This article is offered to the reader in the hope of contributing to the understanding of the almost insurmountable difficulties being faced worldwide by the leaders of today's abolitionist movement. It is an unembellished summary of some of the writer's personal experiences with NZAVS and also includes evidence given by Hans Ruesch. All accusations and descriptions of events and statements have been carefully checked and corroborated against the evidence on file.

Sifting through the historical records of almost two decades of NZAVS' operations to select those deemed most important to catalogue for the guidance and enlightenment of future campaigners, those chosen may surprise some readers.

In years to come many will remember our flamboyant marches which took place for twelve consecutive years from 1980 to 1992. Etched on the memory of the writer is the indescribable feeling of satisfaction during our first assembly in Civic Square in Wellington, when, speaking at conclusion of the Society's first march through the Capital in 1981, in a split second flash of intuition, observing the T.V. cameraman openly weeping she knew she had the attention of the gathering. The visibly shocked audience was reacting with emotion as it heard for the first time the barbaric practice of capturing monkeys in their lush homelands, their journeys of hell, and the fate of the survivors, who, in their sterile prisons of the pharmaceutical companies would never again see their kin, feel the warmth of the sun, the breeze or the earth, before their torturous and degrading deaths we are told are for human advancement.

It was an unforgettable experience to feel the bond with that first assembly. Similarly was the incident during an evening march from the Cenotaph to Pigeon Park on WDLA 1986 when a threatened attack on the writer saw her, without word or sign, surrounded by punks who put themselves in the line of fire. Another vivid and not unpleasant occurrence others will remember took place during a march to Parliament, where, on arrival, the contingent of police obstructing our path to wave us away from the forecourt and onto the lawn, found themselves waved aside as marchers, seemingly oblivious to the wall of authority stayed on course, marched neatly through their line and assembled on the concourse according to plan. Many times fate rumbled our meticulously organised arrangements by striking the sound-system dead at precisely the crucial moment, and by turning on blinding rain and gale-force southerly-busters which seriously threatened to demolish marchers, speakers, placards, banners and the entire assembly without discrimination.

Numerous though they are it is not however recollections of the like which have a place in this legacy for future activists but to serve as a warning to subscription-paying members of animal welfare A/V groups, a liturgy of far more serious events.

The 17-year performance of NZAVS unfolded like a sensational drama, the opening scene of which took place in 1978, when in an attempt to assist in abolishing animal experiments, as distinct from furthering their entrenchment and acceptance in legislation by asking for bigger cages, and fresh water on Sundays, the writer founded BUAV (Wellington). The New Zealand public was ready and receptive and by 1980, thriving, the Society became autonomous as NZAVS. In 1979 BUAV (Auckland) formed in 1932, folded. Its President, with whom the writer worked in harmony suggested the Wellington Society take over the failed Auckland Branch. Though tempted, wary and overly mindful of the massive weight of work involved in assuming the mailing list of a fully-fledged organisation of 47 years the writer declined the offer. Subsequently BUAV (Auckland) after its lapse reformed and emerged as Save Animals From Experiments.

From its inception, whilst vigorously insisting its abolitionist policy on the one hand, on the other SAFE simultaneously, through its various leaders, relentlessly adopted a strategy which made no threat to the establishment or to the vivisectors. On the contrary SAFE in the following years was to do all in its power to assist the latter by conducting major public campaigns attacking NZAVS' policy of abolition and waging war in the media against the "unreasonableness" of its two Petitions. The history of the frontal assaults on NZAVS' policy of abolition carried out by SAFE spokesperson Adrienne Carlsson (Hall), which was allowed to continue unchecked by officers of that society for 6 years are well documented in NZAVS' records.

In rough order of appearance one of the principal actors in the saga of NZAVS is the Animal Rights guru Peter Singer, who, in May 1981 was hosted by SAFE for the first of several lecture-tours he would make in New Zealand. In the Australian Outcry, Winter 1981, in an article about this tour, totally ignoring the existence of NZAVS which was campaigning

"SAFE's ultimate aim is the abolition of all experiments, but as a first step it is seeking four more limited goals:

1. The abolition of painful experiments.
2. The abolition of non-medical experiments.
3. The provision of information about the numbers and types of experiments being performed.
4. The provision of money for the development of alternative methods."

