Walking 66 Miles for Puppies
SOLE IRIART explains why, as a professional carer for people, she also cares profoundly about the animals undergoing vivisection in a UK facility.
I am a 50-year-old carer from St Leonards. My working life is dedicated to supporting and caring for others. But outside of my profession, I find myself standing in stark contrast to that purpose: campaigning against a facility where thousands of young lives begin – only to be used in scientific testing.
As often as I can, when I’m not on duty, I travel to Huntingdon to join a growing protest movement known as Camp Beagle. The camp is not a formal organisation with offices or infrastructure. It’s a line of army tents and camper vans set up along a busy B-road, directly outside the gates of MBR Acres.
From this roadside position, we bear witness to what happens inside.
MBR Acres is owned by a US-based company that breeds animals for research purposes, including mice, mini pigs, cats and dogs. At the Huntingdon site, the focus is on beagles. Up to 3,000 puppies are bred here each year.
These animals are born into a world they never leave. They are kept indoors from birth, housed in industrial sheds where they will never experience daylight, fresh air, grass underfoot, or the natural rhythms of the outside world. At eight weeks old, they are separated from their mothers and placed in small enclosures with other puppies.
What happens next is difficult to confront.
According to information gathered through undercover investigations and a whistleblower working inside the facility, MBR Acres operates under a Home Office licence that permits the breeding and bleeding of animals on site. This means that puppies may be subjected to blood extraction procedures. In some cases, they are bled and kept alive; in others, they are bled until death. Their blood and body parts are then supplied for research purposes in what is described as terminal anaesthesia.
Whether or not adequate sedation is consistently used remains unclear.
The living conditions described are stark. Hundreds of dogs are kept on concrete floors, with only sawdust to absorb waste. There are no beds. Each enclosure contains a single toy, fixed in place with a chain. Water is not provided in bowls, but through bottle dispensers attached to the walls, similar to those used for small animals.
By the time they are approximately 16 weeks old, many of these puppies are sold to laboratories. There, they are used in the testing of pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. Before leaving the site, they are trained for the procedures they will undergo: to hold their heads in position for blood sampling, to tolerate masks, and to accept gavage feeding—a process in which a tube is inserted into the stomach via the throat to deliver substances directly.
Not all the animals make it to this stage. Those deemed unsuitable for testing – because of size or other factors – may be euthanised, even if they are otherwise healthy.
Staffing at the facility is reportedly limited, with between 10 and 15 workers on site daily. The whistleblower has alleged that training is minimal and management inconsistent.
For those of us at Camp Beagle, these accounts have become the driving force behind our campaign.
Our work is focused on three key areas. First, we maintain a visible, physical presence outside the site through daily protests and observation. Passing traffic cannot ignore us; our aim is to ensure that neither can the wider public.
Second, we seek to raise awareness. Despite the scale of animal testing in the UK, the breeding of puppies for vivisection remains largely hidden from public view. Through social media, public engagement and outreach, we are working to bring this issue into the open.
Third, we apply political pressure. Campaigners have organised petitions and contacted Members of Parliament in an effort to bring about legislative change.
This week marks a significant moment in that effort.
Recently I joined fellow campaigners in a 66-mile walk from the camp in Huntingdon to parliament in London. The journey was timed to coincide with a parliamentary debate scheduled for Monday 27 April, during which a petition calling for an end to such practices will be considered.
The walk was both symbolic and practical. It was a way of carrying the voices of those animals who cannot speak for themselves directly to the heart of government.
Standing at the camp, day after day, is not easy. We have no access to mains electricity or running water. Power is generated through solar panels, and water is brought in containers. In winter, conditions can be harsh, with cold, damp weather testing the resolve of those who remain on site.
Yet people stay.
They stay because once you’ve stood there – once you’ve heard the dogs crying continuously and become aware of what’s happening – it’s difficult to walk away unchanged.
I often speak to workers entering and leaving the facility, hoping for dialogue, hoping for reflection. I also witness the vehicles that transport the puppies away to laboratories. For many of them, it’s the beginning of the final stage of their short lives.
I don’t believe animals should ever have been used in this way. In my view, it would have been better never to rely on animal testing at all. I believe it represents a profound ethical failure, and I question whether it’s truly necessary when alternatives exist. To me, it raises serious concerns about both scientific validity and the use of public and private funds, particularly when non-animal methods are increasingly available. Above all, I believe it is fundamentally immoral.
Beagles are commonly used because of their temperament. They are gentle, docile and less likely to show aggression. They are also of a manageable size. These characteristics make them easier to handle in laboratory environments, but they also make their situation particularly poignant.
For me and many others, this is about transparency, accountability and an end to unnecessary cruelty.
I believe that more people would question these practices if they were more widely understood. That’s why awareness is central to our campaign.
There are many ways for the public to become involved. Visiting the camp is one option, even if only for a short time. Seeing the site first-hand can be a powerful experience. For those unable to attend, writing to an MP, sharing information, or supporting campaigns through fundraising are all meaningful contributions.
This is not solely about one facility in Huntingdon. It’s about a broader system that permits the breeding and use of animals in ways that many might find troubling if they were fully informed.
On the 66-mile walk to parliament, I carried with me a simple hope: that this issue will no longer remain hidden, and that the voices calling for change will continue to grow louder.
Because ultimately, this is about lives that begin – but are never allowed to truly live.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply