the case with Cath’s doves. She’s had several over the years, and used to work with five doves on stage. The advent of the bird flu and the logistics of performing with live animals have prompted her to use only two birds now, Scatty and Flighty.

True to form, Flighty does indeed like to take off from time to time, though not usually during a show. ‘Working with animals keeps you challenged,’ says Cath. And the case in point is that Flighty decided one night to fly over the audience. He landed on a boy with Down Syndrome who was utterly delighted by the visit. Why he decided to fly to this boy no-one knows, except the result was overwhelmingly positive, and will stand in memory as one of her great shows.

Cath admits part of the charm of including doves is watching the audience and their reaction to them. There is definitely fascination, but often, funnily enough, she is asked if they are rubber. ‘I think sometimes they don’t really understand that they are live doves,’ she says. ‘They think it must be another trick.’

Watching Cath with her doves is indeed to watch a relationship in action. By a gentle, almost invisible movement of her hand, she can make them flap their wings, and another tiny movement makes them fly. She calls herself ‘The Dove Whisperer’ and it’s easy to see why. She moves deftly and confidently with them, with what could be described as a type of calm, and these gentle creatures respond.

After seeing The Prestige I am prompted to ask if cruelty or death of birds in magic tricks is common practice. According to Cath, thankfully it’s not – it seems the deaths of birds in tricks in The Prestige were for Hollywood impact only. Of course, as in any industry, there are magicians who do not have positive relationships with their birds. Cath tells a story of when a magician recently had his bird fly off and not return. ‘No wonder,’ she says, ‘he treated it terribly.’

Cath believes very strongly that her relationship with her doves ensures her magic with them is successful. It’s a case of treat them well and they’ll do what you ask. She admits rather sheepishly that she talks often to them, and seemed grateful to hear it’s a common practice among all pet owners. After a performance she says she often turns to them and says, ‘well, that was a good show.’ There is never any disagreement.

In 2007, Cath was bestowed the honour of being the only female in a show celebrating 100 years of the Australian Society of Magicians. There were 13 performers in total, from as far away as France, Sweden, Canada and America, including some of the world’s greats. For any female who has risen in the ranks of a male-dominated industry, this is both testament to her skills and persistence and is most certainly a world away from when she attended a magic class many years previous and was assumed to be a magician’s wife. 

While it’s an industry that has traditionally attracted men, with the popularity of Harry Potter books it’s a profession undergoing change. ‘Boys have always thought magic was cool, but now girls are starting to get into it too,’ says Cath. ‘Recently I’ve been teaching magic to children and in my classes I’d say 50 per cent were girls. Twenty or 30 years ago, it [magic] was pushed to the boys, where as girls had to knit and sew … I was different.’

And different she was. Cath has always been fascinated by magic and took to it at a young age. While her female counterparts were undertaking traditional domestic pursuits, Cath was learning magic, practicing tricks and juggling chickens. No, they weren’t live – they were rubber and apparently made for an entertaining show. So much so that Cath won Australia’s best busker one year by juggling chickens. Evidently, her skills span several bird species.

Cath’s affection for animals may be restricted to birds on stage, but at home Houdini – naturally a true magician’s dog – is number one. Houdini is a gorgeous girl, who Cath says is a Whippet, Silky Terrier, Kelpie and Pomeranian Cross. It’s almost a magic trick that she has so many crosses, so it’s little wonder she’s called Houdini. Like her mother, Houdini also has a special relationship with the doves, and watches over them like a protector. Naturally, she also has a good relationship with Cath and like most dogs has the intuition to sense Cath’s moods. 

While we are there, Cath performs magic tricks and our photographer is fascinated. ‘I was watching so carefully,’ says Zoe, ‘how did you do that?’ It’s a question asked repeatedly and one that Cath answers with the quip ‘very well’. And while audiences will continue to scratch their heads trying to figure out how her tricks are performed, one thing we do know, when it comes to her doves, it’s not just about magic.

Photography: Zoe Phillips
Cath Jamison is now an Adore Animals Foundation ambassador … see our ambassador page for more details

The final instalment of our interview with controversial Sea Shepherd founder Captain Paul Watson …

In perhaps the most inflammatory quote on our interview, Watson says, ‘Greenpeace is in the whaling industry. They are in the whaling industry. They make more money from whaling than Norway and Iceland does.’