Moore Hypocrisy

Based on experience and a close watch of events is the writer's belief, that SAFE, like the major British societies (with the exception of the recently-formed British Anti-Vivisection Association ) has never been more than a thinly-veneered extension of the Government. If Singer's comments appeared incongruous to anti-vivisectionists the next character to appear in the plot was so inappropriate an ally for the abolitionist cause it was difficult not to assume it was a hoax. Overseas and Trade Marketing Minister, Mike Moore, later to become Prime Minister, was proudly acclaimed by SAFE as that society's Patron! According to Safeguard, May/June 1984, along with representatives of the RSPCA, in a March of Mourning Moore "marched up Queen Street Auckland with SAFE where he addressed the crowd on animal rights" . Moore in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture flaunting public opinion was to lift New Zealand's ban on live sheep shipments and send millions of animals on journey's of death to the Middle East in an industry in which, according to Compassion in World Farming, 120,000 die every year before arrival at destination, where the survivors face a new category of indescribable suffering before their horrific deaths.

Mike Moore, New Zealand Minister of Agriculture, SAFE Patron

In a short diversion the writer recollects a conversation with Moore, who, attempting to use the up-and-coming hot issue of vivisection as an adjunct to his career, was present at the addresses at conclusion of NZAVS 1980 WDLA march through Christchurch to Cathedral Square. When asked by the writer his precise policy on vivisection Moore answered:

"I can't ask for abolition, I'd have the farmers, the doctors, the students, the researchers and everyone else on my back."

In 1982 SAFE's leading lady Jill Carhart, disregarding the mounting medical evidence that vivisection is a lucrative industry based on fraud, presented her society's Petition to Parliament. It made no mention of abolition, did not challenge the scientific validity of vivisection, and reading as follows posed no threat, but actually assisted, by its lack of criticism, to entrench in legislation the practice of vivisection in New Zealand.

1. To eliminate repetitious, painful, or stressful experiments and exercises on living animals.
2. To eliminate all non-medical experiments on living animals.
3. To permit all premises where vivisection is carried out to be opened for unannounced inspections by official representatives of anti-cruelty societies.
4. To require the submission of annual reports to Parliament, such reports to be made publicly available.
5. To promote alternatives to vivisection.

Note:

1. Vivisection is "stressful" before any experiment takes place.
2. The Draize Eye-test, the LD50 test and all but one percent of all experiments are classed as "medical".
3. Like the RSPCA which has never challenged vivisection but promotes its continuance.
4. Reports were available for those who applied to MAF.
5. All "alternatives" must be tested on animals before being classed as "alternatives".

On 1 August 1982 the writer wrote to SAFE pointing out the irrevocable damage this Petition represented to all future attempts at abolition. Carhart replied as follows in a letter to the writer dated 8 September 1982:

"SAFE believes in abolition but only a practical and realistic approach to the situation will ensure results. Total abolition cannot occur overnight. Instead it must be seen as a goal towards which we all must work. Steps towards this goal involve greater accountability to deal with animal experiments which must continue to be carried out until they are eventually replaced."

The discerning reader will surely agree that Carhart's words are more appropriate to a vivisector than an "anti-vivisection" leader, especially as they were voiced in an era during which the medical professions were consolidating vocally for abolition on grounds of scientific invalidity, founding their various leagues of health professionals against vivisection, and freely disseminating damning evidence to substantiate their claims.

NZAVS' warning to Carhart proved justified. When our Society submitted its Petition to Abolish the LD50 Test in 1984 and its Petition to Abolish Vivisection in New Zealand on grounds of fraud in 1989, on both occasions politicians were able, and quick to say..

"the issue has already been addressed"

(Mobilise! No. 1, August 1982 records a four-page detailed evaluation and denunciation of SAFE Petition.)