Hi I am the owner of these wonderfull alpaca's and would just like to share some facts about what we do . first - all our alpaca's have regular check's from the animal welfare officer's -second - transport of an alpaca by a 6x4 twin wheel cage trailer is more than adequate.You can move alpacas around in horse boxes or trailers — they don't get stressed, they just sit down and enjoy the ride!
. third - donations to www.alpacaworld.weebly.com are made voluntary no one twist's any one's arm's. fourth - alpaca's are domestic animals. If they get stressed they make a deafening screeching sound & that has never never happend with our alpaca's. they hum alot which they do often in the company of other alpaca's or myself.I would like to thank all that have supported www.alpacaworld.weebly.com And will continue to offer our Free Animal Encounter Primary School Visit's. Many Thanks www.alpacaworld.weebly.com

The animals were subdued and unhappy.
There is also the fact that you had no leaflets about what you were doing, you said that this is "because leaflets cost money".
Each and every time anyone took a photo of you, you aggressively asked for a "donation".
A Vauxhall Astra is not a suitable vehicle for towing animals and the trailer you used is one usually used for towing generators and tools etc, it is not an animal trailor.
When animals are subdued [or even drugged], or abused etc they will put up with cruel treatment, anyone who has been to a circus or infiltrated one will know this.
Many passersby were disgusted and said that they found what you were doing cruel. When local dogs were barking you made no attempt to move at all.
As for school visits, Camden High Street is not a school. This was not a school visit and schools are not open on Christmas Eve so you were there to scam the public. Your animals had no access to food or water on Camden High Street.
Animals should never be used for entertainment or as a way to make money. Unscrupulous people are capable of using animals to set up "charities" to make money and we belive that you are possibly one of these. Whatever it is that you are doing, I'll say it again, Camden High Street is no place for these animals.

ALFSG
BCM 1160
London
WC1N3XX

What the hell is this idiot doing bringing these animals into Camden High Street? The trailer is appalling.
What will he do if a fight breaks out between a dog walking past and one of the alpacas?

It's quite simple really. No matter how 'tame' these alpacas are, you cannot force these animals to be calm in one of the busiest cities in the world. They are not meant to be there, plain and simple. This sounds like an absolute shambles - London is no place for a totally exotic animal which does not want to be paraded about as some prop for money making.

You are cleary the unbalanced minority of people in this country - that would mean then no donkey rides for children - no pics or peting rain deer - no dogs on leads no peting farm animals in case the animals gets streesed no llamas in peru helping locals whith there heavy loads no bulls for plowing fields or horses in riots or police dogs . and just tell me (how does london zoo get funded) please people look around the world at the bigger picture and deal with the real isues of life.

What are the really important issues? Do you really think that it is up to you to tell other people what they should be concerned about? You may not think that this is important but maybe one day you will be in a position where you are paraded and bullied for the pleasure of others, presumably everyone should ignore your suffering and only concentrate on the "important", stuff.

no animals should be enslaved, for any reason. all animals, human and non-human, should be free. that includes these animals paraded for cash funding in one of the busiest cities in the known universe...
it includes dogs and cats and fish and rabbits and all animals that humans use and often abuse, with millions of animals being killed each year for human benefit.
lets not forget the cost of animal enslavement. millions dead every year because of us, our way of life. its despicable.

freedom to all animals. (that includes riot police dogs, donkeys on beaches, and gold fish)

Susan, If having compassion for the wellbeing of animals means I'm in a minority then shame on society, and shame on you for closing your eyes to the suffering of animals so that you can get entertained. The moment you stop caring about suffering then you become part of the problem.

London Zoo gets funded through peoples ignorance and lack of compassion. They see animals as objects, but ease their conscience by spouting bullshit about "conservation". They "conserve" so future generations can degrade amazing animals for their own entertainment. Wow those Orangutans sure are lucky living in a confined space. So who is the conservation for? I agree with you on one thing there is a big picture that needs to be looked at. And that is precisely why conservation is a scam. Many animals have become extinct, or at risk of, because of the impact of man. So unless humans change their ways then conservation is a complete waste of time.....unless your motivation is to make money from it. Which of course is what zoos are about.