He says they do this by collecting $30 to $40 million a year for opposing whaling. ‘As long as the whale hunt is going on, they make money. And that’s why they go down there every year, take some photographs, get their story, and they are out of there. They’re not going back now, because they said they don’t have the budget for it. They have $18 million in an Australian bank account. They had 172 million Euros come in last year from Greenpeace International, they have $300 million in their collective bank accounts and a $60 million building in Amsterdam. And they don’t have a budget to send a ship down there? The reason being is that they’ve milked it completely, and they’ve spent it on advertising: donate to Greenpeace. It’s just driving me nuts; every time there is a Sea Shepherd article – donate to Greenpeace. That’s where their money goes; they have invested millions of dollars on advertising.’

I ask him, if Greenpeace are not there to protect whales, what is their agenda?

‘Their agenda’, he replies, ‘is to make money. It’s the world’s largest feel-good organisation.’

‘Do you think that’s what it is?’ I ask.

‘It absolutely is,’ he says, nodding emphatically.

‘What about the people who are in Greenpeace, who are volunteering or working in it because they believe in the cause?’

He says: ‘The business-type people are there to make money, and then there are people who are used basically as cheap labour. You know, there are people who are out there taking the risk because they believe that this is the right thing to do. But it isn’t. They are part of the problem. And it’s not just Greenpeace. It’s World Wildlife Fund [WWF], and it’s the International Fund for Animal Welfare [IFAW]. [They are] all big, big, mega organisations. IFAW got a $10 million bequest last year and they built a $10 million office building with it. [He scoffs.] You know. They are robbing the small groups. All the strength of this movement lies in individuals and small organisations. Always has, always will. There’re variables there – Jane Goodall does great work and she’s got a big foundation, David Suzuki does great work – but generally that’s the problem.’

In Greenpeace’s most recent annual report from 2006, they were listed as having 119,674,000 Euro in cash and total assets of 159,600,000 Euro. IFAW had US$20,021,000 cash with total assets of US$76,614,000. It’s not clear how much Greenpeace have in Australian bank accounts or if IFAW spent a $10 million bequest on an office building. In contrast, it’s reported that the Sea Shepherd operate on US$2 million a year.

‘The whole thing is just a game,’ says Watson. ‘And I call Greenpeace the world’s biggest feel-good organisation because that’s what they’re selling. They’re selling a product, and that product is: join us – be part of the solution. You can feel real good, it doesn’t matter what you do in your life, you can eat meat, you can drive your Hummer, you can do whatever, as long as you’re a Greenpeace member, you’re part of the solution.’  
 
In return, Greenpeace condemn Paul Watson for not only his actions, but also his criticisms of their organisation. However, if the comments regarding a recent article about the Greenpeace/Sea Shepherd stoush on LiveNews.com.au (owned by the Macquarie Radio Network in Australia) are anything to go by, then support is definitely on Sea Shepherd’s side. The opinion was that the Sea Shepherd instigated action against whaling and would be the organisation that would succeed in ending it. Greenpeace were criticised for appeasing governments and being politely inactive.

Watson seems to enjoy the action and the thrill of the chase, so it’s not surprising that it’s Greenpeace’s lack of action that frustrates him.

‘They’re not actually standing for any real change. I call them “ocean posers”. They go down there every year and they do these whale snuff flicks that are like, oh here are these whales being killed, now send money. But they don’t actually stop it.’

It’s obvious Watson is not afraid of controversy and he admits he enjoys an argument, but he says the slaughter of whales will never be an argument anyone will win with him.

‘I don’t mind debating with people – no, that’s fine. But then again, I don’t think opinions really matter too much, it’s the results of what’s happening to the planet that’s what’s important, what is happening to other species. I see no justification for the slaughter that’s going on, I see no justification. There’s no way anybody’s going to argue with me to say that’s okay, I’m never going to accept it, I don’t care what their arguments are, I’m not interested in what their arguments are.’  

Action rather than complacency is his message and it’s levelled at everyone. 

‘I just think people should be concerned with their own survival. And they’re not going survive if they carry on on the present course that they are following. I mean, there are sacrifices, but the fact is, we just can’t continue to destroy the planet at the rate we’re doing it. I mean, there’s a limit as to how many fish there are in the ocean. And what we are doing at the moment is adapting to diminishment. It’s this constant adaptation to diminishment which is our problem.’

Part of this action and part of the ‘sacrifice’, says Watson, is converting to vegetarianism. It’s a call to action that is guaranteed to evoke criticism from meat associations and meat-eaters worldwide. But Watson believes eating meat is unsustainable. ‘I think it’s completely unrealistic for six billion people to live on this planet and eat meat and expect to protect the environment,’ he says.

