Author: Erica Heffner

54% of Koreans in their 20s who ate dog meat, did so reluctantly under pressure from fathers and senior work colleagues

Humane Society International

Jean Chung/For HSI

SEOUL, South Korea—More than half of South Koreans in their 20s who have consumed dog meat in the past year, felt social pressure to do so from influential seniors such as their father or senior colleagues at work, a new survey finds. While the majority of respondents in this age group did not consume dog meat, of those who did, 54% reported that they ate dog meat under pressure, rising to 57.4% in urban areas. Despite this, the survey found that nationwide refusal to eat dog meat is very high, with 87.5% of people saying they have never eaten it or will not do so in future and 56% supporting a ban.

Animal protection group Humane Society International/Korea which commissioned market research experts Nielson Korea to conduct the survey of 1,500 people from urban and rural areas, says young Koreans instinctively feel that eating dogs is wrong and they should feel empowered to say no in social situations. HSI/Korea says that pressure to eat dog meat from family or work seniors, means that more people—particularly in urban areas—are eating dog meat than actually want to, and the percentage of dog meat eaters would be considerably lower if more people felt free to exercise their individual choice.

Sangkyung Lee, Humane Society International/ Korea’s dog meat campaign manager, said: “Although it is clear that the vast majority of South Koreans don’t and won’t eat dog meat, it is nonetheless concerning that so many young Koreans feel pressured to eat it even though they don’t want to. The data shows that people in their 20s are more supportive of a dog meat ban than other age groups, and are more concerned about animal suffering and the lack of hygiene. Despite those concerns, more than half of respondents in this age group who did eat dog meat in the past year, say they felt pressured to do so. Pressuring people to eat dog meat needs to become socially unacceptable, and young Koreans like myself need to feel empowered to say no and stick to our principles. It’s ironic that while an individual’s right to choose is the top reason put forward by those who oppose a dog meat ban, our survey suggests that if social pressure were removed, even more people would exercise that choice by not eating dog meat at all.”

The main findings of the survey are that:

  • 87.5% nationwide say they have not or will not consume dog meat in the future.
  • 53.6% of Koreans in their 20s who ate dog meat in the past year, did so despite not wanting to.
  • 29.2% nationwide were first introduced to dog meat by their father and 22% by their office senior.
  • 63.7% nationwide say they are concerned about the welfare of dogs raised for meat.
  • 53.1% nationwide believe dog meat is not safe and hygienic to consume.
  • 56% nationwide support a dog meat ban.
  • 64.1% of respondents nationwide who oppose a dog meat ban do so because they believe it should be an individual’s choice.

Earlier this month (Oct 7) at the National Assembly, Democratic Party Assembly member Jeoung-ae Han expressed her frustration that the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety isn’t doing enough to tackle the illegal and unhygienic dog meat industry. Han said: “According to the Food Sanitation Act, dog meat is not considered food therefore it is clear that dog meat trade is illegal. The current law states that the Ministry can crack down on dog slaughter, and dog meat processing, distribution and cooking because it is illegal. However, the Ministry does not do its work.” She went on to say, “it is threatening people’s health to turn a blind eye to unhygienically processed dog meat.”

A government taskforce was announced in November last year and established in December, to evaluate options for a dog meat ban. Despite surveys showing that the majority of Koreans would support a ban, the task force has twice delayed publishing its conclusions and has now been silent since June this year. HSI/Korea says the time for delay is over and urges President Yoon to help South Korea end the dog meat era forever.

JungAh Chae, executive director of HSI/Korea says: “The taskforce was originally set up because it was recognized that the time is right to ban dog meat. However, almost a year later, the taskforce has still not advanced any recommendations for how to implement a dog meat ban despite that outcome clearly being favoured by most Koreans. President Yoon is a dog owner himself, including of a rescued Jindo, a breed we typically find suffering on dog meat farms. We urge him to help make all Jindos just as lucky by ending South Korea’s dog meat era once and for all. By doing so we would join with others across Asia such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand in consigning dog meat to the history books.”

Since 2015, HSI/Korea’s Models for Change program has helped dog farmers in South Korea transition to new, more humane and profitable livelihoods such as chili plant and parsley growing or water truck delivery. HSI/Korea has permanently closed 17 dog meat farms and rescued more than 2,500 dogs who find adoptive homes in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, with a small number rehomed in South Korea.

Download photos and video of an HSI/Korea dog meat farm rescue.

ENDS

Media contact: Wendy Higgins, director of international media: whiggins@hsi.org

Notes: The survey of 1,500 people from urban and rural areas was conducted online in August 2022 with a margin of error of +-2.53%.

“Country delegates are justifiably angry and frustrated by the disruptive and disrespectful behaviour of pro-whaling nations at this IWC.” - Humane Society International

Humane Society International / Europe

Minke whale
Alamy 

POROTOŽ, Slovenia—On the final day of the International Whaling Commission meeting in Slovenia, pro-conservation countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, India and Mexico united in calling for an urgent review of voting rules to prevent pro-whaling countries holding votes to ransom with their non-attendance, thereby breaking the quorum required for votes to take place.