"...horses in riots or police dogs..." Wow what a wonderful insight into your mind.

I came accross a message the other day "It is better to be hated for what you are than loved for something you are not." So I'll stick with the compassionatre minority thanks, rather than sell my soul.

There are millions of people who say they "Love" animals and yet eat them, wear them, or be entertained by them. I love seeing animals in their natural environment, where they display natural behaviour not being forced to behave in a way that man wants them to.

Animals need and deserve our respect, not our love.

Are we reasonably and fairly talking about one man and his alpaca who I know personaly has dedicated his whole life from a child to know and care for these wonderfull animals - or are we talking about the whole worlds mistreatment of animals in its many forms . Please coment reasonably and whith real logic thank you.

The 'owner' of these poor animals has stated on this page that they alpaca's "sit down and enjoy the ride". For Alapacas Sitting down is a classic response to extreme stress. SO by his own admission on this site the alapacas face stress everytime they are transported.

Why don't you get a real job instead of getting these poor animals to make your money for you. Lazy git, get a job and stop living off of these animals.

piss off...all animals should be free. none should be used by humans, no matter what the reason or excuse. all animals are not here for human consumption. the human body can survive amply enough without needing to eat dead flesh and meat. its primitive to eat meat, quite frankly. and it enslaves animals to human will...thats another reason why its primitive....shall i go on. and this is NOT A DEMOCRACY, by any stretch of anyones imagination - even an EDL-style troll like you.......
get a real grip, mate, and stop commenting obvious reactionary bullcrap all the time. did you get bored of xmas tele? so you had to come on indymedia and see what revolutionaries are doing and discussing? is your life so boring? why dont all you none-activist/concerned residents piss off to the evening post website if you're just going to troll every article?.....for fucks sake, its getting really boring reading your crap.........PISS OFF.

there are genuine struggles out there, struggles for solutions, so either be part of them or part of the problems. its as fucking simple as that.
and for the record, zoo's are prison camps for animals. and pets are slaves. sorry if that upsets all the 'pet lovers' out there, but pets are slaves. even rescued ones, although rescuing is better than leaving to live painful life or dying cruelly, admittedly, yet its still slavery for the animal, as it is not truly free.
flippin heck, these days indymedia has become full of daft trolls who need everything explaining,even animal lib, for crying out loud!

its like being in a really nice squat that has become over run by aggressive nobs and no on ewants to say anything as we're too nice. well, im not nice, so trolls fuck off.

@ Susan
26.12.2009 19:00

What are the really important issues? Do you really think that it is up to you to tell other people what they should be concerned about? You may not think that this is important but maybe one day you will be in a position where you are paraded and bullied for the pleasure of others, presumably everyone should ignore your suffering and only concentrate on the "important", stuff.
Lynn Sawyer


Dear Lynn,

This entire thread is telling Zac what to do. This entire thread is telling people what they should and should not be concerned about. I do think that it is important that this does not happen. You may not care to think of it, but Zac is an animal just like you and just like me. The entire thread is parading and bullying him for the political satisfaction of "Animal Rights Activists". Presumably everybody should ignore him because this is "important stuff". Zac, it would seem, should be made to suffer because you suppose that the Alpacas suffered. You have the word of Anon that they did, but is that sufficient to instruct the world to punish Zac. If it is, then, the BNP are justified in their crusade against Islam on the basis that there are a few Islamic extremists out there; the Government are, by the same logic, justified in their crusades against anybody whose cause is tainted by the extreme.

You have adopted a self righteous and self justifying position that anybody can use to persecute any other animal regardless of justice. Male lions should be wiped out because the males regulalry eat the young of other males when they take over a pride; rats should be wiped out because they carried bubonic plague - the insane list could go on because the logic justifies the silliest of things.

