World Protection For Dogs And Cats In The Meat Trade
Press Release January 22nd 2017
Official Launch of Microchipping Programme in China by World Protection for Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade. #NoToDogMeat
As the Lunar New Year approaches, our charity is really pleased to announce we have officially launched our microchipping programme in China. First stop are all the dogs and cats in our partner shelter South of Beijing,then neighbouring dogs and cats of the other small yards we support.
We also plan microchipping days for pet owners in Beijing who often find vet costs off-putting as it can cost them at least $50. We have started to equip rescuers and activists we know with readers.And that is not all.Thanks to a very tech savvy Chinese volunteer we are building an effective database in Chinese.
Being able to trace stolen pets as well as manage dogs in shelters where numbers are large is key to responsible management. We are also offering training days so skills can be learnt and shared. #TeamWork #SupportTheSolution
It costs us just $3 to chip a dog or cat thanks to an amazing sponsor who is subsidising all the supplies.
To know more please contact email@example.com. Or come and see us in London next Thursday 26th 2017 when our team will be out spreading awareness. www.notodogmeat.com Tel: 0207 873 2250
Warning: some of the pictures and videos in this post contain images of dogs which have died and may be distressing – viewer discretion is advised
NoToDogMeat decided to visit Mrs Yang in China on advice from the UK Charity Commission and as part of our duty to be diligent in making sure the funds of close to £77,000 raised on the platform Total Giving (which was started in June this year) were used for the publicly stated purpose of the fundraiser and in line with our charity objects – to rescue dogs and cats from being butchered as part of the Yulin dog meat festival and to provide ongoing care for these rescued animals.
From the outset our concern was raised as a result of unexplained difficulties in safe collection of funds sent by Western Union, lack of communication from Mrs Yang and reports which trickled through of her activities at Yulin 2015, just before and shortly afterwards, which conflicted with other statements she had made to our volunteer (a lady with highly responsible position within a multinational company and experienced in conducting business across Asia) face to face and with an accredited Chinese translator in May, a month or so earlier.
Mrs Yang had stated:
- She ran a shelter with over 3,000 dogs and cats in and around Tianjin
- She had totally exhausted all her funds and these animals were currently starving to death
- No international organisation had ever stepped in to help her
- She was completely self-funded
- She wished to return to Yulin in 2015 and rescue as many dogs and cats as she could
- She proposed to buy the dogs and indicated the “price per head” was $50
- Mrs Yang described her shelter as a “cluster of basic sheds” in the Dongli District of Tianjin.
During this visit Mrs Yang had asked for funds and at that time we sent $500, and it was in response to this that we agreed to work with her and the fundraiser was set up.
The charity sought advice from the Charity Commission, as well as discussing other matters relating to the legal administration of the Total Giving fundraiser, the charity also agreed that, once a first on-site visit had taken place, findings would be reported back to the Commission.
The Commission acknowledged the issues and challenges surrounding the fundraiser and commended the charity on it meeting its objectives.
Site Visit August 24th-30th 2015
The visit to China was made by trustees Robert Donkers and Julia de Cadenet (CEO) for the purpose of addressing the previously stated concerns and ensuring that the funds raised and sent to Mrs Yang had been used to rescue and care of around 500 dogs and 100 cats which Mrs Yang had reportedly rescued from Yulin and that any future funds given to the recipient would be used for that same purpose and in the best interests of the animals rescued.
To help this process Chinese representatives were in attendance including translators – it was the charity’s intention to deliver food and attend to any emergency need. All representatives attending as volunteers had extensive experience in rescuing dogs from the meat trade and in shelter management. Attempts to telephone and email Mrs Yang to inform her of the visit had remained without response.
The trustees were braced to find a dire situation given the well publicised reports that Mrs Yang had 3,000 dogs (even before the Yulin rescues) and also to find Mrs Yang making cornbread each day for them as she had previously described to us. We were not prepared for what we found – the situation and condition of the dogs and cats, and the animals she had left to suffer and die without regard to their basic needs.