At yesterday’s meeting, Antigua and Barbuda, Cambodia, Iceland, Kiribati, Laos, Morocco and St. Lucia amongst others, failed to be present in the room to prevent a vote on the creation of a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary. Negotiations earlier in the week had suggested that a sufficient number of countries had intended to vote in favour of the sanctuary had it gone ahead. A summary of country views expressed today can be found below.

Rebecca Regnery, senior director for wildlife at Humane Society International, said from the meeting: “Country delegates are justifiably angry and frustrated by the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of pro-whaling nations at this IWC. The world’s only international whale protection organisation is being held ransom by a handful of countries that merely need to step outside of the room in order to stand in the way of progress. Clearly a shake-up of IWC rules is needed. The need to protect whales is far too urgent for these kind of games. Delegates from Latin American countries, including Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay that proposed the sanctuary are palpably furious here at IWC at the use of such undemocratic tactics and vow to continue fighting for the whales. Although the sanctuary was not approved, we remain hopeful because efforts to undermine the ban on commercial whaling were unsuccessful and a resolution to address the issue of plastics in the oceans was adopted by consensus.”

The Buenos Aires Group countries from Latin America called for the IWC to take a firmer stance to stop what is “an offense to our countries.” They said the IWC was “being held hostage with its hands tied,” and that “kicking the can down the road is what pro-whaling countries do every time they disagree with something they don’t want.” The Buenos Aires Group noted that the proposal most likely would have been adopted if country delegates had not left the room and stressed that it remains committed to the conservation of whales and the marine environment and pursuit of a sanctuary to protect whales in the South Atlantic Ocean.

Australia expressed its deep disappointment and said that events “directly undermined the good faith governance of the IWC” and that the “poor behaviour” was exploiting the uncertainty in the Rules of Procedure. Australia called on the IWC to ensure that this undermining cannot happen again, and to agree a new ROP on this as an order of first business at the next IWC in Peru in 2024 to ensure that proper governance can be maintained. In addition to Australia, support for the Sanctuary proposal was also expressed on the floor by India and the United Kingdom amongst others.

In spite of multiple attempts—some blatant and some subtle—to undermine the moratorium on commercial whaling, it remained intact at the end of this meeting. The adoption by consensus of the Marine Plastics Resolution to provide IWC support for international negotiations on a global plastics treaty, and the endorsement of the whale welfare tool to assess the condition of whales who are stranded or otherwise suffering, are further proof that the IWC continues to focus on conservation of whales rather than returning to its whaling roots.

HSI’s whale experts at the IWC meeting are available for interviews.

ENDS

Media contact: Wendy Higgins, Director of International Media: whiggins@hsi.org

Frasers Group—including House of Fraser, FLANNELS and Sports Direct—announces commitment to stop purchasing fur

Humane Society International / United Kingdom

Jillian Cooper/iStock.com 

LONDON­—Frasers Group, owner of House of Fraser department stores, as well as luxury retail chain Flannels and retail brands including Sports Direct, has announced it has immediately informed its suppliers it will stop purchasing fur products, a move that will take effect on shop shelves this coming season (Autumn/Winter 2023). The commitment was announced by Frasers Group Chief Executive Michael Murray at the company’s annual general meeting on 19 October, and follows discussions with animal protection organisation Humane Society International/UK.

Announcing what it describes as its “long-term commitment” away from fur, the Group will work with HSI/UK to phase out as soon as possible its existing inventory of garments containing fur. It also pledged further updates on progress towards a date from which consumers can be assured Frasers Group’s stores will be free of fur. Frasers Group has over 1,500 stores globally, including fashion retailers such as FLANNELS, House of Fraser, Sports Direct, Cruise and 18 Montrose.

Humane Society International/UK, which worked with Frasers Group bosses to announce the policy, attended the meeting to hear the announcement to shareholders. Claire Bass, HSI/UK’s executive director, said: “We are pleased to have been able to work alongside Frasers Group and applaud it for taking the important decision to stop purchasing fur. By making this commitment to a fur-free future, Frasers Group are showing that it is a company in tune with the vast majority of the British public who believe that animals should not suffer in the name of fashion. Frasers Group’s decision is another critical milestone in the fur-free revolution underway in the UK, and brings us another big step closer to a Fur Free Britain. We look forward to continuing to work with the company to set an end date for its inventory phase out period, to enable consumers to be confident of when Frasers Group will be fully fur-free.” 

Frasers Group is the latest in a long line of luxury retailers and international designers that have turned their backs on fur in recent years, including Farfetch, Net-a-Porter, Canada Goose, Burberry, Chanel, Gucci and Prada. The announcement signifies the accelerating decline of the fur trade and adds further pressure to the few remaining fashion brands that continue to sell fur to follow suit.

Answering a question put by Bass at the meeting, Murray commented: “Frasers Group is committed to a future without fur. The Group’s intention is to stop purchasing fur products from its partners starting with orders for the coming season. The business will be issuing letters to all of its suppliers requesting no fur products are supplied to the Group.”