People who live in glass houses and all that: so can anybdoy explain why Zac should be the subject of such vile and threatening language?

Yours,

A Scientist

its obvious that zak, magret etc are all the same person

if you look on the website it is also obvious that this creep lives in enfield, southbury ward, near bush hill park "on a special ranch... along with wallabies, ostriches and geese", and no it's not a crime to say this - you posted the info on your own website in the public domain along with your mobile number 07957117366

If petting animals is abuse then we should all throw in the towel. Sorry to say but I find animal righters just so irrational. They apply a set of rules that they expect all humans to obey and yet are blind to the fact that in nature, animals are really vicious to each other - eating each other alive, fighting male rivals to the death & bullying their harem etc. I've known many animal righters who take their dogs into incredibly loud raves which the dogs just hate and to me that really is abuse. Another blindly idealistic one I know feeds his carnivorous dog only on vegan food scraps and then wonders why the poor mutt is riddled with mange.

southbury ward isnt very big and most of it is industrial estate so finding someone who keeps llama geese etc should be a doddle

So presumably if he was a pimp selling underage boys no-one should be concerned either?

Fran I am sure you are lovely. I like you anyway

www.alpacasofwessex.co.uk

www.dawnsanimalencounters.co.uk

If I was a teacher there is no way I'd be inviting "The Alpaca Man" into my school. His set-up has about as much credibility as that of a chancer going around in a nicked van hawking substandard three piece suites door-to-door. Just take a look at his free do-it-yourself website. The spiel on the home page has been lifted directly from the website of an Australian alpaca farm and is a clear case of copyright infringement. Even the name of his enterprise is taken directly from that of "Alpaca World Magazine". Then there is the fact that he gives no information as to his identity or the location of his "Ranch", his only contact details being a free web based email address and a mobile phone number. Then, when we come to the names he uses, there are several discrepancies. In the comment posted above at 3.24 on Christmas Day morning (Sleepless night?) he calls himself Zak yet when he visited The Raglan School in September he claimed his name was Zeki. Back in March when he advertised four piranhas for sale on Aquarist Classified he was using the name Omar. All this should set alarm bells ringing in anyone with any sense. I'll bet he's not even been CRB checked to work with children. All this should set alarm bells ringing in anyone with any sense.

Claims that he loves the alpacas are clearly nonsense as he has been trying to sell them for £1200 on London Classified since April. He has also placed ads trying to buy wallabies.

I wonder if this chap has any connections with Gordon Elliott of Forty Hill who keeps a ramshackle menagerie of exotic animals at Tingeys Top Lane, Crews Hill. Even if he doesn't, he should be easy to find as there cannot be many people keeping alpacas, wallabies and ostriches in Enfield and those ostriches will be licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act so the council will have records.

So Mr. Alpaca Man, how about some straight answers?

I hope you don't use that standard of logic when you are doing your science!

What you are failing to understand is that animal rights philosophy seeks freedom for animals from human interference. So it's irrelevant whether "Zak" beats his alpacas or feeds them cordon bleu meals. He is still imprisoning them and treating them as commodities, when they should be living in the wilds of South America.

You may personally disagree with this philosophy, and there is no absolute right or wrong here - it is essentially an arbitrary choice, as is all morality. But myself and other animal rights activists believe it, so it is therefore logical that we campaign against what Zak is doing.

The fact the animals sometimes kill other animals isn't relevant - humans are capable of higher levels of logical reasoning and can avoid causing suffering, whereas other animals can't.