Visit to ‘Shelter 1’ Dongli District of Tianjin
We arrived at the first shelter on the morning of Thursday 27th 2015. The volunteers who were accompanying us from Tianjin had brought food, basic medical supplies and vehicles to transport the most sick dogs and cats to the local animal welfare hospital – which we had visited the day before and agreed discounted rates for treatment.
‘Shelter 1’ was in a fact a large, uninhabited tenement building. The smell from the building was overpowering from 500 meters away. What struck us was how there was a lack of security – meaning that some of the dogs and the cats we saw could wander out of the shelter on to the road very easily and indeed anyone could enter at will. We were surprised to see that this was not a cluster of sheds as Mrs Yang had described but a derelict tenement building in an unsanitary and dangerous state.
We entered the building from the rear and passed through darkened rooms covered in urine and faeces, past dogs that had been tied up by the neck without any access to clean water. We entered the central open yard. This place was covered with bags and bags of rotting waste and on examination of the waste we found a dead dog. A couple of cats were present limping and in obvious pain. There was a bag of food split open on the ground and some dirty metal bowls with no water which the animals tied up had no access to.
We could not locate the water supply and there was no evidence of a storeroom to keep food/medical supplies or any cleaning products. No staff were present. Despite the early hour of our visit it was extremely hot. As we approached the second main building we caught site of a locked grilled gate. As we approached, a group of dogs of varying breeds tried to access us, whimpering. They were covered in sores and in obvious distress. They had no food or water and were standing deep in urine and faeces. Other rooms we looked into, through the open windows of the derelict building, were full of rubbish and we could see the corpses of dead dogs. On the roof were several small dogs barking and trying to jump down. There was no sign of any veterinary care.
The welfare groups who attended with us shared our distress – nevertheless they suggested we address the situation by offering to help clean up and take the dogs in the worst condition to the hospital. We agreed, seeking to make the best we could of this unfortunate situation. In total we counted around 100 dogs and cats – a far cry from the total 3,000 Mrs Yang claimed to care for.
Shortly after our arrival Mrs Yang arrived, followed by an older lady. Mrs Yang’s reaction to our visit was extremely hostile. She objected to the welfare groups photographing the shelter and started to make phone calls in an agitated way.
Robert and Julia approached Mrs Yang to introduce themselves and told her they were here to help. At this she became calmer but insisted everyone left the shelter immediately. We were glad to comply and politely asked her if we could see the dogs and cats she had rescued from Yulin and find a positive way forward to help her.
We proposed getting veterinary care for the dogs locked behind the gate but she said she had lost the key.
She agreed to take us on a journey – about an hour away – to show us the dogs and cats she had rescued from Yulin. We then travelled to the second location where we saw three interlinking shelters.
Mrs Yang spent the journey to this shelter on her mobile phone and we were unable to interrupt her. Our translator was with us and sought to reassure her of our good intention.
Our Findings at ‘Shelters 2’
On arrival at the next shelter, which had a kind of garden centre feel to it, we were met by Mrs Yang’s daughter-in-law (who drove a brand new car) and a bald man holding an iron bar who was photographing us. The male and female dogs at this yard had not been separated and one female whose genitals were prolapsed was being mounted by several males in succession. Mrs Yang entered the caged area and struck the dogs to pull them off. She then suggested we photograph her feeding the dogs for the press. We asked if this was where she made the cornmeal each day and she just laughed and threw the bag of food on the ground leaving the dogs to fight over it.
Several men were present with building materials and we asked Mrs Yang if this was the shelter she was building with donors’ money to house the dogs and cats she rescued from Yulin. She did not answer. We felt slightly encouraged, hoping it was indeed the building, though noting at the same time it was very small.
The dogs in this shelter were all large in size and it was obvious to us they were breeding dogs (big unneutered dogs). We later learnt Mrs Yang runs a business to sell puppies and dogs for breeding.
There was no sign of a vet or any storage facilities for food but the dogs we encountered appeared to have been fed despite some still with open bleeding sores. At this site we were more limited in the evidence we could gather.
