Raise the bar for dogs, families and communities by fighting harmful breed-specific policies
Humane Society International / Canada
triciamacd/iStockphoto
Across Canada, municipalities and even entire provinces like Ontario ban or restrict dogs because of their breed (or perceived breed).
HSI/Canada opposes such public policies as inhumane and ineffective. There is no evidence that breed-specific laws reduce dog bites or attacks on people, and they divert resources from more effective animal control and public safety initiatives. This is also reflected by the position statement of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association on dangerous dog legislation, which they support, “[p]rovided that it is not discriminatory of a specific breed. This legislation should be directed at fostering the safety and protection of the general public from dogs classified as ‘dangerous’ or ‘vicious.’ The CVMA encourages and supports a community approach to dog bite prevention, including responsible breeding, training, pet selection and pet ownership as well as education on animals in the community.”
Breed-based policies aren’t founded on science or credible data, but on myths and misinformation surrounding different breeds. Their impact on dogs, families and animal shelters, however, is heartbreakingly real.
Learn the truth about breed bans, and help your community become a place where dogs aren’t judged by their looks, but by their behavior.
Bad laws have high costs
Breed bans and restrictions force dogs out of homes and into shelters, taking up kennel space and resources that could be used for animals who are truly homeless. Underfunded animal control agencies bear the burden of enforcing the laws, and are often called on to decide, based on looks alone, whether a dog belongs to a certain breed. Battles erupt between dog owners and local agencies—and often continue to the courts—costing the community resources that could have been spent on effective, breed-neutral dog laws and enforcement.
Science doesn’t support breed bias
Experts have found that no breed is more likely to bite than another. The CVMA, the Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Companion Animal Coalition and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention oppose breed-specific legislation, along with leading animal welfare organizations.
Complicating the issue of breed bans and restrictions is the fact that often pet dogs are mixed breeds. Through canine genetic testing, studies have found that even people in animal-related professions can’t accurately identify the breeds in a mixed-breed dog’s genealogy. Tragically, breed-biased laws have caused the deaths of countless dogs whose only crime was to resemble a certain breed.
Breeds don’t magically disappear
In a 2012 article about the long-standing breed ban in Miami-Dade County, Fla., Kathy Labrada, then head of animal services enforcement, admitted that the ban had been a failure. “No, it has not been effective,” she told The Daily Telegraph. “To target a specific breed I don’t think is logical.”
Many animal shelters are flooded with dogs who, because of breed bans, can’t be adopted to the people in their communities. Shelters in neighboring cities and counties often end up taking in the dogs, creating something like a shell game. Katie Barnett, an animal law attorney in Kansas, remembers when animal control officers showed up at her door several years ago and told her that she had two weeks to get rid of her dog, Katrina. Instead, Barnett and Katrina moved just 10 miles away, to another city in the Kansas City metropolitan area that didn’t ban Staffordshire bull terriers. Her experience, Barnett says, underscores the illogic behind a patchwork of local breed bans: “I can live in one city and by simply crossing the street into another, all of the sudden my dog is labeled dangerous.”
BSL is a dying trend
Fortunately, more people and their elected officials are learning why breed bans don’t make sense, and BSL is on the decline. In the United States, 19 states have passed laws prohibiting BSL on the local level, and nearly 100 municipalities have replaced BSL with breed-neutral policies. Repealing BSL has not resulted in more dog bites in these communities. In fact, after Ohio repealed its statewide breed-based law, State Farm Insurance reported a decrease in dog-related claims in the state.
Humane Society International
For decades, animal welfare advocates have been working to end the testing of makeup and personal care products on animals. See how far we’ve come and how you can help support the Be Cruelty-Free campaign, our global effort to end cosmetics cruelty.
1938: The United States Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act is signed into law, requiring some safety substantiation of cosmetic products compelling companies to begin testing their products on animals.
1944: Draize eye and skin irritancy tests are developed. Considered for decades to be the gold standard for cosmetic safety assessments, these tests cause immense animal suffering.
1980-1999
1980: Advocate Henry Spira wages a successful campaign to get cosmetics company Revlon to stop using the Draize test.
1991: The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods is established to oversee the development and acceptance of alternative test methods that reduce, refine and replace animals.
1996: Animal protection groups band together to form the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics. The coalition manages the Leaping Bunny cruelty-free certification program in the United States and Canada.
1998: The United Kingdom bans animal testing for cosmetic products and ingredients.
2000-2012
2000: Interagency Coordination Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) Authorization Act is signed. This law established a coordinated effort by United States agencies to evaluate and adopt alternative test methods.
2000: California becomes the first state to pass a law requiring companies to use alternatives validated by ICCVAM.
2004: The European Union passes a law phasing out the production and sale of animal tested cosmetics.
2004: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) approves non-animal alternative tests for dermal absorption, dermal corrosivity, and dermal phototoxicity.