Watson says to be a conservationist you have to look into the future, and not just the short-term future. We are living in the greatest period of material excess that the planet has ever known, and according to Watson, the implications from this will be realised. 

‘What the world looks like in a million years depends on what we do now. I can see 150 years into the future and what I see is a world where we’re forced to adapt to the laws of ecology because one, we are running out of energy sources and two, we’re running out of carrying capacity. So there will be a diminishment of population just because of the circumstances [that are present] ecologically – there will be an environmental collapse, really. So what we see emerging 150 years from now is a world of sailing ships and horses. We’re going to be back to the 1850s because we won’t have any other means of transportation, we’ll be back to wind power and horse power. There won’t be any fuel to burn. And if there is, it’ll be limited.’

Our material excesses and our exploitation of resources have depleted the earth. Watson says now Antarctica is the only continent left to exploit and he fears for it.

‘In 20 to 30 years, there’s going to be a major war over the resources of Antarctica. In fact, the Falkland Islands was the prelude to that. We didn’t go and fight that war over a few sheep down in the Falklands; whoever controlled the Falklands and South Georgia controls access to Antarctica … And they’re looking at it [Antarctica] now; there are 300-foot-wide open seams of coal running through the trans-Antarctica mountains. There’s cobalt, there’s uranium, there’s oil and it’s down there and they’re going to get it and they’re going to fight over it. So that’s going to be the major war of the twenty-first century.’

According to Watson, the resources war of the twenty-first century will also include water.

‘There’s going to be a war by 2030 between Canada and the United States over water. Canada’s got it and the US wants it; either give it to them or they go to war. That’s the choice that’s really going to happen. We saw what happened when California’s energy started to fail, they forced the Oregon–Washington dams to be opened, wiping out entire salmon streams, just to provide energy to Los Angeles and San Francisco. Resources dictate. That’s what all this crap in Iraq and everything is all about – just controlling oil and pipelines and everything else.’

It’s this greed for resources, power and money that really riles him. ‘I find it amazing when people say, “you’re risking your life and your crew’s life to protect a whale”. So? I mean, how more noble is that to risk your life to protect a whale than to risk your life to protect some sheik’s oil well somewhere, or to defend standard oil. It seems to me you give medals to those guys and yet they’re killing people and they’re dying; we haven’t even injured anybody and we’re getting condemned, so really it’s a double standard. It’s hard to take these criticisms very seriously, though.’

What is serious, however, is his message. And whatever his media strategies, his methods or antagonisms, or however you feel about him, you have to hand it to the man. In a society more concerned with materialism than nature, he’s been courageous, passionate and ‘driven mad with anger’ for more than 30 years to protect marine wildlife.

If he is a modern-day pirate, then he’s also a modern-day Robin Hood. He’s not stealing the gold, he’s showing us the treasure and taking every possible action to halt its plunder.

Text: Lisa Louden
Research: Steve Nietz, Lisa Louden
Photography: Dione Molnar

Interested in hearing from the man himself? Click here for Captain Paul Watson’s blog

We continue our interview with controversial Sea Shepherd founder Captain Paul Watson …

‘In comparison to the problems that the world’s wildlife population has experienced, I don’t think that any human sacrifice is anything, really. We’re not sacrificing anything.’

People’s opinions of Captain Paul Watson are divided, although many of them can’t pinpoint exactly why. Some are annoyed that he claims to be a captain without the necessary paperwork. After more than 30 years at sea, however, others believe he couldn’t be more qualified to be the leader of a ship.

Perhaps part of the dislike stems from inflammatory statements such as ‘I don’t have enough respect for people to be concerned about what they call me.’

You can see why he rubs people up the wrong way; society expects that people want to be liked. But it’s his detractors he’s referring to here, rather than his supporters, of whom there are many, including Hollywood celebrities like Pierce Brosnan, Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, William Shatner and Uma Thurman. In his foreword to Watson’s book Seal Wars: Twenty-five Years on the Front Lines with the Harp Seals, Martin Sheen says Paul Watson is ‘by far the most knowledgeable, dedicated and courageous environmentalist alive today’.

It’s easy to understand how he garners this support in Hollywood; Paul Watson would be as refreshing as sea air. Not only has he walked the talk, he’s down-to-earth, passionate and knowledgeable, and he has a never-ending supply of entertaining, enlightening and incredible stories. Unquestionably, he’s also undertaking meaningful work. And then there are his other supporters, who include Mick Jagger and the Dalai Lama.