Pictures of the day: 21 December 2009 gordon elliott (paste on google)

Dear Another Scientist,

I paraphrased what was said by Lynne Sawyer and others. Unfortunately, threads that are critical of "animal rights" tend to become very heavily censored. While I can understand that Indymedia is not free expression with no editorial guidelines, the result can often be - as in this thread - that references get lost or hidden. What I said, should you read it and all the prior - undeleted - posts might actually make me seem a tiny bit less unreasonable. Calling myself "A Scientist" is never going to get anybody to suppose I am reasonable. I might point out that this "anti-scientific" attitude has a lot in common with racism in the way it marginalises scientific opinions - but that is for another time and place.

Life lives where it finds itself. Blood group studies show that that animals migrate - and migration has colonised the whole planet with life. Living in the "wilds" of anywhere is no more a natural habitat for life than living in the colon of a human. Your gut bacteria use you as a commodity. Your skin bacteria use you as a food source. There is no "ought" to where life is. The argument is nothing to do with life. The point made was that here is someone being targeted for victimisation simply because of his relationship to animals.

It might be consistent for you to take an ethical precept and follow it through to its grim conclusion. This was the entirely logical stance taken by Race Scientists - both in Germany and Elsewhere - when they saw no moral contradiction in murdering Jews (as a "lower race") or Roma (as a "criminal race") or Americans in Virginia sterilising unmarried mothers ("being a moral contaminant") and so on and so forth. The issue is not about other non-human animals. The issue is about human animals. Humans are animals that are capable of logical reasoning and can avoid suffering. have been shown to have reasoning abilities (I refuse to mention that this is by experiments such as photographing pongoids in the wild using a tool or watching birds on bird tables - that kind of science is not gruesome enough). The point is all about the suffering that is being whipped up around one person in a completely unnewsworthy contribution to the newswire.

Since Rights are a construction of liberal human society consequent on the existence of private property animals can not possess them. So it is relevant how "Zac" treats them: because, like the other animals (the human animals) they are treated as property. What this entire thread has proposed is that the Human animal property called "Zak" should be treated in a way that the Alpaca animal property is exempted. That is the language of rights. That is the proposal being made.

It was remarked - I believe it might be deleted - that the whole thread is not news but just a way to organise stalking. I would go further and say the thread is about degrading animals further. You cannot pick and choose which animals are to be given rights. It is either all animals or you reexamine the notion of rights.

I have no doubt that, because the kind of people that contribute to the more hystericaly animal rights comments are unreasonable and zealous, that reasonable comments will always be agitated to be removed or hidden. This goes to the heart of the comment I made: it really does not matter if I agree or disagree unless I simply accept that any shout of "abuse! abuse!" is a true shout, my voice will not be heard. This is the central problem that Animal Rights Activists will need to address in the future: how they cease being totalitarian or, if they choose to be totalitarian, how they convince others that the totality they propose is an absolute and genuine one? Lynne asked if I would enjoy being paraded and bullied for the pleasure of others. My point is, that is what Animal Rights has been reduced to: a parade of victims to be bullied. My immediate thought is that this comment will be deleted, hidden or otherwise removed from those you say are capable of "higher levels of logical reasoning and can avoid causing suffering, whereas other animals can't."

Ever seen a mountain gorilla mourn a cot death?

Yours

A Scientist.

"Calling myself 'A Scientist' is never going to get anybody to suppose I am reasonable. I might point out that this 'anti-scientific' attitude has a lot in common with racism in the way it marginalises scientific opinions - but that is for another time and place."

I'm not sure why you think that. Science and morality are totally independent of one another. Science is the quest for hard truth, morality is our personal opinions on how to live our lives. I am perfectly happy to be pro-science and anti-animal abuse. Obviously I oppose torturing humans or animals for the purpose of science, but that doesn't make me "anti-science".

"It might be consistent for you to take an ethical precept and follow it through to its grim conclusion. This was the entirely logical stance taken by Race Scientists..."

I think I can quote Godwin here and win the argument! Very obvious how you paradoxically try to equate wanting to stop animal suffering with wanting to cause human suffering. What is wrong with taking an ethical precept and following it to its "grim conclusion"? Do you take your ethical precepts and then abandon them halfway because you can't be arsed with consistency?