Concerns from Visit
There was no sign of the 500 dogs or 100 cats Mrs Yang had rescued from Yulin (which we had been advised of) or the 800 she confirmed she had rescued in an interview to the Daily Mail on July 2nd 2015.
As stated earlier, we had been had provided with photos and a video of various dogs Mrs Yang had rescued. The vet we were in contact with, and who was present at Yulin, had met Mrs Yang and taken photographs. Although accounts had conflicted including completely different dogs apparently arriving at the shelter than those which had departed Yulin, we remained hopeful Mrs Yang could provide an explanation which would at least in part show she had used some of the funds for the purpose intended and we could proceed lawfully with dispersal of the fund.
Addressing Our Concerns with Mrs Yang and Discussions
Our discussions took place in front of the welfare group representatives, among whom was a former volunteer of Mrs Yang and a major donor of hers. We also had two translators.
The first issue we sought to address was why Mrs Yang had not used any of the funds we had sent her for rescuing dogs from Yulin as had been planned (since she had not collected any of the funds at the time) and clarification as to what she had spent donors’ money on. Neither she nor her daughter-in-law were able to respond.
We endeavored to seek clarity on where the £45,000 Mrs Yang had spent in Yulin had come from and explained that our donors, all animal lovers, would feel disappointed that she had claimed poverty yet had not used their donation for the purpose described in the fundraiser. She provided no response. We also asked her why she had purchased more dogs on the 11th June and enquired where they were and as to their welfare. We sought to reassure her again that we were here to help and that transparency was key to good relations with donors.
The second issue we raised with Mrs Yang was to enquire the whereabouts of the dogs and cats she had rescued from Yulin. As Mrs Yang had specifically told us when we left the first shelter we would travel to see them we were keen to do that. Her daughter in law surprisingly told us the cats were in the first shelter and when we confirmed we had not seen more than three cats running free she said they must have run away. Neither party could provide any explanation as to where the dogs were or indeed as to how many had actually been rescued.
We explained our difficulty in that having set up a fundraiser specifically to facilitate the rescue of the dogs and cats from Yulin our donors were anxious to know about their welfare. She became agitated and demanded we give her another £16,000 immediately so that she could rent the adjacent shelter which currently housed large breeding dogs. We asked her if this is where she had intended to put the dogs and cats she had rescued from Yulin but she did not answer and just repeated to give her the money. The man with the iron bar had moved to stand behind us and we felt uneasy at this point. We noted that the space with these three shelters could not house more than 140 – 150 dogs with kenneling and voiced our concern not just for the animals she had claimed to rescue from Yulin but for the 3,000 dogs she had told Ms Ling she cared for. Robert, who practices in animal healing asked if he could handle some of the dogs but she refused.
At this point Ms Feng the daughter in law of Mrs Yang informed us that Mrs Yang did not care for 3,000 dogs and when they spoke of 3,000 dogs they had meant the dogs in the municipal police pound several hours away which did not belong to them. We asked how many dogs and cats approximately Mrs Yang did care for but they declined to respond. We asked if we could visit the dogs in the public pound on another day and both declined.
We then moved on to the troubling issue of social media and false reports that we had not sent funding and that dogs and cats were starving. Mrs Yang and Ms Feng (the daughter-in-law) confirmed these reports had not originated from them. Facebook and Twitter are banned in China and therefore anyone claiming to be Mrs Yang’s official spokesperson writing on social media supposedly on her behalf could not be considered to be a reliable source of information.
We asked again why she had taken until August to access the £5,050 sent on the 5th July and she said she had been too busy to go to the bank. We informed her that to proceed we had the intention of opening a bank account in China from which we could transfer funds to her business bank account which was required by our bank HSBC in order to comply with UK law and regulations. She informed us she was not prepared to open a business bank account and wanted all the money to be transferred into her personal family bank account. We explained this would be problematic and showed her the requirements of HSBC.
