JULIET GELLATLEY’S REBUTTAL

by Claudette Vaughan
 

Q.  What are your thoughts on Kelly’s claims that the kangaroo industry is 40,000 years old?

A.  John Kelly is trying to legitimise his grisly trade by attempting to align his industry with the Aborigines - which is a huge insult to indigenous Australians, as they did not ravage the land and its wildlife in the way that is happening today! The commercial kangaroo industry, where kangaroos are killed for meat and skin for financial profits, is relatively new. In 1975 the quota - that means the number of kangaroos allowed to be killed for export - was 885,000; by 1980 it rose to 2.9 million; 1990 3.9 million and by 2000 5.5 million. The 2005 quota is 3.9 million. Remember that in addition, millions more animals are killed non-commercially. The frightening extent of the non-commercial kill can be shown by the Tasmanian wallaby kill figures, where more than 1 million animals were shot in one year non-commercially - when the official quota was set at 250,000. This is the largest wildlife massacre on land that planet earth has seen. 

Q.  Why do these animal traders and many university-trained ‘desk’ environmentalists talk in terms of sustainable utilisation?  Isn’t “sustainability” just another term for killing?

A.  Yes it is - using the words "sustainable harvesting of kangaroos" is meant to soften the gruesome reality - which is, of course, the mass slaughter of these awesome mammals! Once an industry for wildlife killing is established, that industry is obviously going to fight to keep the killing going as it's in their commercial interests to do so. That's one reason so-called 'sustainable' slaughter does not work. The industry involved drives the negotiations with governments, not the people who care about wildlife! And so there are many examples of where it has failed. We were told that the commercial hunting of otters, whales, leopards and tigers was sustainable - 'use it or lose it' as Archer says - however, use wildlife in this way and you're sure to lose it! Fishing is another good example of how it goes wrong. Despite the vast numbers of fish worldwide, we are now in crisis - all the world's oceans are suffering ecological decline due to overfishing. Despite quotas and more quotas - and despite being told by governments worldwide that fishing is sustainable - fish stocks are collapsing. Let this be a warning to Australia and everyone who cares about protecting wildlife!

Q.  What has VIVA! been doing on the kangaroo issue for the one person out there that may not be aware that you have been at the fore-front of the pro-kangaroo campaign and you don’t even live in this country.

A.  Yes, Viva!'s HQ is in Bristol in the UK. I started campaigning to end the killing of kangaroos when UK supermarkets started to sell 'roo meat. According to the Kangaroo Industries Association, 80 per cent of kangaroo meat sold for human consumption is exported overseas. This illustrates the need for international campaigns. Viva! ran a successful three-year campaign from 1997 to 2000 to stop the sale of kangaroo meat from supermarkets in the UK. A chain called Sainsbury's seemed the most determined to keep selling the meat and supplied it nationwide. It vigorously defended the trade but suddenly withdrew one week before Viva! was due to run another Day of Action outside its stores to highlight the suffering caused by the kangaroo killing. The Days of Action involved more than 100 local Viva! groups holding photocalls, demonstrations and talking to the public at any one time at stores all over the nation.

Another supermarket chain, Tesco withdrew from the trade after an extensive campaign by Viva!. Somerfield has refrained from introducing kangaroo meat in over 500 stores due to Viva!'s campaign and large contract caterers acknowledged Viva! as the reason they stopped selling the meat. The British public support for Viva!'s campaign was huge, with many people refusing to shop at stores that sold kangaroo meat. This quote from the Australian newspaper, Northern Territory News, shows the success of Viva!'s campaign: 'South Australia-based Australian Meats, one of five major exporters of kangaroo, said that the ban on the sale of meat in Britain had destroyed its $1 million a year export business. The company handed back their export licence and Dennis Grantham, the manager said:

"We have stopped production altogether to Britain... we were exporting close to 400 tonnes of kangaroo meat a year. The decision has also affected our exports to other countries including the USA.'

After the success of this campaign, Viva! turned its attention to football. The connection? Companies such as Adidas kill kangaroos for their skin - for football boots and the kangaroo industry is desperate to nurture this trade. Viva! USA has also been working flat out on this campaign, as it currently illegal to import kangaroo products into California, although Adidas just flouts the law.

Q.   I hear from seasoned activists in Australia that the kangaroo campaign will only be won from outside Australia yet isn’t this argument defeatist and lazy? What are your views?