Watson has been banned from International Whaling Commission (IWC) meetings since 1986, after the Sea Shepherd sunk two Icelandic whaling vessels, and since that time the IWC has been vocal in its condemnation of him. Interestingly, then, in 2006 the IWC’s outgoing vice-chair Horst Kleinschmidt joined the Sea Shepherd’s board as an advisor, and he’s still on the board today.

From Namibia in southern Africa, Horst Kleinschmidt speaks four languages and has a host of university degrees. He says, ‘I have been an activist all my life. I fought against apartheid and for the rights and dignity of the oppressed people of my country. For this I went to jail and then into exile … Having been an IWC Commissioner, the plight of the world’s whales became apparent to me … Sea Shepherd alerts and educates people through its radical actions, which is why I decided to side with this organisation.’

When it comes to the cause, Watson doesn’t mince his words either, and nor does he buy into human trivialities. Equally, he condemns the use of culture or tradition to justify killing, calling these justifications ‘ridiculous’. Watson has been outspokenly critical of tribes like the Makah, a North American tribe from Neah Bay in Washington, who continue to whale today under an 1855 treaty. Watson says these exemptions of ‘aboriginality’ can be applied to almost any culture if you look far enough back into history. 

‘I mean what the hell, where does that begin? They’re breaking the law, and if they’re breaking the law, we are going to oppose them. And I think that it would be racist of me not to oppose them because I’m discriminating against them based on their race, and I won’t do that. So I find that being politically correct to me is being racist. Because I only look at people as people, I don’t see any difference down the line. I don’t see a difference between male and female, black, red, whatever, it’s all the same – it’s human beings, one race, the human race.’

Watson’s message is to all humankind, regardless of creed, religion, race or colour. He believes in living in accordance with the three basic laws of ecology:

1. The law of diversity – that the strength of an eco-system depends upon the diversity in it
2. The law of interdependence – that all those species are interdependent
3. The law of finite resources – that there is a gross limit carrying capacity.

Of the last law he says, ‘humans are stealing the carrying capacity of other species in that they have to be eliminated in order for us to increase our populations’.

Watson says last year he was criticised in the United States for a comment that referred to worms being more important than humans, which he explains:

‘Worms can live on the planet without people; people can’t live on the planet without worms. Honeybees are more important than people, bacteria is more important than people – any species that is actually a foundation species which allows for the other species to survive is more important than the species up top. So the so-called higher mammals are actually lower on the value scale than the bacteria and the insects which maintain this planet for us.’

Of course, even foundation species have symbiotic relationships. Some bacteria, for instance, live only in humans. But the point is valid; other species live far more harmoniously on this earth than people. To the planet’s survival, we are superfluous. And if the planet survives and we don’t change our ways, Watson says there’ll be consequences.

‘What I would like to see is that people understand that everything they do has repercussions. They should learn to live in harmony with other species and respect other species and learn to abide by the laws of ecology. Any species throughout the last billion years that hasn’t lived in accordance with the laws of ecology becomes extinct. It’s as simple as that. If you want to survive, obey the law, otherwise you’re going to disappear. Because we’re already at carrying capacity – the environment is set up into different niches that different species occupy. And if you start vacating a lot of these niches then things begin to collapse.’

Watson doesn’t believe in pets, he’s a vegetarian, and if his following claims are correct, you can see why.

‘Fifty per cent of the fish that’s taken out of the ocean goes to livestock. The pig is the largest aquatic carnivore on the planet – it eats more fish than all the world’s sharks put together. Cats eat more fish than all the world’s seals put together.’

Watson has other claims too: puffins are starving in the North Sea because the sand eel is being fished to feed factory farm chickens in Denmark – the sand eel is the puffin’s main diet. Mass harvesting of plankton is being planned to provide protein paste to feed livestock, and every fish at a fish farm requires 70 fish from the ocean to feed it.  

Before you dismiss these claims, consider the research. A UK information website, Wildlife Britain, says that in some places in the United Kingdom there’s been a shortage of sand eels, which ‘has led to the drastic increase in the mortality of the young birds [puffins]’. They say, ‘The usual suspects of over-fishing and global warming are thought to be to blame, although it is difficult to prove.’

The research into farmed fish is even more interesting. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) says that ‘aquaculture is contributing to over-fishing through the use of wild-caught fish as feed for farmed fish’.