We then moved on to the subject of truck rescue ‘#707’, July 7th. This rescue involved the sale of dogs from the police pound to the dog meat traders. Mrs Yang had informed Chinese media she had bought the dogs to save them. We asked her had she used donors’ money to do this and what had happened to these dogs. She offered no explanation.
We asked her about her views and plans on animal welfare, vaccination and shelter management but she said she was not interested and just wanted the money.
At this juncture we decided it best to adjourn our meeting to the next day wishing to part amicably with Mrs Yang and reflect carefully on next steps. Mrs Yang agreed.
Final Shelter Visit Secret Shelter August 27th
On leaving Mrs Yang we voiced our concerns with the animal welfare groups. They informed us that sadly our findings were consistent with four leading welfare groups who had been to visit Mrs Yang a week before. We are now in possession of this troubling report.
One female volunteer who had been present when Mrs Yang had brought dogs back from Yulin in 2014 asked if we could accompany her to Mrs Yang’s “secret shelter”. She informed us that this was the place Mrs Yang had left the dogs she had bought on June 11th and that she suspected it was a yard that Mrs Yang used to trade dogs. We were deeply concerned and agreed to travel there.
It is to be noted that Mrs Yang does not drive and does not appear to have any utility vehicles or staff although she does have help from her son and daughter-in-law – who drove a brand new vehicle as stated previously – and do not work in any other occupation. We wondered how – given the geographical distance between the locations of her shelters – she managed to visit them and care for the dogs on a regular basis. We wondered why she had chosen locations so far apart.
After about two hours of travel we arrived at an area which was a deserted waste-ground with a single track road along which we drove for some 15 minutes until we arrive at a large red-gated property. A local man who appeared to have a warehouse nearby informed us that no-one, including Mrs Yang, had been to this place for weeks though he had seen on a regular basis over the years trucks arriving to deposit dogs and others arriving to pick them up. By this time it was late in the day.
As we approached the crack in the solid iron gate, the dogs heard us and started to scream and howl. It was deeply distressing for all of us. We were able to film inside through the walls and it was obvious they had been abandoned without food or water. Despite the late hour now it was still hot. We were unable to even throw food over the high wall.
The volunteer contacted Mrs Yang to communicate our concern and propose we arrange and pay to remove the dogs to a safer environment. She declined and made threats. As dusk was falling we were obliged to leave with heavy hearts. It is to be noted that three days later the welfare groups returned to this spot with a van and the gates were wide open. They filmed the bodies of dogs, most with collars, who had died there from neglect and starvation. We enclose a video link to demonstrate the absolute horror, neglect and abuse.
Mrs Yang declined to meet with us on Friday 28th August 2015 and to date has not responded to any of our proposals sent by email in English and Chinese.
Videos Shot by Chinese Activists on Subsequent Visits
Please be advised you may find these videos distressing
Here is a video on a subsequent visit to ‘Shelter 1’ the tenement building. The dog lying down has died – her pups try to suckle.
This video was shot at ‘secret Shelter 3’ just days after we had been there. The yard had been emptied and these are the bodies of the dogs left behind.
Another shot of empty ‘Shelter 3’
Issues of Concern After Fundraiser but Prior to August Site Visit
Our bank HSBC raised concerns at the amounts that were being sent to Mrs Yang and informed us in writing that as Mrs Yang only held a personal account it would not be lawful for us to continue sending funds. They confirmed Mrs Yang would need to set up a charity or business bank account so that funds could be traceable.
We were alerted to the fact that Mrs Yang had placed her bank details on some 50 different websites and due to our charity promotion of her activities donations were flooding in for her from many sources.
Solutions to Banking Issues
The Charity Commission advised us that they supported our own suggestion to open a bank account in China so that funds could be transferred in an appropriate manner and would be effectively monitored and the fund could be used for the purpose intended.
Issues of Concern with Respect to Behaviour of Recipient Mrs Yang
As soon as initial funds were raised they were sent to Mrs Yang via bank transfer and Western Union to ensure she had funds in place to rescue as many dogs as possible. We were encouraged by having exceeded our target and wanted to fulfil our primary objective to its fullest extent. However, issues of concern arose which made as rethink our attitude to Mrs Yang as a beneficiary.