Group Board Chair David Daly thanked HSI/UK at the meeting for its support in helping the company reach this decision.

Humane Society International/UK works to end the fur trade globally and leads the #FurFreeBritain campaign for a UK fur imports and sales ban. National opinion polling carried out in April 2022 revealed that 77% of Britons think the government should ban the import of products, such as fur, where production methods are banned in the UK. More than one million signatures have so far been amassed for the #FurFreeBritain petition calling on the UK to ban the sale of cruel animal fur.

Fur facts:

  • More than 100 million animals are killed for their fur every year worldwide. The vast majority (around 95%) spend their entire lives confined in small, barren cages unable to act out their most basic behaviours such as running, digging and, in the case of mink, swimming.
  • Fur farming has been banned in the UK since 2003, however almost £1 billion of fur has been imported into the country since then, from countries including China, Finland and Poland.
  • The UK was the first country in the world to ban fur farming and 18 other European countries have now followed suit, including Ireland, France, Italy and most recently in September 2022, Latvia.

Reference in this article to any specific commercial product or service, or the use of any brand, trade, firm or corporation name is for the information of the public only, and does not constitute or imply endorsement by HSI/UK or any of its affiliates of the product or service, or its producer or provider, and should not be construed or relied upon, under any circumstances, by implication or otherwise, as investment advice.  Links and access by hypertext to other websites is provided as a convenience only and does not indicate or imply any endorsement with respect to any of the content on such website nor any of the views expressed thereon.

ENDS

Media contact: Sally Ivens: sivens@hsi.org

Sofitel Saigon Plaza, part of an international hotel chain, goes 100% cage-free

Humane Society International / Global

Chicken with chicks
volody10/iStockphoto

Update: As of May 2021, Sofitel Saigon Plaza has published that it no longer buys eggs from caged hens.

HO CHI MINH CITY, Viet Nam—Humane Society International, a global animal welfare organization, congratulates Sofitel Saigon Plaza—one of Accor’s international hotel brands—for their efforts to reach a 100% cage-free egg supply chain.

The milestone comes after Accor committed to completely eliminating eggs that come from caged hens from its supply chain in some markets by 2020, and in remaining markets by 2024.

HSI began working with Accor to establish this timeline in 2016 and began discussions with Sofitel Saigon Plaza during the COVID-19 pandemic when all of Ho Chi Minh City was in lockdown. Despite the challenges of business shutdowns, HSI and Sofitel Saigon Plaza developed an action plan for implementing the cage-free egg commitment. The hotel started working with a Humane Farm Animal Care certified supplier in Ho Chi Minh City, followed by a site-visit to a cage-free farm and processing plant, which provided hotel representatives with a firsthand look at how seamless a change to higher welfare for egg laying hens could be.

During the farm visit, Mario Mendis, Sofitel Saigon Plaza general manager, was able to see how these social and intelligent animals behave when given room to walk and spread their wings in cage-free environment.

Mendis said: “It was eye-opening to see the hens have more freedom to move. They are able to walk around and reach comfortable nests for egg laying. This is something that our group cares deeply about, and that Accor’s Planet 21 initiative on healthy and sustainable food, and animal welfare, is designed to achieve”.

In contrast, cage systems confine hens in tiny spaces, where each individual lives her life in a space equal to an A4-sized sheet of paper. Hens in these systems cannot move freely or fully spread their wings.

Hang Le, Southeast Asia manager for Humane Society International’s farm animal welfare and protection program, said: “Sofitel Saigon Plaza’s leadership sets an important precedent for other companies in Viet Nam and Asia, many of whom have made public commitments to go cage-free but have yet to make significant progress. Ensuring better treatment of the animals involved is a shared responsibility of consumers, corporations and producers alike, and we encourage more companies to follow this example”.

“Confining hens to cages is cruel, and that is why we made a plan to change our purchasing to suppliers that have implemented animal welfare measures. To meet the challenge of a slight increase in cost, we are supporting producers through long-term contracts as well as removing unnecessary packaging.  Critical to this is ensuring that our guests know why we have made the change: because we care about animals. We believe our guests and society will recognize our efforts because it is the right thing to do. We encourage other hotels and food industry entities to follow our path”, Mendis added.

HSI’s work to improve the welfare of animals in agriculture is both science based and collaborative.  The organization works with companies, farmers, processors, scientists and certifiers to support a transition to cage-free housing systems, and offers a wide range of support to companies like Sofitel Saigon Plaza, including farm visits, consumer education, and corporate roundtables and workshops.

As one of these efforts, HSI and the National Agriculture Extension Center of Viet Nam are hosting an event at the Sofitel Saigon Plaza to recognize companies and producers who are implementing higher animal welfare on Nov. 30, 2022. This is the first event of its kind in the country where media are welcome to join. To register, please reach out to An Tran, HSI farm animal welfare manager for Viet Nam, at antc@hsi.org.

ENDS

Reference in this article to any specific commercial product or service, or the use of any brand, trade, firm or corporation name is for the information of the public only, and does not constitute or imply endorsement by HSI in Viet Nam or any of its affiliates of the product or service, or its producer or provider, and should not be construed or relied upon, under any circumstances, by implication or otherwise, as investment advice. Links and access by hypertext to other websites is provided as a convenience only and does not indicate or imply any endorsement with respect to any of the content on such website nor any of the views expressed thereon.

Humane Society International / Europe

Cecil the lion
Brent Stapelkamp Cecil the lion.

BRUSSELS—Marking the sixth anniversary of the killing of Cecil the lion by an American trophy hunter, animal and nature protection NGOs, members of the European Parliament, and conservation experts from South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya are calling on the EU to ban the import of hunting trophies. In a webinar, Humane Society International/Europe discussed a new analysis of trade data revealing that the European Union is the world’s second biggest hunting trophy importer after the United States, importing nearly 15,000 hunting trophies of 73 internationally protected species between 2014 and 2018.

The issue of trophy hunting has become increasingly controversial over the past decade not simply for the animal cruelty, but also due to concerns about the biodiversity crisis. Momentum is growing to take action to curb hunting trophy imports. France banned the import of lion trophies in 2015 and the Netherlands banned trophy imports of over 200 species in 2016. In Germany two political parties (Greens and Left) have included a trophy import ban in their party manifestos.

The webinar, held in collaboration with the European Parliament’s interest group MEPs for Wildlife, Humane Society International/Europe, Born Free Foundation, Eurogroup for Animals and Pro Wildlife, explored how trophy hunting places unsustainable pressure on endangered and other imperiled species, and whether this practice really does make a significant contribution to wildlife conservation as claimed by its proponents.

German MEP Manuela Ripa (Greens/EFA), who hosted the event, said:

“It is crucial that Members of the European Parliament address the issue of the killing of wild animals, endangered or otherwise, purely for the purpose of procuring trophies to hang on their walls. Especially in the wake of the EU Biodiversity Strategy it is important to consider the impact that European citizens travelling to far-flung destinations solely to shoot and bring home animal body parts may be having on wild animal populations elsewhere around the world. Instead of having tightly regulated trophy hunting, I pledge for tightly regulated ‘photo hunting, which  would have a bigger benefit for species, support ecosystems and the communities involved. I strongly urge the European Commission to address the issue of trophy hunting in its upcoming evaluation of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking.”

Dr Joanna Swabe, Humane Society International/Europe’s senior director of public affairs, noted:

“The shocking role of European citizens in global trophy hunting should not be underestimated. Humane Society International’s new EU Trophy Hunting by the Numbers report reveals that shockingly the EU imported nearly 15,000 hunting trophies from 73 species between 2014 and 2018, despite them being protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It is shameful that the EU is the world’s second largest importer of hunting trophies, bringing in almost 3,000 trophies every year, including African lions and elephants, black rhinos, leopards, zebra, cheetahs, lynx and polar bears. Germany, Spain and Denmark account for 52% of all imported trophies, and the trade data shows that trophy import numbers have actually steadily increased by almost 40% during the period studied despite opinion polls showing that the vast majority of EU citizens oppose the gratuitous practice of killing wild animals for pleasure, display and bragging rights.  The only way we should be shooting wild and endangered animals is with cameras, not guns or arrows.”

Dr Mark Jones, head of policy for the Born Free Foundation, added:

“Born Free is ethically opposed to the hunting or killing of any animal for sport or pleasure. We also challenge the claims made by proponents of trophy hunting that it delivers significant conservation and community benefits, or that it positively contributes to the sustainable use of wildlife. Studies have consistently shown that trophy hunting does not provide a significant source of income to rural people, and certainly pales in comparison to other wildlife-related activities such as ecotourism. The killing of animals by trophy hunters also causes immeasurable animal suffering, and negatively impacts wildlife conservation by removing individual animals that are key to their populations. The trophy hunting industry is wracked by corruption, with excessive quotas being set that are often exceeded. We urge European nations to take action to stop their citizens jetting off to exotic locations to kill and imperil wild animals elsewhere in the world.”

Reineke Hameleers, CEO at Eurogroup for Animals, said:

“The trophy hunting practice of primarily removing the largest and most physically impressive animal specimens, puts species conservation in jeopardy, disrupts social herd structures and weakens gene pools of species that are already threatened. In a time of global biodiversity crisis, it is urgent for the EU and Member States to acknowledge that it is irresponsible to allow rich elites to shoot endangered species for pure pleasure, and finally ban the import of hunting trophies. We need to move away from the unethical consumption of wildlife and look at how the EU can instead encourage and reward investment in wildlife so that concrete and significant benefits can be achieved by local communities through its non-consumptive and ecologically sustainable use. Wild animals should be worth more to these communities alive than dead.”

Daniela Freyer, co-founder of Pro Wildlife, added:

“Germany has the dubious honour of being the top importing nation for hunting trophies in the European Union. It is sickening that a very small minority of my fellow German citizens still enjoy travelling to faraway places to kill animals for fun, pose with their dead bodies for tasteless selfies and hang their body parts on the walls back home. Trophy hunting is not only cruel and unnecessary, but it also poses a significant risk to wildlife conservation and biodiversity. The majority of EU citizens, including Germans, are opposed to the unethical practice of killing wild animals for trophies. It is time for Germany and other EU Member States to act and prohibit the import of hunting trophies.”

Facts

  • Trophy Hunting: Conservation Tool, or a Threat to Wildlife? was organised by MEPs for Wildlife in collaboration with Humane Society International/Europe, Pro Wildlife, Born Free Foundation and Eurogroup for Animals on 30th June 2021 with the participation of the following speakers and panelists:
  • Dr Audrey Delsink, wildlife director, Humane Society International/Africa
  • Paula Kahumbu, wildlife conservationist and CEO, WildlifeDirect; Rolex National Geographic Explorer of the Year
  • Lenin Tinashe Chisaira, environment lawyer and director, Advocates4Earth, Zimbabwe
  • Miet van Looy, International Relations Officer – CITES and EU Wildlife Trade Regulations,DG Environment, European Commission
  • Dr David Scallan – secretary general, European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE)
  • Opinion poll results demonstrate that the vast majority of EU citizens (over 80%) oppose trophy hunting and want to end trophy imports.
  • HSI/Europe’s Trophy Hunting by the Numbers report reveals that Germany, Spain, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, France, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are the top trophy importing EU Member States, with Namibia, South Africa, Canada, Russia, Argentina, Kyrgyzstan and the US representing the top exporting countries to the EU. Spain, Poland, Hungary, Germany and the Czech Republic are the top importers of captive lion trophies. EU trophy import statistics for individual animals (2014-2018), include:
    • 3,119 Hartmann’s mountain zebra.
    • 1,751 Chacma baboon.
    • 1,415 American black bear.
    • 1,056 brown bear.
    • 952 African elephant.
    • 889 African lion (of which 660 were captive-bred lions in South Africa).
    • 839 African leopard.
    • 794 hippopotamus.
    • 480 caracal.
    • 415 red lechwe.
    • 297 cheetah – the EU is the largest importer of cheetah trophies in the world.
    • 65 polar bears
    • Six critically endangered black rhinos.

Watch a recording of the webinar.

ENDS

Media Contact: Wendy Higgins: whiggins@hsi.org

Chinese police intercept 1,408 pet and stray dogs and cats in appalling conditions

Humane Society International / Global

Yidu Center/ CAWA

BEIJING—Chinese animal activists have released shocking footage of dead and dying dogs and cats on a truck crammed with 1,408 animals being trafficked for the meat trade in China. Three hundred and seventy dogs and cats perished on board, or shortly after removal from, what activists are calling the “death truck” which was stopped by police on the highway headed for slaughterhouses and markets in Yulin, in south China. The footage was released to global animal protection group Humane Society International which campaigns across Asia to end the dog and cat meat trades.

The truck was intercepted in Xian Tao city in central China’s Hubei province, half way along its intended 1,200km journey from Fucheng in the north to Yulin in the south. Rescuers from local animal groups converged at the scene, joined by Beijing-based dog meat campaign specialists from Capital Animal Welfare Association who were able to carefully unload the traumatised animals. Alongside the lifeless bodies of dead dogs and cats, they found animals suffering with open wounds, broken bones, respiratory disease and severe dehydration. The activists administered what emergency treatment they could on the roadside, temporarily transporting the dogs to a nearby school and the cats to a holding facility before local shelters could rally to collect them.

CAWA’s Hao Da-yue attended the scene and estimates that most of the 718 dogs were likely stolen pets, and the 690 cats were probably snatched from the streets. The surviving animals are now being cared for by staff at local shelters who are administering life-saving treatment. They fear that the animals have endured such an ordeal, more may yet succumb to their injuries and sickness. HSI is providing emergency funds to help some of the shelters caring for the animals.

Hao Da-yue said: “I’ve attended many rescues of dogs and cats from the meat trade, but never before have I encountered such a shocking scene. This was a death truck, crammed full with desperate, frightened, traumatized animals caged up with their dead and dying companions. The smell of death, diarrhoea and vomit was overwhelming, and the sound of the animals whimpering and crying for our attention, was just heartbreaking. I saw a number of dogs and cats die on the roadside despite desperate attempts to help them, there was nothing that could be done but hold them as they passed away. Activists worked with tears in their eyes, many clearly shocked by what they were witnessing. The world needs to see how these poor dogs and cats suffer for China’s meat trade. Such appalling cruelty brings shame on China and shame on the majority of Chinese people who want nothing to do with this despicable trade.”

Although China has no animal protection laws with which to prosecute the traders for cruelty, Chinese health and safety regulations do present an opportunity. The two truck drivers have been detained by police and reported to Xian Tao officials, and the trader who contracted them and accumulated the animals now faces investigation by the Agriculture Bureau and could face charges for transporting sick animals across provincial boundaries without legally-required quarantine papers.

