Shelter India Application Form Pdf Download //FREE\\

Zerodha customers can apply online in India Shelter Finance IPO using UPI as a payment gateway. Zerodha customers can apply in India Shelter Finance IPO by login into Zerodha Console (back office) and submitting an IPO application form.

While both rescues and shelters use a foster network, rescues are much more dependent upon foster volunteers to give dogs and cats a safe and stable environment. This is mainly because many rescues do not have a formal space, such as a leased building or purchased property, to house animals. (Or the space they do have is very limited, allowing for only a handful of animals at a time.)

Shelter India Application Form Pdf Download

Download 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y3YRG 🔥

W. Kincaid, a British India era official, first mentioned Bhimbetka in a scholarly paper in 1888. He relied on the information he gathered from local adivasis (tribals) about Bhojpur lake in the area and referred to Bhimbetka as a Buddhist site.[22] The first archaeologist to visit a few caves at the site and discover its prehistoric significance was V. S. Wakankar, who saw these rock formations and thought these were similar to those he had seen in Spain and France. He visited the area with a team of archaeologists and reported several prehistoric rock shelters in 1957.[23]

It was only in the 1970s that the scale and true significance of the Bhimbetka rock shelters was discovered and reported.[22] Since then, more than 750 rock shelters have been identified. The Bhimbetka group contains 243 of these, while the Lakha Juar group nearby has 178 shelters. According to Archaeological Survey of India, the evidence suggests that there has been a continuous human settlement here from the Stone Age through the late Acheulian to the late Mesolithic until the 2nd century BCE in these caves. This information is based on the findings from the excavation of the site, the unearthed artifacts and goods, pigments present in deposits, as well as the rock paintings.[24]

Income was provided by sales of milk, manure, urine and hides. Milk was sold in only 37% of the shelters, and most of the milk produced was distributed free of cost to the workers by the gaushala managers. Dung was sold as manure in 54% of the shelters. Partial disposal of dung by shelters was done in the form of donation of manure free of charge to the local farmers (37%), sale as manure alone (37%) and sale as vermicompost and manure (17%). Biogas as an alternative dung-generated fuel was produced in only 19% of the shelters. In 9% of the shelters dung was not disposed of but left lying as a mound within the shelter premises. In the case of urine, 76% of the shelters just let it drain off without proper sewerage facilities to treat the slurry, and 24% of the shelters collected urine to use as a biopesticide or in traditional medicine. Hides of dead animals were sold in 11% of the shelters.

The median number of male workers was six and females two, with 32% of the shelters having no female worker. The maximum number of male and female workers in a shelter was 300 and 110, respectively. Induction training of the workers was performed in 65% of the shelters. Anecdotally, we were told that females more often worked in those shelters that provided worker accommodation within the shelter premises.

Biosecurity measures in the shelters in the form of separate sheds, were followed in 57% of the shelters during the introduction of new animals, isolation wards for separating and treating sick cows (72%); disposal of carcasses took place by deep burial within the shelter premises in 43% of the shelters, whereas 39% shelters allowed the municipalities to dispose of the carcasses. However, 18% of the shelters left the carcasses in the open or just threw them in a nearby creek or ravine. Disease outbreaks in the last five years, predominantly FMD, were reported by 43% of the shelters.

Use of both endo and ectoparasiticides was practised in most cow shelters, though the frequency of application varied widely. The prevalence of tick infestation in gaushalas and unorganized dairy farms has been reported as 45%, but only 4% in the organized sector. [51,52]. Besides the ticks feeding on blood, infestation leads to anemia and loss of body condition [53], and they transmit babesiosis, anaplasmosis and borreliosis [52,54]. Deworming in our study was more common than previously reported in a localized study [55]. A 44% prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitism has been reported in gaushalas in one part of the state of Gujarat [56], a state included in our study. Gastrointestinal parasitism and lungworms reduce growth [57,58].