(a) Misuse of funds by Mrs Yang – was raised when it became apparent Mrs Yang had not collected the emergency funds for Yulin we had sent to her by Western Union on four separate occasions. Given her earlier insistence that she did not have any of her own money to buy dogs we wondered how her trip to Yulin and purchase of dogs had been financed; and
(b) Lack of regard to animal welfare – was raised when a report with photographic evidence had come into us via trusted local welfare groups who had visited Mrs Yang the week before we travelled to China that Mrs Yang had bought dogs to place in another shelter of hers (‘Shelter 4’) on June 11th. This seemed incongruous with her statements to our representative on May 29th – that her dogs were starving and she could not cope. We were particularly concerned given the remote location of ‘Shelter 4’ and the fact that the dogs were large and would require substantial amounts of food. We were concerned that Mrs Yang had left them apparently unattended to travel four days later to Yulin thousands of miles away.
Later it was reported that Mrs Yang had travelled to Yulin with £45,000 of private funding – confirmed in an interview she gave to the Daily Mail on July 2nd 2015 republished in the London Metro the same month.
She finally took receipt of the first four Western Union payments we had sent to her around 21st June on July 4th 2015 almost a fortnight later. We felt she was not being honest with us.
By not using any of the funds sent to her to rescue dogs from Yulin it became clear to us that Mrs Yang had gone outside the primary terms for the fundraiser as it had been described to donors online.
Our trustees raised these issues with the volunteer who had been communicating with Mrs Yang and word came back Mrs Yang had saved at least 500 dogs and 100 cats “with our money”. We were given to understand that when we travelled to China we would meet them. We then received photographs and a video of a collection of dogs and cats travelling back to Mrs Yang’s sheds in Tianjin and this was published on our fundraiser page.
We clearly informed the volunteer that had met Mrs Yang that if it was proven that Mrs Yang was not using funds for the purpose intended we would need hold the funds pending an investigation. We were also deeply concerned that there was a now a large surplus of funds and of our obligation to ensure distribution of the donations for the purpose intended – the rescue of dogs from the Yulin Festival.
The rumour was spread that we had not sent any money at all to Mrs Yang and that the dogs she had rescued and those already in her shelter were starving. As we had sent a grant to feed the dogs for a month on May 29th and Mrs Yang had further purchased dogs on June 11th we struggled to see how this could be the case. Having been informed that Mrs Yang had travelled to Yulin with £45,000 it was deeply concerning she would have left her own dogs to starve whilst purchasing more. Mrs Yang had not used the four Western Union payments we had sent her between 17-22 June to rescue dogs from Yulin because she did not collect that money until a fortnight later. So by our calculation, and according to what she had told our volunteer on May 29th 2015, Mrs Yang had received enough money from us to feed the dogs for at least a year.
Our response once again was to act in good faith and we immediately sent an additional payment to Mrs Yang on July 5th via direct bank transfer. So in total this made it six payments we had given to Mrs Yang. This extra money around $8,000 would allow Mrs Yang to buy 65,000 kilos of decent quality dry dog food or pay for 1,600 vaccinations. Yet it is to be noted that neither Mrs Yang nor her son or daughter-in-law who have access to her account went to the bank to pick up these funds until August during which time she had claimed the funds had not arrived in the account – they were only ‘discovered’ by her when we suggested passing the matter to the international authorities to investigate this apparent loss of funds and possible fraud by the bank. When questioned as to why she had allowed such claims to be made Mrs Feng (Mrs Yang’s daughter-in-law) said they had been too busy to go to the bank.
Further addressing the issue of food, the London company Lily’s Kitchen had offered to donate large amounts of food and at least three supporters emailed us to say they wanted to send food pallets. From our own side we had placed an order for £4,000 worth of food to be delivered to the shelter from a leading company we work who produce high quality food. We encountered enormous difficulties arranging for this food to be delivered given the discrepancies as to where Mrs Yang’s shelter actually was and later due to the fact that Mrs Yang had communicated to our official Chinese representative that she did not want food she just wanted money. The Chinese food company also expressed their concerns that this food (which they were selling us at a discount) would be sold on by Mrs Yang.