Dr. Peter Li, Humane Society International’s China policy specialist, said: “I want to pay tribute to the dedication and bravery of Chinese animal activists who work so hard to help animals caught up in the dog and cat meat trades. Having been to dog and cat slaughterhouses and meat markets myself, I know first-hand how traumatising it is to see this scale of animal abuse, and yet they are committed to exposing this cruelty in the hope of ending the trade for good. It is a tragedy that so many of these poor animals died on this truck, and the suffering they all endured at the hands of the meat traders is unimaginable. Most people in China don’t support this trade and it doesn’t reflect modern Chinese society, but without robust animal protection laws in place, we will continue to see this terrible cruelty.”

​Facts:

  1. The truck was intercepted by police on 1st October 2022.
  2. Most people in China don’t eat dogs and cats. In fact they are only eaten infrequently by a small percentage of the Chinese population. Even so, it is estimated that as many as four million cats a year could be killed for the meat trade.
  3. In 2020, two major cities in mainland China–Shenzhen and Zhuhai–banned the consumption of dog and cat meat, a decision polling of 378 million people in mainland China by news site com shows is supported by nearly 75% of Chinese citizens.
  4. In addition to Shenzhen and Zhuhai in mainland China, across Asia the trade in and slaughter, sale and consumption of dogs is banned or otherwise ended in Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Siem Reap in Cambodia, and 19 jurisdictions across Indonesia. In South Korea a government-initiated task force is currently considering the issue of a ban. President Yoon Suk-yeol has stated he would not oppose a dog meat ban provided there is social consensus, and first lady Kim Keon-hee has spoken publicly of her desire for an end to dog meat consumption.

Download Photos/Videos

ENDS

Media contact: Wendy Higgins, Humane Society International director of international media: whiggins@hsi.org

This World Animal Day, give the gift of an amendment of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to India, organizations urge as they continue to demand #NoMore50 for animal cruelty

Humane Society International / India

Darren Mower/iStock

NEW DELHI—On World Animal Day, Humane Society International/India and People for Animals have jointly launched a multi-state billboard campaign as they continue to demand an amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Started in 2016, the #NoMore50 campaign seeks an amendment of this outdated law to better address animal cruelty and abuse in the country.

“A community is best able to protect itself when it is able to protect the animals who are a part of it. Research has established the link between violence against animals and violence against humans. A holistic approach to a safer society, for women, for children, includes an effective law protecting animals against cruelty. Through these billboards, we continue to urge the Government of India to table the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2022 bill in the upcoming winter session of the Parliament,” says Alokparna Sengupta, managing director, HSI/India.

The billboards, which are placed in Delhi (Patel Chowk and Lodhi Road), Mumbai (Nariman Point) and Hyderabad (Kavadiguda and Khairatabad), carry well-shot images of indie dogs, elephants and cats with witty pop-culture references.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was enacted in 1960 to replace colonial-era legislation and sought to prevent the infliction of pain and suffering on animals. However, the law has not been updated in the last 62 years and is inadequate to address animal welfare concerns in the present day.

Currently, the maximum penalty for even the most heinous form of animal abuse—including poisoning stray dogs, brutally beating them to death or burning them alive—is a petty Rs.50.

“The highest courts of the country, the Law Commission, several eminent jurists have all recommended an amendment to the PCA Act,” says Gauri Maulekhi, trustee, People for Animals. “This much-needed amendment will help our police to take effective action and enable the judiciary to deliver justice,” she adds.

Campaigners deliver petition names to Downing Street, as Labour and Liberal Democrat spokespeople write to Defra Secretary in support of a fur import ban

Humane Society International / Europe

Alice Russell

LONDON—A week after a senior Conservative MP told Politico that the government intends to drop plans to ban cruel fur and foie gras, campaigners from animal NGOs Humane Society International/UK,  FOUR PAWS UK, and PETA have gathered outside Downing Street to hand in a petition with over 300,000 signatures. Launched earlier this year by TV conservationist Chris Packham, the petition was today handed in to Prime Minister Liz Truss calling on her to end the “obscene double-standard” that allows these products of cruelty to be imported and sold in UK shops. The petition is also delivered just days after wildlife and conservation groups including the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds accused Liz Truss of “an attack on nature” for weakening environmental rules.  
 
Fur farming has been banned on ethical grounds across the UK since the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act came into force in 2003, and force feeding of geese and ducks to produce pâté de foie gras is similarly illegal. However, the UK currently permits trade in both fur and foie gras. Since the fur farming ban took effect, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs records indicate that almost one billion pounds worth of cruel fur has been imported from countries including China, Italy, Finland and Poland. The petition urges Liz Truss to “send a global message that we will not trade in such disgusting cruelty.” 
 
In May 2021 the government launched a Call for Evidence on the UK fur trade, with the stated intention of using the findings to inform possible future action. The consultation had received almost 30,000 responses when it closed in June 2021. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has completed its analysis of the results but despite Ministers publicly confirming these findings would be released, it has still failed to do so more than a year later. 
 