2005: The Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (JaCVAM) is established.
2006: OECD approves another non-animal alternative test for dermal corrosivity.
2007: Israel bans the use of animals to test cosmetics.
2007: New Jersey passes a law requiring companies to use alternatives validated by ICCVAM.
2008: New York passes a law requiring companies to use alternatives validated by ICCVAM.
2009: OECD approves non-animal alternative tests for ocular toxicity.
2010: OECD approves a non-animal alternative test for dermal irritation.
2011: The EU ban on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients and sale of cosmetic products and ingredients newly tested on animals goes into effect for all but a few test areas.
2010: Israel passes a law to phase out the sale of animal tested cosmetics.
2012: OECD approves another alternative for ocular toxicity.
2013
January: Israel implements a prohibition on the sale of all cosmetics that have been newly tested on animals.
March: The full EU ban on the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics takes effect.
March: Norway bans cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics.
2014
January: São Paulo, Brazil, bans cosmetic animal testing.
March: The Humane Cosmetics Act, legislation to prohibit cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics, is introduced in the U.S.
March:The End Cruel Cosmetics bill to end the production and sale of newly animal tested cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients is introduced in the Australian Senate.
May: India bans cosmetic animal testing.
June: China implements a rule to remove mandatory animal testing for non-special use cosmetics manufactured within China.
November: India bans the import of newly animal tested cosmetics.
2015
2015: OECD approves additional non-animal alternative tests for eye and skin irritation as well as tests for skin allergy.
March: South Korea introduces legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of some newly animal tested cosmetics where government-recognized, non-animal alternatives exist.
March: New Zealand bans cosmetic animal testing for finished products and ingredients intended exclusively for use in cosmetics.
April: Taiwan introduces legislation to ban cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal tested ingredients.
June: Canada introduces the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act to ban cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal tested ingredients.
June: The Humane Cosmetics Act is reintroduced in the U.S.
July: Turkey bans cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal tested cosmetic products and ingredients where a validated alternative exists, effective January 2016.
September: Brazilian Senator proposes amendments to cosmetics bill to include ban on animal tested ingredients and the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics.
September: Russia introduces bill to phase out the production and sale of animal tested cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients where validated alternatives exist.
December: The Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act is reintroduced in Canada.
December: South Korea passes law to partially ban the manufacture and sale of newly animal tested cosmetic products and ingredients where government-recognized, non-animal alternatives exist.
2016
February: The Ethical Cosmetics Bill to end the production and sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients is introduced in the Australian House.
March: The Swiss government announces it will take measures to ban the sale of cosmetics containing ingredients newly tested on animals.
June: Australia’s federal government announces its commitment to ban the production and sale of animal-tested cosmetics by July, 2017.
July: OECD approves a new alternative test method for skin allergy.
October: Taiwan bans cosmetic animal testing for finished products and ingredients (effective 2019).
December: Switzerland passes an ordinance to ban the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics (effective May 2017).
February: Guatemala becomes first country in the Americas to ban cosmetic animal testing.
Critical reviews and future roadmaps
Humane Society International
Background
BioMed21 is an initiative by Humane Society International and The Humane Society of the United States to support strategic scientific dialogue regarding the potential of extending the U.S. National Research Council vision of 21st century toxicology to the wider field of biosciences.
One dimension of BioMed21 is a grant program to support the preparation of independent, in-depth reviews of research progress in key human disease areas by experts in the relevant fields. Examples of previous funded reviews are available in the fields of autism, autoimmune disorders, cholestatic liver diseases, asthma, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Funding remit
Grants are now being offered for the writing and journal publication of in-depth reviews in eligible human disease areas. Areas ineligible for funding under this call include Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, addiction, obesity, diabetes, motor neuron disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, stroke, asthma, autism, liver cholestasis and autoimmunity, as extensive reviews are already available.
Each review must 1) critically evaluate the state of the science, including mechanistic understanding of the pathophysiological pathways/networks underlying the disease in humans, the human relevance, translational success and limitations associated with available research models, and 2) provide a detailed proposal for optimizing the use of modern, human biology-based tools and approaches (in vitro, in silico, bioengineering, etc.) into the research paradigm to potentially improve translational success in future.
Reviews must be accepted for publication in a high-impact, peer-reviewed journal.
What is available?
Successful applicants will receive a stipend based on market equivalence, up to a maximum of 5,000 GBP, conditional upon signing an Independent Contractor/Consultant Agreement with HSI/HSUS.
In addition to publication of the review, applicants will be required to participate in at least one conference/workshop, to be agreed on with HSI/HSUS. The aim of this follow-up event will be to facilitate open discussion of animal models and further disseminate this research.
Who can apply?
Eligible individuals may currently be employed in the academic, private or public sectors anywhere in the world, or may have recently retired from such a position.