They claim that to produce just one kilogram of farmed tuna up to 22 kilograms of wild-caught fish is needed; one kilogram of farmed salmon needs four kilograms of wild-caught fish; and up to two kilograms of wild-caught fish is needed to produce one kilogram of farmed marine shrimp.

A 2000 article in Nature [volume 405] titled Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies confirms that ‘some types of aquaculture activity, including shrimp and salmon farming, potential damage to ocean and coastal resources through habitat destruction, waste disposal, exotic species and pathogen invasions, and large fish meal and fish oil requirements may further deplete wild fisheries stocks’. It goes on to say, ‘The diversity of production systems leads to an underlying paradox: aquaculture is a possible solution, but also a contributing factor, to the collapse of fisheries stocks worldwide.’

Watson’s choice to become vegetarian is based on this. ‘I cannot justify eating [meat], I’m totally opposed to eating seafood primarily, but I can’t justify the eating of meat because of its contribution to the destruction of marine wildlife. I always get called an animal rights person and this type of thing, but I’ve always been a conservationist, but I feel that veganism and vegetarianism, are essential if you are going to be a really committed and dedicated conservationist or environmentalist. The amount of greenhouse gases produced by the meat industry is greater than the amount of gases produced by the automobile industry. Al Gore didn’t mention that.’

According to the United Nation’s Livestock’s Long Shadow report, published in 2006, the meat industry contributes more to greenhouse gases than not only the automobile industry but the transport industry as a whole. The report claims that the world’s livestock industry ‘generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2’. And that ‘livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport’.

The report based its assessment on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account both direct impacts and those of feed-crop agriculture required for livestock production. The livestock sector emerged as one of the top significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems at every scale, from local to global. The findings of the report suggested the industry should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change, air pollution, water shortage and pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

A statement of Watson’s that was well publicised in the United States was ‘A vegan driving a Hummer contributes less to global greenhouse emissions than a meat-eater riding a bicycle.’ While this is most quotable, research, including that from the University of Chicago, indicates it’s more likely to be: a vegan (who contributes the equivalent of 0.19 tonnes of CO2 through their food consumption) driving a Prius (which contributes around 2.1 tonnes after covering a distance of 12,000 miles) contributes about the same greenhouse gases as an average meat-eater (around 2.19 tonnes) on a bicycle. For those interested, a Hummer at 12,000 miles contributes around 8.5 tonnes per year.
Regardless, his point is evident – eating meat contributes enormously to greenhouse gases. Watson says he doesn’t know why there is such resistance to vegetarianism, except to suggest that it impinges on the lifestyles of individuals, and that, while people may be in favour of conservation, this is too much of a sacrifice for most people.
‘It’s true that no one wants to touch it. An example: we boarded with the Greenpeace ship, well I didn’t, but my crew did, in South Africa, while we were both there, and they were on an anti-fishing campaign but they were all serving whole fish dinners, big fish dinners. And one of my crew said “well this is ridiculous” and the cook said “well you gotta eat”. My crew member replied “well our ships are vegan”,and the cook said “well that’s just plain silly”. But people can’t adapt to it, to that whole thing. I mean, I was raised on seafood. I lived in a town where the poor kids went to school with lobster sandwiches because that was the cheapest meat in town. We thought baloney and peanut butter was exotic.’

Watson has many criticisms of the organisation he helped found all those years ago. He publicly accuses David McTaggart, former CEO of Greenpeace, of being a ‘crook’. He says, ‘David McTaggart pretty much manipulated all the original people out of the organisation, including Bob [Robert] Hunter, who was the first president of Greenpeace, and he did it basically for his personal fiefdom. And when I say he’s a crook, he’s dead now, but I said it when he was alive, I said [to him] “You tell me how a bankrupt businessman becomes a multi-millionaire ten years after taking over a non-profit society and retires to a villa in Italy. If I’m lying, sue me”, but he never sued me.’

Watson says when he made this accusation, Greenpeace turned against the Sea Shepherd and the war was on. Watson says, ‘He [McTaggart] took it away from animals, he was totally opposed to the animals. Even though people think Greenpeace is protecting seals, they haven’t been to a seal hunt since the mid eighties. Their whole position on whaling is that they neither condemn nor condone.’

In perhaps the most inflammatory quote in our interview, Watson says …
Find out in Part 3 later this week

Text: Lisa Louden
Research: Steve Nietz, Lisa Louden
Photography: Dione Molnar

Interested in hearing from the man himself? Click here for Captain Paul Watson’s blog