In parallel with the petition hand-in, Shadow Animal Welfare Minister Ruth Jones MP and Liberal Democrat Environment Spokesperson Tim Farron MP have sent letters to Defra Secretary of State Ranil Jayawardena, each stating their party’s support for a fur import and sales ban and urging the government to release the findings of the Call for Evidence.

Ruth Jones MP said: “It was a Labour government that banned fur farming in 2000, blazing a trail that now 18 other countries have followed. Untold millions of animals have been spared lives of misery thanks to these bans. The next logical step is for the UK to lead the way on a fur import ban, closing UK borders to the cruel and dangerous fur trade. Government policy should be based on evidence, so surely it should be a simple job for the results of the Call for Evidence to be released and an informed policy position to be taken. Drip-feeding unevidenced U-turns to the press is a dismal way to run the government.”

Tim Farron MP said: “We are a nation of animal lovers, and how we treat animals is a measure of our humanity. The Liberal Democrats stand firm on animal welfare issues and are proud to support calls to end the UK’s complicity in the cruel global fur trade by banning the import and sale of fur.”

Each year more than 100 million animals suffer and die for their fur, the majority (around 95%) spending their entire lives trapped in barren wire cages measuring just one metre square. Injuries and disease are common on fur farms, as are animals displaying signs of psychological distress.

Chris Packham said: “There is no place in modern Britain for fur or foie gras, both of which are products of appalling cruelty. We don’t allow the freedom of choice to import elephant ivory, or whale meat, or seal, dog or cat fur, because all these things are unutterably immoral. So too is causing animals enormous pain and suffering for frivolous fur and foie gras.”

Claire Bass, executive director of Humane Society International/UK, said: “Almost 80% of British people agree that fur should not be imported and sold here, and given fur’s plummeting popularity with designers and retailers, it certainly isn’t going to be playing any part in the prime minister’s ambitions for booming economic growth. Moving ahead with a fur ban is an opportunity to reassure people that the government’s trade strategy has a moral compass, in line with voters’ expectations. No government should underestimate how much animals matter to the British people, and ending trade in products so cruel their production is already banned here, is an easy way for Liz Truss to demonstrate she understands that.”

Sonul Badiani-Hamment, FOUR PAWS UK country director, said: “Given Liz Truss’s determination to recklessly backpedal on every commitment made to British voters, we are uniting with Chris Packham and the opposition parties to send a firm message to Downing Street that we will be the thorn in their side until they start delivering for animals. We’re demanding they make public the responses to the 2021 UK fur trade Call for Evidence. But for this government, that seem to have forgotten their electoral mandate and to whom they answer, even a request for a transparent evidence-based approach is too much. Animals Matter to our climate, our health, our economy and to us, the British public, and we will not allow Liz Truss and her cabinet to forget this.”

Elisa Allen, PETA vice president of programmes, said: “The government has long promised to close our borders to cruelly produced foie gras and fur by implementing an import ban on both—legislation that is welcomed by everyone in this country except the inherently selfish. Any backtrack on these promises would betray both animals who desperately need a caring and the public, which has made its opposition to these items clear.”

National polling carried out in April 2022 shows that over three quarters (77%) of British voters think the government should ban the importation of animal products where the production methods are already banned in the UK, such as fur. 
 
The petition hand-in comes as across Europe, more than 70 NGOs have joined together to support the “Fur Free Europe” European Citizens’ Initiative which calls for an EU-wide ban on fur farming and the import of fur products. The ECI petition was launched in May this year and has gathered more than 336,000 signatures to date.  

Download Photos  

ENDS 
 
Notes: Polling was run on the Focaldata platform. Data was collected from a nationally representative sample of 10,018 adults between 11th and 20th April 2022.   
 
Media contact:  Sally Ivens, senior media manager, HSI/UK: sivens@hsi.org 

Animal protection groups release new report urging legal loopholes be closed

Humane Society International / Europe

Errey Images/iStock.com

BRUSSELS/Munich—The European Union continues to be a main hub and destination for stolen wildlife from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania. A new report released today by Pro Wildlife, Humane Society International and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Stolen Wildlife: The EU—a destination for wildlife traffickers, exposes European complicity in this illegal trade. EU citizens are not only involved in the smuggling of nationally protected wildlife, but helping to perpetuate the market for these animals.

While the European Union is one of the biggest importers of animals destined for the exotic pet trade, only a very small fraction of the species in this trade are actually covered by international and/or EU legislation. However, many species in trade, which are protected in non-EU countries under domestic legislation, have nonetheless been caught in the wild and exported in violation of the country of origin’s national law. This is the case with the Philippine sailfin lizard and the glass frog species from Latin America, popular targets in the exotic trade at present.

Dr. Sandra Altherr, Head of Science at Pro Wildlife, says: “In their quest to own unique wild animals, wealthy exotic pet keepers in Europe are driving the global trafficking of rare species. Wildlife smugglers are openly selling illegally acquired animals at European trade shows in the full knowledge that they can get away with it because of the loopholes in the EU legislation. With each rare lizard fetching up to thousands of Euros, big money can be made with virtually no legal risks.”