Our charity works with a leading vet practice that has clinics throughout Asia. They meet international standards. They were instructed to visit Mrs Yang and take an inventory of the 500 dogs and 100 cats saved. This way we could:
(a) check if any were stolen pets and attempt to re-unite them with their owners (part of our charity purpose);
(b) identify immediate health concerns and medical needs; and
(c) assess trauma and determine future suitability of the dogs for adoption.
We were prepared to fund this veterinary report out of our general charity funds. In addition, we instructed the vets that we would like the animals in need of urgent care to be isolated and treated. Our charity frequently runs vaccination programs for dogs rescued from the meat trade and we were concerned that the dogs be vaccinated to prevent distemper or other fatal disease outbreak.
To our dismay Mrs Yang refused our offer point-blank. She informed us she had her own on-site vets. We communicated to her that our charity was anxious she use some of the funds we had sent to pay this vet. We did not at any time on our visit meet Mrs Yang’s vets and nor did other welfare groups who went there just the week before us. Most shelters hold a stock room of basic supplies and vaccinations. This was not in evidence at Mrs Yang’s facility.
1. Mrs Yang breached the trust of our charity and of donors and misled us as to her financial position and need.
2. She travelled to Yulin for the purpose of rescuing dogs and cats however did neither need nor use the emergency funding sent by us.
3. Mrs Yang to date can provide no explanation as to what happened to the dogs and cats she rescued from Yulin and our donors have been misled into believing funds sent and due to be sent could be used for their care. An adoption program will also not be practicable given the dogs and cats are missing.
4. Mrs Yang’s actions have and continue to allow the circulation of false rumours that she cares for 3,000 dogs and they are all starving. As noted earlier in our report – in total she has less than 500 dogs and our charity paid for food in May and ordered food that was refused.
5. The dogs are in a poor medical condition. As noted in our report, we as a charity acted in good faith to instruct vets to visit Mrs Yang, to take the suffering dogs to the animal hospital in Tianjin, to fund vaccinations, spay and neuter.
6. The dogs have no adequate place of shelter. Mrs Yang has a collection of shelters dotted around that she is unable or unwilling to access. It has recently been circulated that Mrs Yang has a brand new shelter (paid for by herself), with new dogs.
7. It is the opinion of the charity supported by leading animal welfare groups that Mrs Yang is not in a position to care for dogs and cats and that her actions in rescue only lead to them being abused further and falling back into the hands of the dog meat trade.
8. Mrs Yang is unable to be clear in her handling of funds and does not agree to banking arrangements that are lawful and compliant.
9. An additional troubling issue hangs in the balance that Mrs Yang attended the truck rescue #707 where she purchased more dogs. It is unclear what funds she used and what happened to these dogs.
This is to formally confirm that the Charity Commission support our position with regard to Mrs Yang and have legally declared she is not entitled to further funding. Surplus funds raised have been used to work with genuine rescuers.
Other videos of Mrs Yang’s sites can be viewed here:
For further information including eyewitness statements:
London 18th May – The location is Westminster Tube Station – Victoria Embankment Exit (Near Big Ben). The time of the meeting will start at 1PM – around the entrance to the Tube Station and the statue – The Boudicca Goddess.
Once everyone has gathered they will move toward a shaded area under the trees to have lunch before meeting the public and raising awareness. So please bring packed lunches and bottled water to keep up energy for marching and speaking.
This event is to raise awareness of the dog and cat fur and meat trade. Those participating will be taking photos as well as communicating with the public. Julia de Cadenet CEO will be present.
This post will be updated with other events as soon as we are given the information. So please check back often.
For any more questions or information please contact Campaign@notodogmeat.com
This festival is a very meaningful event a big deal with those who love music and have a passion for the arts. This festival starts on May 1st and lasts for three days.