A.   I do agree to a point. International campaigns can have an impact of course, but what is needed now is for Australian animal rights, wildlife and environmental groups to take on this campaign - as a major priority. There needs to be an active consumer campaign to wake Australians up to what is happening in their own back yard; to create an atmosphere of revulsion against the exploitation of their unique wildlife; to step up the call to make commercial kangaroo killing illegal.

Australia shouldn't really expect groups around the world to take on this campaign if they are doing little about it themselves (with some very, very notable exceptions!!) Australians should lead the way on this campaign; launch major drives to change opinions and create outrage; and then invite the rest of the world to follow their lead and to not import 'roo products.

Q.  There was a time when the exploit industry was saying that the kangaroo was doing enormous damage to the land. Now they have changed their tune and it’s kind of strange that John Kelly has taken on board your  original argument that by the action of introducing hard hoofed animals like sheep into Australia, this alone has done enormous damage to the land. He gives this argument as a reason why kangaroos are ideal to be utilised and destroyed. Your thoughts please?

A.   Yes the KIAA leap from reason to reason - whatever they see as most populist at the time, to justify the killing. Kelly has now jumped on the Michael Archer bandwagon. Archer was director of the Australian Museum, Sydney and is a driving force behind killing kangaroos on the basis of it helping wildlife! This ill-conceived plan is aptly called FATE (The Future of Australia's Terrestrial Ecosystems). Ironically, it does indeed represent the ultimate fate of Australia's fauna and flora - for it proposes what is essentially their privatisation. Wildlife, according to this philosophy, has no intrinsic right to exist, it's all there for the taking - to make money. The commercialisation of wildlife has disaster written all over it; and could mean the end of Australia's national symbol and the continuing degradation of your ecosystems. Amazingly, Archer argues that unless the kangaroo is valued as an economic resource, "it is at risk of extinction through general disinterest and destruction of its habitat" - so he is arguing - kill the kangaroos and their survival as a species will be ensured. And yet, in complete contradiction, the Australian government supporting the kangaroo industry say that the kangaroo is not at risk, it is in plague proportions! So their mantra is - kill the kangaroos, there's too many of the buggers.

An analysis of the arguments put forward by the industry and government quickly exposes that they frequently contradict themselves and, to put it mildly, manipulate the facts!

Q.  What other arguments do you come up against?

A.   The common ones are still that kangaroos compete with sheep and cattle; and that kangaroos destroy wheat crops and the environment! Rubbish! For starters, kangaroos no longer exist in wheat areas as they have long since been killed off. A four year study of Grey kangaroos in Western Australia by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation) found that 95 per cent of wheat crops are never visited by kangaroos. Also few kangaroos wander more than 400 metres from their home range in the bush. The study found that kangaroos have virtually no impact on the country's crops, despite claims by farmers that they are a major crop pest and further, the study recommended that farmers who have natural bush land on their property encourage its growth to help keep the kangaroos fed.

Dr Graham Arnold, former Senior Principle Research Scientist, CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and Ecology, who studied the impact of kangaroos on croplands, stated in 1998: "Most kangaroos did not like to eat farm crops and would only thrive if given access to their natural foods........Unless the community manages remnant vegetation to minimise degradation and enhance the regeneration of native plants, kangaroos and some other native species will disappear from much of Western Australia over the next 100 years."

He also said: "All the land cleared for farming in Western Australia was habitat for one or more species of kangaroos, wallabies and their relatives. Today, five species are extinct throughout the wheatbelt and four species are found only in a few locations."

Furthermore, a study of the kangaroo killing zones quickly reveals that kangaroos are largely commercially shot in areas where they are NOT seen as a problem to crop growers. Instead, commercial killing takes place in regions of extensive grazing. These areas produce almost no crops and account for only 10 per cent of Australia's meat production. Yet farmers and the Australian government regularly refer to kangaroos as pests.

 I'm again going to quote Dr Arnold as he's studied this firsthand:

"Pests is an emotive word. It conjures up visions of animals destroying crops. I can think of no situations where this is likely to be true for kangaroos."