Applicants will hold a PhD (or equivalent) degree and be able to demonstrate extensive, relevant research experience that is pertinent to the disease area they propose to review.
How to apply
Applicants are required to complete an application form, which should be saved with the name of the applicant and the disease topic; e.g., Smith_lungcancer.docx.
A brief CV of no more than two pages for each applicant is also required, detailing scientific qualifications, doctoral degree, current post, recent research (including the disease models and techniques you are familiar with), and expertise and experience relevant to this project. Cite up to 10 recent, relevant publications (may include original research, reviews, or challenge or opinion pieces). List recent presentations made at scientific conferences or workshops. PDFs of up to four recent publications in the field of the disease that you wish to review should be included in the full application.
Successful publication of the review is a requirement of this funding; therefore, applicants are required to identify up to three candidate peer-reviewed journals of suitable impact and remit for their proposal.
Whom to contact
Applications and queries over eligibility or disease focus should be directed to Dr Lindsay Marshall.
Key dates
Application process opens
1 June 2016
Deadline for online applications
10 August 2016 (midnight EDT)
Notification of successful candidates
15 August 2016
Draft review submitted to HSI
1 December 2016
Final review submitted to HSI
By mid January 2017
Publication of reviews
By mid 2017
Participation in a specific workshop
By end of 2018
Publicaion of workshop proceedings
By end of 2018
Other dissemination activities as mutually agreed
By end of 2018
Choose compassion, good health and sustainability!
Humane Society International
Across the globe, millions of people are giving their bodies a boost, helping to spare animals from the misery of confinement in factory farms, and contributing to a more sustainable future by making compassionate choices each time they eat. By reducing or replacing consumption of animal products, they’re helping to create a healthier and more humane world. Will you join the EatKind movement?
EatKind is supported by one of Britain’s best-loved actors, Martin Freeman, who says:
“When it comes to solving huge issues like climate change and animal suffering, it’s easy to feel helpless as an individual. EatKind empowers us all to realise that by making simple changes to what we put on our plates, we can help animals, protect the planet and benefit our own health—whilst enjoying delicious and nutritious food at the same time.” The problems are serious…
In the UK alone, approximately one billion land animals are raised for food every year. Each one of these animals is an individual with his or her own personality, the capacity to feel pleasure, and most importantly, the capacity to suffer. Untold billions of aquatic animals are also caught in the wild or farmed in intensive conditions. Livestock production is a lead contributor to man-made greenhouse gas emissions, water shortages and other serious global problems, and high levels of meat consumption have been linked to heart disease and some types of cancer.
… but the solution is simple.
Whether you’re ready to give up animal products completely or want to ease into it gently, by choosing to EatKind, you can make a difference at every meal. EatKind will inspire you to experiment with a world of interesting ingredients, tantalising flavours and cuisine from around the world. With the myriad of tasty, healthy dishes that have vegetables, grains nuts and pulses as their focus instead of meat, eggs and dairy, and an ever-growing range of convincing meat and dairy alternatives available, there’s no better time to start.
Join the movement, spread the message and choose to EatKind.
Meet the faces behind factory farming: Read stories of rescued farm animals—examples of those we help when cutting back on animal products.
Humane Society International
In a sign that the humane economy is an unyielding force, exerting its influence on companies in all sectors of commerce, SeaWorld announced in cooperation with The HSUS today that it will end all breeding of its orcas and it won’t obtain additional orcas from other sources—policies sought by animal advocates for many decades.
The company also announced, after negotiations with The HSUS, that it would phase out its theatrical orca shows in favor of orca exhibits that highlight the whales’ natural behaviors, and have no orcas at all in any new parks around the world – the remaining orcas will be the last generation housed at SeaWorld. The company has also agreed to redouble its efforts to conduct rescue and rehabilitation for a wide variety of marine creatures in distress; join The HSUS in our advocacy campaigns against commercial whaling, sealing, shark finning, and other cruelties; and revamp food policies at all of its parks for 20 million visitors.
It’s a momentous announcement, and it comes almost exactly a year after Ringling Bros. agreed to phase out its elephant acts in traveling circuses. SeaWorld has pledged to invest at least $50 million over the next five years for the rescue and rehabilitation of marine animals and on advocacy campaigns—a major boost to our movement in helping marine animals in crisis.
In my forthcoming book, The Humane Economy: How Innovators and Enlightened Consumers Are Transforming the Lives of Animals, I wrote about SeaWorld in a chapter on the use of animals in film and television, in the circus, and in marine parks. I noted the revolutionary changes in the film industry where more and more producers and directors are embracing computer-generated imagery as an alternative to using live animals, and I recounted the decades-long campaign to bring pressure to bear on Ringling Bros. to end its elephant acts. In my discussion of SeaWorld, I forecast that its business model would have to change – that there was an inevitability to the shift in its operations due to consumer demand.