The May Day 3 day break gives people a chance to enjoy music and most of all to enjoy the company of friends to celebrate new up and coming bands and artists.
NoToDogMeat will be supporting our friends TACN Together For Animals in China at this event. We have put together a short video message of #StopYulin2015.
The video was directed and produced by our very own Fia Perera which we are so grateful to have on our NoToDogMeat team. The short video message includes our friends and team members Sue Wong, Tom Kenny, Carolyn Hennessy, Lori Alan, Briana Evigan and William McNamara.
The Strawberry Music Festival it is huge in China and there will be a huge crowd of audiences of every age. It’s a golden opportunity to raise awareness, and importantly to influence many people with positive and compassionate messages from the celebrities on how to bring an end to the abhorrent cat and dog meat trade.
Here is the video that will be presented:
2013 and 2014 showed here at the Strawberry Music Festival was a huge turnout. We are hopeful that our positive message will change hearts and minds – while educating for compassion toward our companions and all animals who are mistreated daily. Because we as a community need to stand up for what we believe in. All life matters including the lives of animals.
During the past couple days it has been a whirlwind. Our Sophie Ling is completely exhausted and no doubt this has been a traumatic experience for everyone.
From negotiating with police to release the cats to being stonewalled into discussing politics with the Ministry of Agriculture – we finally were able to obtain results.
Approximately 32 hours ago, the cats were released to a countryside. Activists that were present scrambled to save the cats that they could. Many of the cats are with the activists – yet many are still out there roaming the streets freely.
Many questions – does this mean the traders will be able to re-obtain them? Yes this does, this also means they are not safe – not by a long shot. The thieves and traders will try again, they will try to start all over again.
Fact is it is impossible for a small rescue organisation to home over 800 cats – yet the fact that these cats were set free and are no longer in cramped crates is a small step.
Not all hope is lost – a majority of the cats are with rescues, and activists. They will continue to need your financial support and we will continue to work on the ground and behind the scenes with our outreach.
It has truly been a long few days for everyone – no sleep, no food – however a small price to pay as we love our animals and are willing to go to great lengths to see them safe!
As always – evidence of the 800 cat rescue and more updates can be found on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/NoToDogMeat/ As well as our twitter @NoToDogMeat
We are all well aware that there seem to be skeptics of the actions and work we do. Due to the factitious group of dubious individuals who saw fit to steal from us in 2013 and concoct a page of their own called SayNoToDogMeat.net while laying siege to our charity, with the help of others. Not once have we said anything before of this issue in our blog or on our pages. Yet we will admit that we had given our full story to blog writers who issued warnings throughout 2013 to 2015 of this concern.
Since then, we have continued on with our work. Until now, we did not feel it necessary to address these frivolous individuals. Until now, we did not feel it necessary to watermark our photo’s either. With regret, we will now be watermarking all of our photos and videos, so those who stole from us, Sophie and her colleague can no longer claim we were not there as well to prevent them from stealing our work…
Right now – with sad heart we have to announce that the 800 cats rescued by our team and the Chinese activists less than 24 hours ago we have all worked on the rescue ONLY for the police to impound them. Yes, they are still impounded and the police have taken this decision for release to the Ministry of Agriculture and will not release the little ones. We are all fighting to get documentation to prove that these are family companions. Even so, if they are also feral they too deserve a chance to have a life and live free.
Rescues do not always have a happy ending yet we will not give up on these companions. Dozens have died in the process of negotiations – Sophie came forward and stated:
“I held babies being born falling from the crates and we unloaded them. Mothers still trapped inside. We had no milk or warmth to give these babies. Hell on earth please pray.”
The cats are still in these crates, still trapped, cramped and suffering. They will not let our team or the activists near them anymore.
