Grass verges compound the difficulties facing British pollinators by removing a potentially valuable source of indigenous flora. Its maintenance places an unnecessary strain on already stretched local government budgets and creates an environmental non-entity in a space which might otherwise be a productive habitat for wildlife.

In light of recent events, most notably that of an incident involving the Cury Hunt which led to an elderly couple and their dog being attacked by hounds on a Cornish beach, we ask that the National Trust revoke all licences given to Hunts to use their land. In regards to fox hunting, The National Trust state that "Following the Hunting Act of 2004 we grant licences for trail hunting, ie the following of an artificially laid scent, where this is compatible with local circumstances. However it is clear that the majority of hunts continue to hunt illegally under the guise of 'trail hunting'. An organisation that works for the conservation of wildlife and the safeguarding of nature should not stand by and allow their land to be used for illegal activities. Sources: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/national-trust-to-review-fox-hunt-licence-after-couple-were-attacked-by-hounds-on-beach/story-30070655-detail/story.html

There is too much evidence that illegal hunting is taking place on National Trust Land. The National Trust should stop issuing licences to hunts unless all hunting activity on National Trust Land is independently monitored to ensure that no illegal hunting is taking place. That National Trust should be supporters and upholders of the law. 84% of the public to not want to see a repeal of the hunting act.

An Eco-Apocolypse in Malaysia and Indonesia will see Orangutans and hundreds of other species wiped-out over the next decade. Orangutans are one of our closest relatives, similar in intellect to a 5-6 year-old human child. Yet every day they are burned alive, hacked to death by machete, or crushed by machinery to clear rainforest to produce Palm Oil. This is all just to make cheaper food, cosmetics, detergents, and other products, for us to consume. Without action the production of Palm oil will wipe-out Orangutans within 5-10 years and Sumatran tigers within 3 years. Even 'sustainable' palm oil producers are reputed by experts to use ruthless practices which are devastating Orangutans and other animal species. The buck cannot be passed to consumers to solve this eco-disaster by avoiding products containing Palm Oil. With around half of all household products containing Palm Oil it is simply not possible for consumers to shop ethically on this issue on a meaningful scale. Key facts: - Over 90% of Orangutan habitat has been destroyed in the last 20 years - 1,000 - 5,000 Orangutans die each year (50,000 have died in the last 20 years) due to deforestation for Palm Oil - Every hour an area of rainforest the size of 300 football fields is cleared to produce Palm Oil - Palm Oil is the most used vegetable oil in the world, largely due to its cheap production There are more sustainable alternatives to Palm Oil, such as Rapeseed. But with no real pressure on companies to use sustainable vegetable oils, Palm Oil consumption is set to have doubled by 2020, compared to 2010. If you don't want to use products that will lead to a mass-animal extinction please consider signing our petition and sharing it with your friends. Please lend the Orangutans and other vulnerable species your support....

It is cruel and unnecessary.

The sale of fur was banned by Harvey Nichols in 2004 but real fur has recently reappeared in huge quantities in store. This trade is cruel, wasteful and unnecessary. No argument about ethical sourcing can justify the raising and slaughtering of animals for our decoration. The sale of fur represents a huge step backwards for Harvey Nichols as a market leader and for animal welfare in general. Harvey Nichols has the power to make a real statement of intent about their ethical practice and to lead the fashion retail sector by again refusing to normalise and profit from this trade.

CORRECTIVE SHOCK COLLARS CAUSE PHYSICAL PAIN -BURNS -SEVERE ANXIETY -CARDIAC FIBRILLATION AND AGONISING DEATHS THEY ARE NOTHING SHORT OF BARBARIC TORTURE PETS THAT ACCIDENTLY CROSS A BARRIER MONITORED BY THESE DEVICES RARELY RETURN HOME THROUGH FEAR OF IMMENSE PAIN SO INSTEAD OF KEEPING YOUR PET SECURE YOU CAN ACTUALLY STOP THEM FROM GETTING HOME ELDERLY PETS ARE KILLED BY HEART ATTACKS. THE COLLARS HAVE BEEN PROVED TO MALFUNCTION AND REMAIN IN SHOCK MODE CAUSING UNTHINKABLE PAIN SUFFERING AND INJURY TO DEFENCELESS ANIMALS. CATS AND DOGS FITTED WITH THESE VILE COLLARS CAN BECOME TRAPPED IN THE 'SHOCK ZONE' SOME ANIMAL RESCUE CENTRES ARE KNOWN TO USE THESE AS PUNISHMENT. SHOCKING INNOCENT ANIMALS SIMPLY FOR BARKING WHEN SCARED

The CPS are already under pressure so would not in my opinion put as much emphasis on Animal cases. Animal Welfare Vets Police the RSPCA and even the CPS themselves would rather it would stay as is. What benefit could there possibly be in changing from an organisation that only deals with Animal Welfare.

It isn't just the killing of a couple of hares they are slaughtering them with pictures of pickups full of dead mountain hares and its disgusting this is going on in the 21st century and in in a National Park!

The raising of animals for their fur is a practice currently banned within the UK because of the cruelty involved. Many shops now import their fur from countries such as Russia, Finland and China where laws regarding animal welfare are far less strict than ours. Animals (among them raccoon, bear, fox, rabbit, cats, dogs and mink to name a few) in these countries are raised to suffer in intolerable conditions before being removed from overcrowded cages before being anally or vaginally electrocuted , strangled, gassed or drowned before having the skin ripped from them. Some of these animals are still alive when it happens. Could you imagine the pain of being skinned alive? Would you let your pet be skinned alive? If not, why do we allow other countries to do it for us in the name of vanity, greed and profit? This is the 21st Century where such barbarism is no longer tolerated. Many designers such as Stella McCartney produce wonderful faux fur products and many more are now moving away from real fur. While protesting the use of real fur I recently had the pleasure to speak to an older lady who said that the only fur coat she had had belonged to her deceased mother but that she would never wear it herself and would never sell it as it meant someone wearing an animal that did not ask to be killed. I can understand her keeping it as a sentimental object, though as her mother lived in a time when fur was deemed acceptable. It no longer is. My beloved country of Scotland has always prided itself on being compassionate (we were the first country in the UK to allow same-sex marriage, after all). Why can't we be the first in leading the way against the barbarism of fur? If the UK TRULY is a nation of animal lovers then let us be the leading light!

Because last year there were 2,463 refusals by service providers against disabled and impaired recipients of Assistance Dogs across the U.K.

Animals have no voice, as it stands at the moment, animal abusers get away far too lightly. Custodial sentences need to be given out with longer terms. Anyone found guilty of abusing an animal should have a life time ban on keeping any animal.