The access to pastures in 41% of the shelters is encouraging for cow welfare; most of these shelters were located in the rural areas, whereas the cows in urban shelters did not have the benefit of pasture grazing. Pasture grazing changes the physical environment of the cows, enables them to exercise, induces changes in diet routines and improves the health of the hooves. Pasture grazing helps cows recover from lameness and allows a more comfortable surface to stand upon and lie down [76]. It facilitates behaviors such as grazing, lying and resting and reduces aggression [77]. Access to yards is also good for welfare, though it cannot replace the advantages of pasture access. The exercise, interaction and exploration of environment that cows get through outdoor access to yards also improves claw conformation [78]. Exercise improves bone and hock strength and prevents hock injuries [79], through improving circulation of blood to the limbs, enabling proper nutrition and oxygen to the horn tissues of the claws producing the horn [80]. Animal enrichment in the form of devotional music in half of the shelters in the study might help in alleviating stress. Studies on enrichment of environment of cows, especially auditory enrichment through classical and country music, have demonstrated improvement in biological functioning such as health and fitness levels to cope with stressors, reduce frustration and fulfil behavioral needs [81].

The ancient nature and connection of most of the shelters with the three main religions in India (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) proves the religion-driven concept of sheltering cows. The reliance of shelters on private funding or charitable societies or trusts confirms the findings of Bijla and Singh [98]. Almost all shelters audited their funds annually, reflecting their accountability to the donors. This could be why less than half were affiliated with the AWBI, as they were not financially dependent on AWBI to function. However, AWBI is a statutory government body established as a watchdog of animal welfare all over the country and has affiliated shelters. Implementation of this as a mandatory requirement will be important to bring about uniformity in the management of cow shelters up to modern scientific standards of animal welfare, which should be determined by welfare auditing.

This study identified various welfare issues through the survey of shelter managers that can be resolved by managemental initiative and intervention. Indiscriminate breeding, lack of access to pasture and tethering of cows are the welfare issues that demand a comprehensive policy regulation encompassing all shelters in the country. Proper and complete disposal of dung and urine needs attention as due to increasing cow numbers as well as shelters, this poses a public health risk. Feeding of cows by visitors needs routine monitoring. A uniformity in the maintenance of all records in all shelters throughout the country is important. This will help in welfare interventions, support, auditing and feedback for all stakeholders. Mandatory affiliation of all shelters to the AWBI is desirable, given its statutory role as an advisor and watchdog of animal welfare in the country. Evidence of shelters affiliated to AWBI being able to generate more income in this study also justifies the above recommendation. Affiliation to AWBI is mandatory to receive regular funding from the AWBI and helps in convincing the donors (especially the general public) about the proper utilization and accountability of their donations. Cow shelters can become educational centers for animal welfare through their outreach programs. Shelters run by public trusts were more vigilant towards biosecurity measures than those run by charitable societies. This suggests value in further strengthening of public trusts in cow shelter management, and that ensuring better compliance to biosecurity protocols in shelters runs by charitable societies would be a worthwhile aim. Shelter management need to understand that vaccines entail a huge financial cost to the government, as they are provided free of cost to the shelters along with logistic support by government veterinarians and support staff. This, if accounted into financial terms is a strong support from government to the shelters, which is unfortunately not recognized by many shelter managers. The issue of euthanizing very sick cows and those suffering with contagious diseases needs careful deliberation with the stakeholders, taking into account the strong religious reservations to it. Animal welfare scientists, policy makers and public representatives need to deliberate on the humaneness of euthanasia in such exceptional cases.

You may include your spouse and children who are physically present in the United States as dependents on your affirmative or defensive asylum application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your application. To include your child as a dependent on your application, the child must be under 21 years old and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page.

For more information regarding employment authorization and applicant-caused delays, see The 180-Day Asylum EAD Clock Notice (PDF, 394.42 KB). If we approve your application for employment authorization based on your pending asylum application, your EAD will be valid for up to 5 years. 2351a5e196