"This is the central problem that Animal Rights Activists will need to address in the future: how they cease being totalitarian or, if they choose to be totalitarian, how they convince others that the totality they propose is an absolute and genuine one?"

If anything, animal rights is the opposite of totalitarian, it is about freedom for all animals. Would you say people who are against child abuse are "totalitarian" because they want everyone to stop abusing children? Would campaigning against a child abuser be "stalking"? No, if you take part in abusive behaviour like the Victorian concept of parading animals around for people to poke and gawp at, you should expect people to campaign against you and try to stop you.

"what Animal Rights has been reduced to: a parade of victims to be bullied."

This is a case of you portraying the abuser as a victim. The victims are animals who are imprisoned, tortured, killed in their millions every day just for human whims. People who abuse animals are the bullies and abusers, they aren't the real victims. If animal abusers feel victimised and bullied, then good, hopefully it will make them think about what they are doing to others.

@A Scientist
31.12.2009 00:45

"Calling myself 'A Scientist' is never going to get anybody to suppose I am reasonable. I might point out that this 'anti-scientific' attitude has a lot in common with racism in the way it marginalises scientific opinions - but that is for another time and place."

I'm not sure why you think that. Science and morality are totally independent of one another. Science is the quest for hard truth, morality is our personal opinions on how to live our lives. I am perfectly happy to be pro-science and anti-animal abuse. Obviously I oppose torturing humans or animals for the purpose of science, but that doesn't make me "anti-science".

========================================================
Where did I say I favoured torturing animals? I pointed out that humans are animals. This is, in fact, a consistent approach. If you want to end animal cruelty or abuse then you must also end animal cruelty and abuse in human animals. This thread consistenly promotes the abuse of one particular animal. Science is not only a quest for hard truth as any scientist sitting in front of an ethics committee might comment. If morality is only "opinions" then someone could hold the opinion that animals are food and therefore cease to regard meat eating as wrong. You seem to miss the point intentionally.

It is not obvious that you oppose torturing humans or animals for the purpose of science. It seems obvious that you are indifferent to human suffering - but that would seem to be a peculiarity of your moral system.

I on the other hand have no moral system. It reeks of hierarchy and commands obedience.

========================================================








"It might be consistent for you to take an ethical precept and follow it through to its grim conclusion. This was the entirely logical stance taken by Race Scientists..."

I think I can quote Godwin here and win the argument! Very obvious how you paradoxically try to equate wanting to stop animal suffering with wanting to cause human suffering. What is wrong with taking an ethical precept and following it to its "grim conclusion"? Do you take your ethical precepts and then abandon them halfway because you can't be arsed with consistency?


========================================================
"Not this time. I know Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin is a friend of mine. You're no Mike Godwin." Thinking you can Quote Mike Godwin and doing so are two entirely different things. I equate animal suffering with animal suffering. I make no distinction between different animals. Humans are animals.

In the case of this thread there is an invocation to make the life of the Alpaca man miserable. That is giving up the commitement to non-abuse half way. I mentioned race scientists - people such as Spencer, Huxley, Galton and the nineteenth century slave traders. They justified their actions on a hierarchy. That is exactly what this thread does: "Alpaca good, Alpaca man bad."

I do not equate a desire to stop animal suffering with wanting to cause human suffering. I do equate an indifference to human suffering to inconsistency in the principles of not harming.
========================================================




"This is the central problem that Animal Rights Activists will need to address in the future: how they cease being totalitarian or, if they choose to be totalitarian, how they convince others that the totality they propose is an absolute and genuine one?"

If anything, animal rights is the opposite of totalitarian, it is about freedom for all animals. Would you say people who are against child abuse are "totalitarian" because they want everyone to stop abusing children? Would campaigning against a child abuser be "stalking"? No, if you take part in abusive behaviour like the Victorian concept of parading animals around for people to poke and gawp at, you should expect people to campaign against you and try to stop you.


========================================================
You miss the notion of totality and the obvious corollary that totalitarians presuppose a totality. If you take the non-abuse of animals as a precept then you commit to all animals. Not just the animals with the pretty faces. All animals. Not just the Alpaca but the Alpaca Man too. Animal Rights simply elevates animals from a state of nature into the same messed up system of property and power relations (out of which rights arise) that human animals participate in.

Attempting to equate child abuse to animal abuse is a good start. But it misses the point again. You are seeking to parade scientists and capitalists with animals around for the righteous "animal rights" campaigners to gawp at. How is that unabusive? If you are going to convince anybody of the totality of "rights" then you have to do so much better than that. You are obliged to live up to the ethics you are foisting onto others.
========================================================





"what Animal Rights has been reduced to: a parade of victims to be bullied."

This is a case of you portraying the abuser as a victim. The victims are animals who are imprisoned, tortured, killed in their millions every day just for human whims. People who abuse animals are the bullies and abusers, they aren't the real victims. If animal abusers feel victimised and bullied, then good, hopefully it will make them think about what they are doing to others.

========================================================
No. This is a case of me pointing at what Animal Rights activists have done to their cause. They have reduced it to a parade of victims to be bullied. "Good-Animals" to be bullied by "Bad-Animals" on the one side and "Bad-Animals" to be bullied by "Good-Animals" on the other. It is the reduction of all discourse to the abuse-abuser relation. In short, it is the same failed ideological claptrap of mainstream politics. The same pretence that "rights" will solve everything.

Rights are no more than the power that grows out of private property. If animals are to have rights then they are to possess private property. Either that or you come up with a radically new theory of rights that does not require the holding of private property.

If "animal abusers" are selected for abuse, victimisation and bullying by arbitrary, anonymous people on the internet where is the much vaunted moral argument? It fails because it detatches punishment from justice. It is the same totality that separates the world into "Good-Animal" and "Bad-Animal" but with the added, sinister, twist that it is arbitrary, without appeal and simply for the gratification of an elite.

========================================================


Another Scientist



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As "Zak" is taking the alpacas into schools he will be required to hold a Performing Animals Licence. I wonder if he has one? Definitely worth checking.

Yes I would like humans and non-humans to be afforded equal consideration. But taking that to mean I can't criticize or try to stop someone abusing animals is taking it into the realms of hippy nonsense.

The difference is that humans have a rational mind to understand they are exploiting animals. They are not "innocent", as the alpacas are. The whole point of animal rights is to stand up for abused animals and intervene to try to stop the people who abuse them.

What do you suggest we do? Sit around meditating and praying people will stop abusing animals? Sure it is important to educate people but I think taking practical direct action to stop animal abuse in the here and now definitely has its place.

Should the Suffragettes just have sat around writing letters to the Times to get more equal rights for women? I don't think so, they burnt stuff down and smashed stuff up and directly attacked patriarchy, and I think it was a good thing that they did so.

At the end of the day it sounds like we just disagree over tactics. So how about you do it your way and I'll do it mine and we accept that we go about things in different ways?

Mr Vile strikes again and works from MI5

you know it and we know it.....

I think that you all have much bigger fish to fry than a guy who is just trying to enlighten the world. How many kids who live in London have even seen a cow let alone an Alpaca??? Come on, you are all happy to walk past pet shops with crowded and mis treated animals. The alpaca maentioned came and visited my class in school and the kids were mesmerised and at NO POINT was the animal distressed or show any signs of it. Infact, due to the rain, the owner even took extra measures to ensure that the animal was happy and I for one saw no problem with it whatsoever.

Lets fight some proper battles rather than this silly one

Zak, much respect for the clear love nad commitment you have shown to these animals.

To those threatening to take action, grow up, there are far more important fish to fry

Emma