The second main reason given for slaughtering kangaroos is that they compete for resources with cattle and sheep. A six year study by Dr Steven McLeod at the University of New South Wales is the most comprehensive of its type and thoroughly examines whether the presence of red kangaroos negatively impacts on sheep. When I gave interviews in Australia on the kangaroo trade, the industry's, farmers, politicians and some journalists most favourite excuse for the killing was that kangaroos would eat sheep out of house and home if left to their own devices.

According to Dr McLeod some studies previous to his have suggested that kangaroos and sheep compete for food, but none have been conclusive. His study is the first to examine this hypothesis properly. In a nutshell, he finds that: "There was no evidence of a competitive effect of red kangaroos on sheep." This was true even in drought conditions. In the winter of 1991 when the study region was officially declared as drought stricken by the government of NSW, the study found no competition for food between sheep and red kangaroos. The study concluded that red kangaroos do not effect the body mass, wool growth, reproductive output of sheep or the growth and survivorship of lambs. In fact, it was found that red kangaroos "consistently avoid areas used by sheep" and that sheep have a negative impact on kangaroos!

Biologist Ingrid White studies kangaroos at UNSW Arid Zone Research Station Fowlers Gap, Broken Hill. She states:

"Like several other researchers before me, working in the same study area located on a commercial sheep station in the outback of New South Wales and working under real conditions, in real paddocks and with real stocking rates, I found little evidence for detrimental effects of kangaroo on the domestic sheep or vegetation. And this, despite the kangaroos not having been culled as a 'pest' species for more than 30 years - and the kangaroos equalling or surpassing the numbers of sheep stocked on the station."

Clearly, the reality is the opposite to that which the meat industry would have us believe. And the whole basis upon which the kangaroo massacre has gained public tolerance in Australia is false. Having been stripped of all other excuses, the final and most crass claim is increasingly being pushed - kangaroos are destroying the country's environment! A primary school kid could demolish this one.

Unique animals with long, soft feet flit over the delicate scrub - an environment with which they have evolved over millions of years and are an essential part of. Their toenails make small holes in the ground - holes into which salt bush seeds are washed to germinate and be protected. They are animals which nibble at vegetation rather than tug at it, pulling out the roots and are finally attuned to the native vegetation. There are two alien animals, of course, which do none of these things and which are inexorably turning the outback into desert - 160 million sheep and cattle. This last point is probably the only thing Kelly and I agree on. His answer is instead of eating 'conventional' meat turn to wildlife; my answer is go vegan. Not just for the kangaroos but also because meat consumption is at the heart of the world's environmental problems - as well as desertification there's deforestation, water pollution, global warming, acid rain. Also to feed everyone in the world the typical Australian meat-centred diet, we'd need four planet earths! It's just not possible - being vegan is much kinder to the land, to wildlife, to ourselves. Vegetarians get less heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes, diabetes, obesity and cancers - it's the solution to so many of the world's ills.

Q.  There is no denying that the kangaroo is in trouble in this country. You may have noticed in Kelly’s interview that he didn’t seem that keen for eco-tourism providing a solution to constantly slaughtering kangaroos.  He said it wasn’t a big game experience like it was in Africa. Always in the forefront of these jokers’ minds is killing. It’s never about true preservation or true conservation. Their interest lies in utilisation exclusively. And I don’t think that can ever be stopped effectively. What do you think?

A.   Well firstly, on whether the kangaroo is in trouble. Dr Ian Gunn, BVSc, FACVS, Project Director at the Animal Gene Storage Resource Centre of Australia, Institute of Reproduction and Development, Monash Medical Centre, was asked by the kangaroo industry in 1997 to approve a reduction in the official weight of kangaroos being commercially killed. This request by the industry was of great concern to Viva! as it meant that there were insufficient numbers of kangaroos meeting the current weight. Dr Gunn refused to support the request by the kangaroo industry and said: "...the continued slaughter of kangaroos has the potential to cause the extinction of a number of remaining species." The killing may cause extinctions for three main reasons: The indiscriminate killing - i.e. the elimination of the largest, healthiest kangaroos. The unreliable and largely estimated kangaroo population figures that the government and industry use to justify the extent of their kill and finally, the destruction of the kangaroos natural habitats. It's cold comfort that Australia has the worst wildlife record in the world. Since the settlement of Europeans 210 years ago, 18 species of mammals have become extinct (half of all the world's loss of mammals in the same time), another 45 are threatened with extinction. Six species of macropods have become extinct (and a further four are extinct on the mainland), seven are classed as endangered and 10 as vulnerable. Only nine species are considered abundant, however these are killed annually. The basis of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is that natural factors kill the less fit individuals in all wildlife species and so only the fittest survive to reproduce. This is survival of the fittest and is an essential process for a species to remain healthy and genetically viable. The annual kangaroo massacre undermines the process of natural selection. The larger animals are always targeted as they provide more meat and skin. This means that although a population will try to breed quickly to regain numbers, the less fit individuals reproduce, leading to a genetically inferior population. This situation is worsened in severe drought conditions when, on top of the millions of kangaroos that die naturally, the kangaroo industry wipes out the very individuals who are able to survive the extreme conditions. This unnatural process which flies in the face of nature, leads to populations of kangaroos becoming less and less suited to the harsh environments which they face.