Little did I know when I turned in my manuscript in December that I’d soon be meeting with the new CEO of SeaWorld and launching discussions with him about the future direction of the company. And little did I expect that our two organizations would together make a landmark announcement before the book made it into bookstores.
The humane economy can move at lightning speed, and hit with full force. The world is waking up to the needs of all animals, and the smartest CEOs don’t resist the change. They hitch a ride on it and harness the momentum.
Joel Manby, SeaWorld’s CEO, is banking on the premise that the American public will come to SeaWorld’s parks in larger numbers if he joins our cause instead of resisting it, and if SeaWorld is a change agent for the good of animals. He’s exactly right, and I give him tremendous credit for his foresight.
As I wrote in The Humane Economy, the film “Blackfish” proved to be extraordinary in the annals of documentary filmmaking. It is exceedingly rare for an advocacy film to get a long run, and even rarer for it to get tens of millions of viewers, as “Blackfish” did, thanks to serial rebroadcasting by CNN. Director Gabriela Cowperthwaite changed the dynamics of this debate overnight with her potent film, following closely on the heels of David Kirby’s Death at SeaWorld, featuring my former colleague and orca scientist Naomi Rose. That book offered a hard-hitting critique of the history and operations of the company.
During my discussions with Manby, I was clear that the agreement we forged should deal with all animals—not just orcas. That’s why this announcement not only promises more help for manatees, sea lions, and other marine creatures in distress, but it also connects consumers to these issues through their diets. Starting soon, all SeaWorld food offerings will be cage-free for eggs and gestation-crate-free for pork, all seafood will be more sustainably sourced, and there will be more vegetarian and vegan options.
While the remaining captive orcas will live out their lives at SeaWorld, the company is phasing out theatrical performances at its three parks in San Diego, San Antonio, and Orlando, and spectators will instead see orca enrichment and exercise activities. In a nutshell, this is essentially an end to orca shows, with no orca breeding, no orcas at any new parks, and, during the transition period, a better environment for the remaining whales.
SeaWorld and The HSUS still have some disagreements. But we’ve found an important set of issues to agree upon. The sunsetting of orcas in captivity is a game changer for our movement, one that’s been a long time coming, and one that is only possible because of your advocacy and participation. I am immensely excited about this announcement and I hope you are, too. Donate now to help marine and other animals.
Humane Society International / Global
HSI is fighting the cruel dog and cat meat trade in countries across Asia. Here’s how we’re working to achieve change.
Ending the dog and cat meat trade is a complex challenge that demands an in-depth understanding of local contexts and a multi-layered strategy. In South Korea, Viet Nam and India, HSI has team members on the ground advocating for legislative changes and increased protections for animals. In China, we collaborate with our partner Vshine and support local animal protection groups through public education campaigns, advocacy and direct rescues led by local law enforcement. In Indonesia, HSI is a founding member of the Dog Meat Free Indonesia coalition, which spearheads the campaign to end the dog and cat meat trade in that country.
Changing laws
A key goal for HSI is introducing laws that permanently ban the trade. Thanks to advocacy by HSI/Korea and other local groups, we achieved a landmark ruling in 2024 of a ban on the dog meat industry in South Korea which comes into force in 2027.
In Indonesia, as part of the DMFI coalition, HSI works with local law enforcement to stop dog traffickers, close slaughterhouses and encourage local governments to introduce bans. So far, over 50 local bans have been enacted across the country. We are now striving for national legislation to end the trade.
In China, while foreign NGOs cannot lobby the government directly, Chinese animal groups supported by HSI engage with policymakers to crack down on the trade. The hope is that the National People’s Congress will in the future pass animal welfare legislation, reflecting the growing sentiment in China against the dog and cat meat trade.
In Viet Nam, HSI/Viet Nam has partnered with the provincial governments of Dong Nai and Thai Nguyen to the end the dog and cat meat trade in these provinces through our Models for Change program and by enforcing existing laws and regulations to restrict the dog and cat meat trade.
Meanwhile, in India, HSI is focusing on addressing the dog meat trade in Northeast India, where the trade continues to be prevalent. HSI’s exposé of the cruel trade in Nagaland revealed the smuggling of over 30,000 street dogs and stolen pets annually for slaughter for the dog meat trade.
While the dog and cat meat trade still exists in several countries in Asia it is important to note that most people in Asia do not consume dog or cat meat, neither do they see this practice as part of their culture, with local opposition to the trade significantly growing.
Dog and cat meat bans are already in place in Hong Kong, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, and in some cities in mainland China, Cambodia and Indonesia. The goal of ending the dog and cat meat trade across Asia is becoming increasingly achievable and HSI is working tirelessly towards this goal.
