Author: Kristin Stone

Humane Society International

  • So that they will constantly give milk, dairy cows are artificially impregnated every year. After a nine-month gestation, calves are routinely taken from their mothers days, or sometimes just hours, after being born.
  • Male calves are sold to veal farms at auction and will be slaughtered at about five months old, while females will eventually become dairy cows themselves. These young females will never be nursed by their mothers, however; all of their milk is destined for human consumption.
  • Cows are social and affectionate animals—separating mothers and newborn calves is shown to cause significant stress for both.
  • Due to the size of the Canadian dairy herd, unwanted male calves drive the veal industry. Calves are either raised as “milk-fed veal” or “grain-fed veal.”
  • In 2012, 335,000 male calves were slaughtered for human consumption in Canada.
  • Due in large part to its huge dairy sector, Quebec is subsequently the highest veal-producing province in the country, followed by Ontario. Quebec produces more than 150,000 milk-fed veal calves each year.

Milk-fed veal

  • Normally, calves begin to eat grass and chew their cud at only a few weeks old. To produce a more tender final product, milk-fed veal calves are fed exclusively with powdered milk until they are slaughtered. For the sole aesthetic reason of producing pale-coloured meat, these calves are kept deliberately anemic over the course of their short lives.
  • A Code of Practice for the treatment of veal calves exists in Canada; however, its standards are completely voluntary.
  • Calves raised in intensive confinement are denied the chance to express even their most instinctive behaviours. Restricted to crates barely larger than their own bodies, they are unable to take more than a step forward or back, turn around or lie down comfortably. They have no chance to interact with other animals, exercise, groom themselves, suckle or explore.
  • Canada ranks poorly in its treatment of veal calves compared to other parts of the world. For welfare reasons, the entire European Union banned the use of individual veal crates in 2007. Eight US states have passed similar bans, and in Australia and New Zealand, calves are raised in group housing enclosures.

Senior Marine Scientist

Humane Society International

Mark Peter Simmonds is the Senior Marine Scientist for Humane Society International and a marine biologist and environmental scientist who has spent the better part of his career looking at the factors impacting marine mammals in the modern world.

He is the author/co-author of over 200 scientific papers, reports, articles and reviews, and a number of books, including “Whales and Dolphins: Cognition, Culture, Conservation and Human Impacts” (first published by Earthscan in 2011).

Mark has helped to raise the alarm about the impacts of chemical pollution and marine debris on seals and cetaceans, the growing significance of marine noise and the threat posed by climate change to marine life. He has been employed in the university sector (as a researcher, lecturer and Reader and currently as a visiting research fellow at the University of Bristol) and by Greenpeace International and Whale and Dolphin Conservation (as their International Director of Science for some 17 years).

In the 2013 Birthday Honours of HRH Queen Elizabeth II, he was appointed as an OBE in recognition of his work in marine mammal conservation and environmental sciences.

Humane Society International

  • Great news for whales! Erlend Kvalsvik/istock

We’ve made more progress in our anti-whaling campaign in the last two days than in the prior two decades. Just 48 hours after the International Court of Justice called for a halt to Japan’s whaling program—declaring it in violation of an International Whaling Commission moratorium—Japan has announced that it will not send a whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean this hunting season. For Humane Society International, which incubated the idea of the ICJ challenge 15 years ago, this is cause for glee.

Every year, for more than a century, Japan has been killing whales in the Southern Ocean. Since 1986 when the IWC moratorium went into effect, Japan has killed 10,500 whales in this region alone, using a loophole that allows countries to kill whales for scientific purposes. The majority of countries around the world, including the majority of parties to the IWC, recognize Japan’s actions as commercial whaling very thinly disguised as a scientific enterprise.

Help stop commercial whaling and other wildlife abuse.

More good news came in late last night when Rakuten, the world’s largest Internet seller of whale and dolphin meat products, agreed to stop all sales of products derived from whales by April 30th this year. Rakuten joins Amazon and Google in refusing to sell whale and dolphin products. The only remaining major Internet seller of whale and dolphin products in Japan now is Yahoo. That company should cease sales, too. Send Yahoo! a message.

Much work remains in making the oceans a safe and healthy environment for whales and other marine creatures. Marine debris, toxic pollutants, ship strikes and climate change are just a few of those threats. But when it comes to whaling, there is a sea change afoot. After the ICJ action on Japan, Iceland and Norway—the two remaining commercial whaling nations—would do well to put their harpoon guns in storage. There is no honor in being the last nation to participate in the intentional slaughter of some of the largest mammals ever to grace the planet. Take action and give now to help.

Humane Society International

  • Whales are safer today. John Carlson

It’s rare that animal abuse ends with one blow to the head. Typically, it takes a thousand strikes before the perpetrator—whether it’s an industry, a nation, or an individual—moves on. That’s been the case with all of the major breakthroughs in civil rights, women’s rights, and so many other important causes. Such is the case, too, with the movement to stop the commercial slaughter of the biggest animals, with the biggest brains, who have ever lived on the planet: the many species of whales that swim the world’s oceans.

Today, Japan sustained its biggest strike since the 1982 global moratorium on commercial whaling with a ruling by the International Court of Justice that its current southern ocean whaling activities are in breach of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling.

Support our efforts to stop commercial whaling and other wildlife abuse.

Humane Society International was the incubator of this idea, nearly a decade and a half in coming to fruition. But it found powerful and decisive expression in a 12 to 4 ruling of a court created under the authority of the United Nations.