I'm going to quote a lady I much admire, Maryland Wilson of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council:

"Taking the biggest Red kangaroos for the skin trade and the young one to two year old Red kangaroos for human consumption puts insupportable pressure on the Red kangaroo. An up to 80% male bias in the kill leaves weaker, unfit, unstable, unhealthy populations to breed next year. Is this really supposed to be 'good management?"

And, despite what Kelly claims, the killing destroys the social order of a mob. When a shooter enters the structured society of a mob of kangaroos, he destroys a complex system by killing the alpha male, his immediate rivals, and the older females, who are the educators of the group. This selective hunting results in females mating with young males and the loss of the inherited genetic strength of the mob. Australian biologist, David Croft, has researched kangaroos for years. He says only one-fifth of male red kangaroos reach four to nine years and yet almost two-thirds of males are commercially shot in this age group. This is a serious problem. Breeding males are becoming smaller and younger and Croft says those that would not normally breed are doing so. This means there is a strong selection for smaller body size and kangaroos are losing genes that have been strongly selected by the environment because survival to an old age is a matter of good foraging skills, disease resistance, competitive abilities and chance. There is sound scientific evidence to show that female kangaroos choose good genes in potential partners. I've heard the KIAA argue that killing kangaroos does not destroy good genes because killing 15-20% of the population should leave plenty of copies of 'good genes' in the population. This would be true if the slaughter selected targets at random but clearly this isn't the case. As Croft says, the commercial kill may effectively take close to 100% of large males. This should prompt alarm!

The Australian government's claim that slaughtering kangaroos for meat "saves millions of kangaroos from dying a slow death due to Australia's frequent droughts" is grossly misleading as the weakest kangaroos are left to survive by the targeted killing.

Q.  Kelly rails against what he calls “Those radical animal rights people!!!”  He certainly doesn’t like you Juliet, does he?

A.  The feeling's mutual!

Q.   You can see by his interview that Kelly is trying desperately to dignify the commercial kangaroo harvester.  He’s desperately trying to move the impression away from its grubby, dirty back-room roots.  Your thoughts into what really happens to a baby joey in the Outback please?

A.   Yes of course the survival of the kangaroo industry depends on them attempting to hide the realities of a nasty, bloody business. For example, Kelly doesn't like to talk about joeys being killed. However, this is the every day reality of the industry that pays his salary. It's based on killing babies. Thousands of them every year. Mother kangaroos often have a joey in pouch and a joey at foot - neither can survive without her. The code of practice governing the kill states that pouch young of a shot female 'must also be killed. Decapitation with a sharp instrument in very small hairless young or a properly executed heavy blow to destroy the brain in larger young...or by a shot to the brain' must be used. When I was in Australia, amateur hunters admitted to cases of joeys being used as footballs; to stamping on joeys heads (but not killing them); to using crowbars or bashing their heads against a wheel brace or just leaving them to die. Even for those joeys which are dragged out of their mother's pouch and killed according to the code's recommendations - it's hardly humane! The code does not even make a reference to how older joeys should be dealt with! They are completely dependant on their mothers for milk, warmth in the cold winter nights, protection from predation and emotional support. Without their mothers, they are left to die of starvation or cold or from predation. The code is unenforceable anyway. Wildlife authorities do not have the ability to monitor the shooting; there are not enough staff to cover the vast distances and they rely on the shooters to keep them informed.