DMFI
Rescuing dogs and cats from the meat trade
The dog and cat meat trade across Asia subjects millions of animals to suffering, and while rescue efforts are crucial, they alone cannot end this cruel industry. However, wherever possible, we partner with local organizations to save the lives of animals trapped in the trade.
In South Korea, HSI/Korea has rescued over 2,500 dogs from meat farms and markets. These animals endured horrific conditions, confined to small metal cages, deprived of adequate food, water and medical care, and exposed to harsh weather. HSI works with farmers willing to leave the industry, helping them close their dog meat farms. The dogs on the farms that we’ve closed have been flown to the United States, Canada, the U.K. and the Netherlands, where they have found adoptive homes through our shelter and rescue partners. A small number of dogs have been adopted in South Korea. Many of our rescue dogs become ambassadors, raising awareness of the cruelty they’ve faced and the need to end the dog and cat meat trade.
HSI/Jean Chung
Our Models for Change program, active in South Korea and Viet Nam, supports dog and cat meat trade workers in transitioning to humane livelihoods such as vegetable farming or, if elderly, retiring from work. By closing dog and cat meat businesses, we not only rescue animals but also break the cycle of suffering, preventing further animals from being reared and slaughtered in the future. In addition to saving lives, this approach demonstrates to governments that ending the trade is a feasible and humane solution.
HSI
Stopping the dog traffickers
In Indonesia, more than one million dogs are illegally stolen, trafficked, slaughtered and sold for human consumption every year. Without a nationwide ban, the relevant laws and regulations that can be applied have weak penalties, and enforcement is rare, which enables the traders to continue to operate. DMFI campaigners work with law enforcement agencies as well as local and regional officials to introduce local bans and help the authorities crack down on the trade. As a direct result of this strategy, we’ve worked with police to intercept trucks smuggling dogs, and we have seen the country’s first ever convictions for dog traffickers. Likewise, our partner in China Vshine works with law enforcement agencies to stop the trucks and has achieved convictions for dog traffickers while rescuing dogs and cats from the meat trade.
Yoma Times Suryadi/AP Images for HSI
Exposing the cruelty
Our work shining a spotlight on the suffering endured by dogs and cats for the meat trade is a powerful tool in changing hearts and minds. In South Korea, our strategy of inviting media to attend our dog farm rescues and witness the conditions first-hand has shone a much-needed spotlight on the cruelty involved in the industry. Showing the grim reality of the industry to the public and politicians played a key part in creating momentum for the nationwide ban passed in 2024. Likewise, in Indonesia our DMFI investigations have exposed the appalling cruelty endured by these animals, including those at markets where they are routinely bludgeoned and blow torched in front of each other. Our investigations result in national and international media headlines, which, in turn, support our campaign work on the ground and increase momentum for change.
Dog Meat Free Indonesia
Public awareness campaigning
Most people across Asia do not consume dog or cat meat, and growing awareness about the cruelty involved is fueling support to end the trade. In countries like South Korea, China and Indonesia, public interest in dog and cat meat consumption is already very low or rapidly declining, especially among younger generations who increasingly view dogs and cats as companions and not food.
KARA
Working with partner organizations such as KARA in South Korea and DMFI in Indonesia, HSI is involved in peaceful public demonstrations advocating for the protection of dogs and cats from the meat trade. These efforts are bolstered by impactful nationwide PR campaigns that raise awareness and encourage change. Community outreach is also central to our strategy, as we emphasize the unique bond between humans and dogs and cats, fostering a stronger public demand to bring an end to this cruel practice.
Dog Meat Free Indonesia
A promise to keep fighting
HSI’s promise to these animals and our advocates is that we will not rest until the dog and cat meat trade ends. Join us in our fight to stop this and other cruelty. .
Humane Society International
Volodymyr Burdiak/Alamy
How is trophy hunting different from other types of hunting?
The most common form of hunting in the world is subsistence hunting (hunting for food). Trophy hunting—also referred to as “sport hunting” under many laws—however, is a niche form of hunting motivated by entertainment and bragging rights. The primary objective for trophy hunters is to kill animals for their bodies or body parts for display as trophies to showcase the hunter’s virility, dominance, and hunting prowess. Hunting trophies can take many forms, such as full body taxidermy, wall-mounted heads, animal skins as rugs, feet as trashcans, skulls as coffee tables, and teeth, claws, tails and genitalia as trinkets, jewelry and souvenirs.
Trophy hunting occurs both domestically and internationally with a large, global trophy hunting industry motivating international trade in trophies of threatened and endangered animals. It is common for trophy hunters to kill animals to compete for prizes and awards and to have their kills memorialized in “record books” kept by trophy hunting industry organizations, demonstrating that a core motivation behind trophy hunting is competition. Read more: “Trophy Madness Report: Elite Hunters, Animal Trophies and Safari Club International’s Hunting Awards.”
What kinds of animals are trophy hunted and where?