We are asking for action to be taken: If you have international dialling please help! Call the station and push for the cats release, Call them on + 86 512 6540 5143 if that doesn’t work from UK OR USA TRY 0086. We are also asking that you contact the consulates – contact all of the consulates – and ask them to intervene. Send them photos and tell them the police are waiting for diplomats and officials to ask for the cat’s release. Our charity has sent in an official correspondence. You can find the contact information here: http://www.embassypages.com/missions/embassy12182/
Also please, send your news story on this issue to Associated Press. Does not matter if it is our photos with a caption. The more people who write the better. It is heart-breaking that our team and Chinese Activists have all worked on the rescue for the police to impound the trucks.
Send also, to all the Chinese papers in this link http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/china.htm
Your voices matter in this delicate situation. All we ask is that you keep everything civil.
Our formal notice:
FORMAL NOTICE (PLEASE SHARE): Our amazing team member Sophie and her colleague Mary H have spent the entire week in China on an outreach programme. This trip was personally funded by them, which meant ALL your kind donations have been spent assisting shelters and activists whom Sophie and our CEO knew and trusted. We did not set out to be rescuers on this occasion as normally our charity is placed to help rescues and grassroots organisations with more experience locally.
However, for three nights straight the girls have been involved with the raid to save the cats, the police negotiations and the follow up. They have had no sleep and given all they can to save even some of the poor creatures and we will not give up!
We were horrified, just a few days ago to see the fraudsters and cyber trolls from the copycat page SAY NOTO DOG MEAT DOT NET (a copy of all our genuine pages and domains) had stolen Sophie’s private photos and had been abusing her and our charity (*again) on its pages.
The male has been previously arrested for stalking females and their children and cyber trolling and is under caution to cease his harassment. The female is a known charity thief and our own charity is still waiting for property and donors money to be returned. (Full details of amounts owed and property stolen will be published.)
The male was invited to attend our London Office of 17 Cavendish Square London W1G 0PH on Tuesday 28th and explain his actions to our legal team and the London Police. He had boasted on many occasion he had plenty of money and would love to go to court. On this occasion he declined to make the trip from his ‘home’ in Norwich – a one bedroom council property where he claims his 5000 staff work from.
No doubt guilt or the fact his 6 different aliases and 3 different “cyber companies” kept him away. To this day we have no idea why he stole our Facebook pages, why he stole images of young children and why he set up a copycat page with the one domain name out of 25 we do not own. These are all matters the courts will review in due course.
Our concern as a campaign team and one shared by our charity trustees is that he refrains from abusing our female members and obsessively trolling us. The facts will speak for themselves.
We are quite used to trolls by now however to put a member of our team in such a position is inappropriate and indirectly causes harm to the animals. Sadly this male and female cannot be animal lovers or they would not have stolen from us and sabotaged our campaign in order to set up their copycat campaign in the first place.
It takes courage to go on a rescue and face the horror and trauma. These individuals sadly would not understand this concept nor do they understand that if you claim to own a rescue you bought for 50p you will at some stage have to prove it exists.
NoToDogMeat is the global campaign of the UK registered charity 1154524 World Protection for Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade.
This statement has been issued by our campaign team of volunteers however if anyone would like to contact our CEO and Charity Trustees for clarification, please call 0207 873 2250
No To Dog Meat Videos
Six hours ago, No To Dog Meat Sophie Ling, and The Shanghai Animal Protection Frontline Alliance – Intercepted a truck load of 800 cats!
The cats were unloaded from the truck with the help of the fire department. The team has been watching the warehouse all week.
The Police were called and all cats have been confiscated without food and water, while being placed in the pound.
Sophie and two colleagues plus the activists were there negotiating with police at 3 am– to try and reason with them so they could feed and give water to these poor cats or possibly have them released.
Sophie will have to put in an official complaint to see that these cats are released – we are awaiting more updates as this rescue continues on.
The Shanghai Animal Protection Frontline Alliance
We support everyone on the front line – Including The Shanghai Animal Protection Frontline Alliance activists. We will continue to update as information is sent to us from Sophie Ling and other contacts over in China.
If you wish to help with a donation towards food and medical care, this money will be sent over to them as fast as possible.
You can donate here: www.notodogmeat.com/donate.php