Kelly's KIAA often state that to enforce the code of conduct, National Parks & Wildlife Rangers constantly conduct unannounced inspections. This is nonsense. Even if the wildlife authorities had powers to enforce the code they could not use them as the shooting takes place at night in remote areas without monitoring. In the RSPCA report Kelly refers to, the group states that, from an animal welfare viewpoint, the kangaroo slaughter is unacceptable: "A major problem with all kangaroo shooting is the fate of joeys... We would like to see a condition where no female kangaroos carrying large pouch young can be shot and research into the most humane method of killing small pouch young. The best solution may well be not to shoot females at all."

Men drive though the bush in four wheel drives, searching for wild kangaroos which they illuminate with powerful searchlights. They are then shot, supposedly in the head. For many animals it is the throat or neck, leaving them struggling and still conscious when they are dragged to the truck. Some animals are still alive when their leg is sliced open, a hook is inserted through the gash and they are hauled up onto the truck. Their throat/chest is then slit. The shooter stops from time to time and guts the kangaroos, the head, limbs and tail are chopped off and discarded. The skin is left on until the dead animal reaches the processing works. The carcasses are supposed to be delivered to a chiller, usually at a local town depot before high temperatures help further rotting. They are then taken to a processing plant where skins are pulled off and taken to a tannery to make leather and the carcasses butchered for meat. What is left of Australia's national emblem goes to make fertiliser.

Q.  The snuffing out of life has never been simpler for kangaroo hunters.   When you kill out a family member from an organised mob of kangaroos,  where does that leave the rest of them who have formed family, familial and emotional bonds?  Kelly says there is no evidence that this has any effect whatsoever.

A.   Well it's easier for people like Kelly to live with themselves if they ignore unpleasant facts like joeys being clubbed to death; and they similarly try to dismiss the social complexities of kangaroo populations. May be they are emotionally and intellectually stunted themselves and so find it difficult to imagine other species being traumatized by their relatives being shot. Kelly doesn't seem to know much about kangaroos. For example Eastern Grey mother and daughters often stay together for life. The Western Greys have a very close social bond, and retain family connections for years. A daughter often stays close to her mother even after she has a joey of her own. If anyone has any doubts - watch the film ‘Faces in the Mob’ - it shows how kangaroos have their own personalities and the richness and complexity of the kangaroo society and the daily drama of their family life! By shooting older females and males (because they are larger and fetch more money) - killers are not only causing huge distress amongst those close relatives left but also disrupting the whole society - for example mothers pass on information on the best places to graze, get shade, water and so on - and all the intimate knowledge passed down for generations is lost in one bullet.

Q.   What diseases can humans get from eating wild animals? John Kelly said “None.”

A.   It is possible that the weakened genetic pool due to continually shooting the healthiest, strongest animals is responsible for increased disease levels in kangaroos. For example in October 1998 there was a major epidemic of an unknown disease in northwestern New South Wales. The epidemic had a sudden onset, a short duration of about two weeks and high death rate. Most animals were found dead, some had difficulty rising and moved awkwardly. More mature kangaroos were affected than young. The epidemic had drastic effects on the population. Between 1998 and 1999 in the five affected areas, there was a 42% decline in red kangaroos and a 46% decline in greys. In the main affected area, there was a startling 72% reduction in red kangaroos. (This did not lead to a reduction in the quota for New South Wales for the number shot for meat.) Similar types of epidemics have also occurred in Queensland in 1990 and 1999. A widespread outbreak of blindness occurred in many thousands of kangaroos between April and July 1994, and between March and June 1995, in western New South Wales, Southern Australia, north western Victoria and later, in December 1995 to April 1996 in Western Australia. Western greys were mainly affected but also eastern greys, reds and euros succumbed - all species that are commercially killed for meat. It is believed that the outbreaks were caused by a virus (possibly the Wallal virus) spread by insects but the factors leading to the epidemic are unknown. Agricultural scientists identify a complete lack of "preparedness" to cope with wildlife diseases in Australia. Indeed the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Warren Truss, issued a press release on 12 April 2001 stating that kangaroo meat does not represent any health risks! However he has still not backed up this statement with evidence. Kangaroos harbour a vast range of parasites - many increase with stress and crowding. Scientists neatly summed up the problem: "Both species of Grey kangaroos may be infected with 30,000 nematodes from 20 different species... "A forceful advertising campaign will be required to convince the consumer of the unique health benefits of Pelecitus Roemeri (large nematode worm which in southern Queensland infects 18% of M. gigantus, 6% of M. rufus and 22% of M. robustus...)". Kangaroos and wallabies can harbour a wide range of parasitic bacterial, fungal and viral diseases. Worldwide, it is well recognised that so-called game meats are a source of infections for consumers, especially when the meat is served undercooked or raw. In the last 25 years or so, of 35 new or newly recognised infections in humans, 20 (57%) have passed to us from other animal species. In Australia, Toxoplasmosis and Salmonellosis are two infections directly related to the handling, processing and consumption of kangaroo meat. Some states of Australia rejected kangaroo meat for many years because of lack of hygiene and control in the killing of these animals. In fact in most states it only became legal to sell kangaroo meat for human consumption in 1993! One in two kangaroos may harbour Salmonella. Killing in the outback and the time delay between processing and cool storing is obviously a problem for bacterial contamination. Shooters are supposed to carry out pre-death inspections - monitoring the movement of an animal to determine if there is any apparent indication of sickness! If the animal is ill and the meat becomes fervered after death, the dark colouring of kangaroo meat ensures there are few visual indications of the condition. Because of the many external and internal parasites, kangaroos killed between sunset and sunrise are supposed to be placed under refrigeration within two hours of sunrise. However, many worry that the whole process of regulation is worthless.