Hundreds of mammal species are trophy hunted, from the small (pigeons, racoons, squirrels and monkeys) to the large (lions, bears, elephants, giraffe and moose) and so many others in between. The most coveted internationally regulated species include: the American black bear, chacma baboon, Hartmann’s mountain zebra, gray wolf, red lechwe, vervet monkey, black buck, brown bear, and the “African Big Five”: lion, African elephant, leopard, rhino (southern white rhino and black rhino), and African buffalo.
Between 2018 and 2022, almost 63,000 CITES-listed* mammal trophies were exported around the world between over 75 countries — an average of more than 12,500 every year. This is only a fraction of the total number of animals killed for trophies since this number only refers to mammal trophies traded internationally under CITES* and does not include animals killed for trophies that do not cross international borders.
For Americans and Europeans (the top importers in the world), Canada and South Africa are top destinations for trophy hunting, along with Namibia, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Tanzania, Mexico, Zambia, Russia, the U.S. and elsewhere.
Why should the public be concerned about trophy hunting?
Trophy hunting is an inherently cruel form of entertainment that has serious implications for animal welfare, the recovery and protection of imperiled species, and the environment.
Animal welfare
Killing animals for entertainment and to display their dead bodies and body parts for photos and bragging rights is unacceptable. Trophy hunters willfully ignore animal welfare as they prioritize bullet placement over quick or clean kills to protect the look of their trophy, use bait to lure wildlife out of protected areas and dogs to chase animals to exhaustion, and commonly let animals bleed to death instead of taking additional shots to end the animal’s suffering.
The trophy hunting industry celebrates and incentivizes the killing of animals with novelty weapons that are more likely to prolong suffering before death such as bows and arrows, muzzle loaders and handguns by offering them as prizes, promotions and record book categories for competitions.
Many instances of horrific, lengthy suffering after being wounded have been documented, with the most famous example being a Zimbabwe lion known as Cecil who in 2015 was wounded and suffered for about 10 hours before being tracked and finally killed. More recently in 2023, an elephant was wounded in South Africa by a trophy hunter, escaped to a protected area, and was then chased back into a hunting area by a helicopter, suffering through approximately 8 gunshot wounds before finally being killed. These are just two high-profile instances; suffering such as these more publicized instances happen time and again with trophy hunting in many countries.
Impacts to conservation and species survival
Animal deaths from trophy hunting have a very different impact on conservation and species’ welfare than natural deaths because trophy hunters typically target healthy, reproductive-age animals. Targeted removal of these animals can skew the age and sex structure of the population and result in unnatural selection pressure on physical, behavioral and life history traits. Killing these animals can also result in the loss of genetic diversity that is critical for survival.
Trophy hunting also has negative impacts on other animals beyond just the animals who are shot. For example, the oldest animals in social groups are important leaders due to their social and ecological knowledge. These animals are also typically the largest, making them targets for trophy hunters.
Removing territorial males can result in additional deaths through disruption of the social structure. For example, when a dominant male lion is killed, the females and cubs in his territory are vulnerable to a pride takeover from another male, in which case the new male will kill the cubs of the previous lion (called infanticide). As dominant males are removed by trophy hunting, these territory turnovers become more frequent, rates of infanticide increase, and the social structure becomes less stable.
Some of the species most targeted by trophy hunters, such as elephants and hippos, are considered “ecosystem engineers,” meaning that these animals serve key roles in shaping, maintaining and creating healthy habitats for themselves and countless other animals. Targeted removals of these animals—such as through trophy hunting—have the potential for staggering, cascading, detrimental impacts to not only the targeted species’ survival, but to the other animals and humans that rely on those ecosystems.
Trophy hunting can also increase human-wildlife conflict by causing social instability and altering behavioral patterns. Targeted killing of reproductive-aged males often leads to social disruption, where young, inexperienced animals’ aggression is left unchecked when the older animals are killed, such as with African elephants. Further, scientists hypothesize that when governments allow liberalized killing, this de-values those species in the eyes of the public which can result in lower tolerance and increased poaching.
The trophy hunting industry has secured key exemptions in national and international laws that allow them to circumvent important trade restrictions meant to protect species from over-exploitation and continues to seek new ways of preserving this industry at the expense of animals world-wide. It is vital that the public learn the facts around trophy hunting and raise their voices against it.
Trophy hunting is a dying industry of the past. It has provided very little benefits so far, and those benefits will continue to diminish. It is not a sustainable, long-term option for the future of wildlife conservation. Therefore, we must invest in alternatives that provide greater support for conservation and more equitable outcomes for communities. Learn more.
Do different countries have different laws concerning trophy hunting?
Yes. Laws governing trophy hunting and the trade in hunting trophies vary between countries and can vary between levels of restrictions on hunting and the transport, export and/or import of the trophy.