Ilaria Silvestre, Head of EU Policy & Campaigns at IFAW says: “The Internet is a major channel for directly connecting traders and clients from all over the world. It is the ideal platform for criminal animal traders. The online trafficking of protected species, which is partly fuelled by the promotion of exotic pet ownership and interactions on social media, poses a huge challenge for enforcement authorities. Illegal wildlife trade, both online and in physical markets, is increasingly targeting rare wild species that are not protected by the EU legislation, and this is a contributor to the catastrophic biodiversity loss seen globally.”

Dr. Joanna Swabe, senior director of public affairs for Humane Society International/Europe says: “It is time for the EU to act. Its recent Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 shared many good words about halting global biodiversity loss. Now it must turn those words into concrete deeds. The European Commission will soon deliver its revised Action Plan Against Wildlife Trafficking. This is a golden opportunity  to tackle this form of illegal wildlife trade and to develop supplementary legislation to criminalise the trade in wildlife  taken for the pet trade in violation of other country’s laws.”

Stolen Wildlife: The EU—a destination for wildlife traffickers provides detailed case studies from Cuba, Brazil, Morocco, South Africa and the Philippines, it also provides an overview of attempts made by range states to protect their unique biodiversity, for example, by tabling several proposals for the upcoming CITES Conference of Parties meeting in Panama to restrict the international trade in their endemic species.

The three animal and wildlife protection organisations are calling for EU  action to introduce a law to prohibit the import, sale, purchase and possession of wildlife that has been illegally sourced in its country of origin. This demand has also been repeatedly backed by the European Parliament over the past few years, in several adopted resolutions that urge the European Commission to deliver such legislation.

Download the Full Report

ENDS

Media contacts:

Ricky Gervais, Joanna Lumley and Paul O’Grady support call for commitment to vital animal welfare improvements

Humane Society International / United Kingdom

Lion
Byrdyak/istock

London—In the month of the bicentenary of the UK’s first ever animal protection law—Martin’s Act of 22nd July 1822—some of the UK’s leading animal charities are joined by Larry the Downing Street cat (@Number10Cat) and celebrities including Ricky Gervais, Dame Joanna Lumley and Paul O’Grady to urge Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to pass and strengthen more laws to protect animals from suffering if they become the country’s next Prime Minister.  

In an open letter to the Conservative leadership contenders, the CEOs of the RSPCA, Humane Society International/UK, FOUR PAWS UK and others, ask Truss and Sunak for their public commitment to deliver on the promises the Government made in its 2021 Action Plan for Animal Welfare, only four of which have so far been delivered. Thousands of members of the public have also emailed the leadership candidates over the last few days, calling on them to support animal welfare issues. 

Sunak and Truss have been asked to go public on three specific commitments: 

  • Pass the Kept Animals Bill, delivering on manifesto commitments to end live animal exports for fattening and slaughter; introduce new laws to tackle low welfare puppy imports and pet abduction; and restrict the keeping of primates as pets, amongst other measures—the Kept Animals Bill has not been given Parliamentary time since November last year.
  • Progress legislation to protect the welfare of animals abroad suffering for the UK market, including bans on imports of hunting trophies, fur and foie gras, and the advertising of low welfare tourism activities overseas. These bans were derailed by dissenters in Boris Johnson’s cabinet in recent months. 
  • Strengthen existing legislation to: introduce compulsory cat microchipping; phase out use of cages in farming; prevent inhumane trapping and killing of wildlife (e.g. banning snares and expediting an end to the badger cull); and strengthen and extend the current laws on hunting with dogs. 

The letter welcomes the Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto statement that ‘high standards of animal welfare are one of the hallmarks of a civilised society’ and asks: “Animals need a Prime Minister whose government will give them the legal protections they need and deserve, as sentient beings. Will you pledge such protections as part of your leadership campaign?”

A spokesperson for the group of animal protection NGOs said: “In the year where the sentience of animals has finally been enshrined in law, we must not lose this dedication to better animal welfare in the UK. Animals matter to voters of all political persuasions, including the 72% of Conservative voters who want more and stronger laws to protect animals. Ministers are constantly claiming that the UK is a world leader on animal welfare, so we’re calling on Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss to set out exactly what they’ll deliver to justify that title. Showing compassion and ambition to protect vulnerable animals could tell us a lot about the sort of leader they might be.”

National polling carried out in April 2022 showed that British voters want to see the government follow through on its promise to protect animals, with 72% of respondents—and 71% of those who voted Conservative in the last general election—stating they would like the government to pass more laws designed to improve animal welfare and protect animals from cruelty.* 

Read the open letter and view the full list of signatories.

ENDS

Notes: 

*Polling was run on the Focaldata platform. Data was collected from a nationally representative sample of 10,018 adults between 11th and 20th April 2022. 

Media contact: Sally Ivens: sivens@hsi.org  

Learn More Button Inserter