Q.   What is you vision for the kangaroo 10-20 years down the track? Do we need to put our bodies between Kelly, the hunters and the kangaroo or should we re-ignite those once huge consumer campaigns the movement is so fond of, to get even more Australians to stop eating kangaroo meat and wearing kangaroo leather? Will the ‘Shame Em’ campaigns work in this case?

A.  As with every topic there is no one solution - no miracle answer. As I said before, a concerted effort is needed by Australian groups to force this issue back on to the public and media (and eventually political) agendas. Initially, there should be strong consumer campaigns to re-ignite the feelings of horror at the trade - to make Australians realize what damage and pain the kangaroo industry is causing. One thing's for sure, most Australians would be horrified if they could see the killing for themselves - particularly of the joeys; and if they understood the real reasons for the trade. The cynicism of the kangaroo trade needs exposing and Australians need to be encouraged to feel protective of their wonderful and unique wildlife. Of course most Australians don't eat kangaroos - they've got to start feeling strongly that no one else should be eating them either!

Q.   You can well see that Kelly intends to market kangaroo meat as a posh person’s nosh. This could be down to places like Edna’s Table and similar restaurants touting kangaroo meat as ‘exotic’ meat.

A.  Well they'll have a job selling it at Edna's, as it's recently gone bust! Perhaps this is an illustration that Australians believe that wildlife belongs in the wild, not on a dinner plate! For too long, the KIAA have justified and excused the kangaroo massacre because it's in their financial interests - it's how they make money! Bottom line. It's laughable that Kelly tries to muddy the picture and deflect the attention from cruelty and needless killing by attacking me and Viva!.

Viva! is, of course, a non-profit group which puts its limited resources into campaigning not paying shareholders. Kelly, of course kills possums for a living. He runs Lenah Game Meats from Tasmania and had to go on the 7.30 show to defend the appalling cruelty filmed at his abattoir. No one should trust a man prepared to do what he does for money. Human treatment of the wildlife of this globe and the habitats essential for its survival is a calamity. Those responsible appear to have learned nothing from history and continue to offer the same insupportable excuses for short-term commercial advantage. The fate of the world's wildlife is increasingly being determined by politicians, meat industries and shop keepers who exclude morality from their decision making. Viva! has stopped 1500 supermarket stores from selling kangaroo flesh nationwide. Most people - whether in the UK or Australia - don't want the world's wildlife to be massacred for meat or skin. But the truth needs to get out there - and to other countries who are importing the flesh and skin of these beautiful creatures. It is time for those with vision and compassion to work within Australia on a concerted consumer campaign to stop the trade for good. Everyone can play a part to help.

Juliet Gellatley Founder & Director Viva! & Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation

8 York Court Wilder Street
Bristol BS2 8QH

Tel: 0117 944 1000
Email: juliet@viva.org.uk
Web: www.viva.org.uk
Fax: 0117 924 4646

Juliet Gellatley is the founder and international director of Viva! ww.viva.org.uk