For example, the following countries prohibit trophy hunting to a significant degree: Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, India, Kenya, Malawi, Singapore and South Sudan. The following countries have some level of restrictions on trophy hunting or trade: Argentina; Australia; Belgium; British Columbia, Canada; Finland; France; Netherlands and the United States.
What is canned hunting and why is it a problem?
Canned hunting, or captive hunting, is a type of trophy hunting where animals are bred and reared in captivity for a myriad of commercial purposes and then hunted for trophies in enclosed areas. This occurs most prominently in South Africa with lions, but captive hunting operations also have a significant presence in the United States—mostly in Texas—where breeders import exotic animals for breeding and canned hunting. In South Africa, government reports estimate that there may be as many as 7,800 lions in captive facilities. According to a recent report by HSI, over half of the African lion trophies imported into the U.S. between 2014 and 2018 were from captive-bred lions.
Canned hunting is often coupled with other forms of exploitation in the captive breeding industry, such as popular tourist attractions like “lion walks” and “cub petting” as well as the lion bone trade. Learn more about lion exploitation.
Canned hunting distinctly violates notions of “fair chase” prevalent in other types of hunting, with many mainstream hunters in South Africa, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere condemning the practice as unethical.
After lengthy campaigning by HSI and partners, in 2016 the U.S. stopped authorizing import permits for hunting trophies from captive bred lions as such imports are not justified under conservation benefit requirements. In 2021, the Cabinet of South Africa (its most senior executive branch in the government) endorsed a Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment report calling for an end to lion farming, captive lion hunting, cub-petting, and the trade in captive lion parts.
What is HSI doing to stop trophy hunting?
HSI is working with an international network of experts, advocates and partners to lead the charge within the largest importing and exporting countries to restrict the trade in hunting trophies from highly coveted or at-risk species, such as those listed under CITES Appendices I and II. HSI also works with countries on the international stage to strengthen international trade protections and to close loopholes that exempt hunting trophies from important trade restrictions.
You can help by contacting your political representatives to call for trade bans on hunting trophies from species listed under CITES Appendices I and II, which are currently threatened, or may become threatened, by international trade.
3. HSI works together with other organizations to seek greater protection under the Endangered Species Act for animals sought by trophy hunters, thus helping ensure that the U.S. is not contributing to the decline of iconic species by limiting or prohibiting trophy imports.
4. HSI and The Humane Society of the United States are working with U.S. state legislatures to institute measures to stop import, export and transportation of hunting trophies.
Donate and take action to help stop trophy hunting and other wildlife abuse.
5. Many trophies travel to the U.S. on passenger and cargo airlines. Thanks in part to our efforts, thus far 45 airlines have banned trophy imports of the Africa Big Five — African lions, elephants, rhinos, leopards, and Cape buffalo. We will continue this work to ensure other airlines and shipping companies make the right decision. You can help: Take Action
6. You may be surprised to learn that some companies that make your favorite products are also corporate sponsors of trophy hunting, through their support for the Safari Club International or television programs promoting trophy hunting. HSI is appealing to these companies to end their association with this gruesome hobby.
7. International bilateral and multilateral agencies, like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and The World Bank, have in the past and continue today to sponsor programs that support trophy hunting. HSI engages with these agencies to show them that trophy hunting can be detrimental to species survival and that funding is better allocated toward effective long-term economic development solutions like ecotourism.
Humane Society International
The few who remain should not become trophies. Bob Koons
Some of the animals that trophy hunters covet and what HSI is doing to stop trophy hunting:
Elephants
African elephants are experiencing an unprecedented poaching crisis and their numbers are dwindling. American trophy hunters imported the parts of an estimated 5,774 elephants over the past 10 years, thus contributing to the decimation of the species. HSI has promoted greater protection for African elephants from American trophy hunters through a petition to list the species as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and by advocating tighter regulations governing elephant trophy imports.
Donate and take action to help stop trophy hunting and other wildlife abuse.
Lions
The African lion population has declined by 60 percent since 1993 and there are fewer than 30,000 lions left today. Most of the hunters that kill African lions are American and in the past 10 years, parts of approximately 5,647 lions were imported to the U.S. as trophies. This is why we petitioned the U.S. government to list the African lion under the Endangered Species Act to significantly restrict the import of lion trophies to the United States. Read HSUS and HSI comments on proposed African lion threatened listing.
Rhinos
There are only an estimated 20,170 white rhinos and only approximately 4,880 black rhinos left in the wild. Both species are hunted and imported as trophies into the U.S. The black rhino is one of two of the only species listed as endangered under U.S. law for which trophy imports have been allowed (the other is Bontebok). HSI fights to keep these imports out by appealing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to not issue import permits. Read HSUS and HSI comments on the Black Rhinoceros Trophy Import Permit Applications.
Leopards
Leopards in sub-Saharan Africa have declined by more than 30 percent in the last 25 years, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUNC), and have lost between 21 and 99 percent of their historic range. The continued survival of this elusive and majestic cat is endangered by staggering land conversion for agricultural purposes, habitat fragmentation, loss of prey species targeted for bushmeat, retaliatory killings due to conflict with livestock ranchers, poaching, unsustainable trophy hunting, and other threats. In November 2016 and in response to our legal petition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that all leopards may qualify for “endangered” status under the Endangered Species Act. This could close a loophole in place since 1982, whereby hundreds of leopard trophies have been imported per year into the U.S. (311 just in 2014) without proper government scrutiny.
Giraffes
Giraffes face mounting threats from habitat loss, being hunted for their meat, and the international trade in bone carvings and trophies, Africa’s giraffe population has plunged almost 40 percent in the past 30 years and now stands at just over 97,000 individuals. The situation is desperate and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recently identified giraffes as “vulnerable.” The United States plays a major role in the giraffe trade, importing more than 21,400 bone carving, 3,000 skin pieces and 3,700 hunting trophies between 2006 and 2015. Yet giraffes have no protection under U.S. law. In April of 2017, we petitioned for an “endangered” status for giraffes under the U.S Endangered Species Act.
Bonteboks
The bontebok is an antelope species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and the population is estimated around 3,500. Bonteboks, like many lions, are hunted in canned hunting facilities. The bontebok, like black rhino, is one of only two endangered species for which trophy imports have been allowed. We have consistently appealed to FWS to not issue import permits.
Humane Society International
Repina-Valeriya/Shutterstock
Species factsheets
Learn more about key trophy-hunted species: African elephants, leopards, lions, giraffes, black rhinos, European brown bears and grey wolves.
Trophy Hunting by the Numbers report series
Trophy Hunting by the Numbers: The United States’ Role in Global Trophy Hunting
This report reveals that American hunters imported more than 72,600 hunting trophies from CITES-listed mammals from across the world between 2014 and 2018. Most of these imports to the U.S. came from Canada and South Africa, while other top exporters include Namibia, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Tanzania, Mexico, Zambia, Russia and Tajikistan. The most common wild-sourced species imported into the U.S. over the period were American black bear, chacma baboon, Hartmann’s mountain zebra, gray wolf and leopard.
Trophy Hunting by the Numbers: The European Union’s role in global trophy hunting
The EU is the world’s second-largest importer of mammal trophies, second only to the U.S. Between 2014 and 2018, the EU imported nearly 15,000 hunting trophies of 73 internationally protected species. Over those five years, the number of trophies coming into the EU increased by 40%, despite opinion polls indicating that the vast majority of EU citizens surveyed are against trophy hunting.
Trophy Hunting by the Numbers: South Africa
This study provides details on South Africa’s role in the international trade in hunting trophies of mammal species listed under the CITES during the most recent five-year period for which data were available at time of publication (2014-2018). South Africa exported more trophies over the period than any other African country based on importer reported data, with the African lion being the most commonly exported species.
Films
“Blood Lions”®
This award-winning documentary feature film exposes the misleading claims made by the lion breeding and canned hunting industries. “Blood Lions”® follows acclaimed environmental journalist and safari operator Ian Michler, and American hunter, Rick Swazey, on their journey to uncover the realities of the multi-million dollar predator breeding and canned lion hunting industries in South Africa. See: bloodlions.org/the-film
“Lions, Bones & Bullets”
This award-winning investigative documentary follows the wildlife trafficking trail from South Africa to Laos and Viet Nam uncovering elaborate, international wildlife fraud worth nearly $100 million annually in South Africa’s controversial commercial captive lion industry. See: waterbear.com/watch/lions-bones-bullets
“Trophy hunting: an unnecessary evil”
People with a vested interest in trophy hunting use several arguments to defend it, including that it is a ‘necessary evil for conservation and development’. HSI/UK put these arguments to African conservation experts and community leaders. This is their testimony.
Reports
The Lion’s Share: On the Economic Benefits of Trophy Hunting
This report debunks inflated claims that trophy hunting is a critical contributor to African economies and jobs. It also proves that the non-hunting tourism industry has a much brighter future in Africa.
Trophy Madness Report: Elite Hunters, Animal Trophies and Safari Club International’s Hunting Awards
This report reveals that a hunting membership group, Safari Club International, promotes the senseless slaughter of wildlife for sport by offering its members the opportunity to compete to win nearly 50 awards for killing elephants, lions, rhinos, leopards, bears, ringed-horn antelopes, wild sheep, ibex, moose, and many other animals around the world.
Cecil 2: Trophy Hunting America’s Lion
This report reveals that the top five deadliest states for mountain lions are Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Utah and Arizona. Between 2005 and 2014, trophy hunters killed approximately 29,000 mountain lions in the U.S.; an estimated 2,700 more were killed in other countries and traded internationally over the last decade.