Specifically, in 1999, HSI hatched an idea to challenge Japan at the International Court of Justice for its so-called scientific whaling programs. Japan has been violating the ban on commercial whaling since it first went into effect in 1986—by using a loophole in the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling that allows countries to kill whales for scientific purposes. The majority of countries around the world including the majority of parties to the IWC—the body that regulates whaling—believe Japan’s science to be nothing more than commercial whaling thinly disguised as a scientific enterprise. Yet the IWC is unable to stop Japan because it lacks the ability to enforce the Convention’s rules.

We needed a new angle, a new point of attack. As our HSI team in 1999 prepared for the 2000IWC meeting in Adelaide, Australia—led by current vice president Kitty Block, they crafted a legal argument laying the foundation to take Japan to the ICJ for its ongoing whaling.

One hurdle was to find a country to bring the legal action. For a variety of reasons, we felt Australia was the right nation; we asked, and the Australian government accepted this important, bold challenge. That nation and our affiliate HSI-Australia, which won a significant legal victory against Japanese whaling companies a few years back, deserve a lot of credit on this historic day.

In the years since HSI’s whale campaigners forged this approach, the IJC case has been ripening, and today’s ruling marks the most important announcement in the trajectory of the anti-whaling movement since the IWC passed the commercial whaling moratorium 1982. It is the strongest third-party rebuke of Japan’s disguised commercial whaling program ever, and it has the force of international law behind it.

But, in the end, this is not a time to focus on which countries won and lost in this legal battle. It’s bigger, much bigger, than that. This is an inflection point in the decades-long battle over whaling, and an opportunity for Japan to join the rest of the worldwide community in valuing live whales over dead ones. There’s much more money to be earned, and more national brand building to be gained, by transitioning entirely to a responsible whale watching approach and leaving the commercial killing behind. Indeed, there is a growing whale watching industry in Japan, and this is the future.

The new, humane economy beckons. The nations of the world, the courts of the UN, and the lion’s share of global citizens want Japan, and other whaling nations, like Norway and Iceland, to join them in protecting whales and recognizing the beauty and majesty and sentience of these remarkable beings. Give now to support our work.

Humane Society International / Global

In response to requests for information on transporting a companion animal between countries, we provide the following information:

Please be aware that costs for transport of a dog or cat can range from USD $150 to $2000 or more, based on accommodation and airline. In addition, some countries have strict quarantine policies.

To do

To learn about quarantine policies, paperwork, vaccinations and other requirements, check with the appropriate agency (typically the Department of Agriculture) in your country.

  • For the United States: Effective August 1, 2024, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will have new requirements controlling the entry or re-entry of all dogs into the United States. requirements for bringing or traveling with dogs into the U.S. go into effect. Visit the CDC website to determine what rules apply to dogs you are bringing into the U.S. Additionally, those traveling with dogs must also comply with USDA-APHIS requirements. If you’re bringing dogs into the United States for commercial sale or adoption, additional requirements will also apply .
  • For Canada
  • For the United Kingdom
  • For Australia

Be sure to visit a local, licensed veterinarian to obtain a health exam along with the needed health certificates and vaccinations for your animal’s air travel and importation. Local veterinarians will also know where kennels can be purchased. Kennels make take some time to acquire, depending on the country. Specifically approved airline travel pet kennels are often required as well.

Contact your airline ahead of time to ensure that it permits the transport of dogs/cats (and reserve a spot) and what requirements are for boarding. Reservations are often needed for your dog/cat’s travel.

Please check with your airline for the details of their specific policies. Keep in mind that there may be partner carriers (not just the airline with which you booked your ticket) and different airlines for different legs of your journey, so make sure you check with each of them. In some cases, there may be breed restrictions.

Things to consider before transporting a dog or cat

HSI hears from many individuals who, on their travels, encounter dogs and cats in poor physical condition, for example, with skin diseases or untreated injuries. Concerned individuals should be mindful that these animals may, in fact,have someone who looks after them. Veterinary services are often not affordable or accessible, and animals continue to reproduce without solution. Those wishing to help an individual animal in need of veterinary care are encouraged to contact a local animal welfare/protection organization (you can search for organizations by location here) or a local veterinarian.

The costs associated with international adoption and bringing a dog or cat out of a country are often cost prohibitive and logistically challenging. HSI recommends that individuals wishing to bring an companion animal into their home do so in their own country, and seek alternative means of helping animals in a foreign country. In many parts of the world, the cost of international transport for one animal could instead be used to provide spay/neuter services for a number of animals and/or offer humane education to help foster a culture of compassion. In the U.S., millions of animals are put down each year for lack of homes. If you live in the U.S., please visit Adopt a Pet and Petfinder to adopt an animal closer to where you live.

HSI has been developing culturally sensitive approaches to manage companion animal populations humanely and effectively, partnering with governments and local organizations so that our programs will be sustainable in the long term. These programs include veterinary training in high-quality, high-volume spay/neuter surgery; mass sterilization; vaccination; and strong public engagement to change human behavior in relation to community and family animals. HSI also partners with veterinarians who understand the need for low-cost services. Our goal is to help as many animals as possible and see that lasting change is made. Please visit our Dog and Cat Welfare page to learn about our approach and programs.

Humane Society International

  • A mink can be problematic in its non-native environment. Heather Fone/THE HSUS

In September 2013, the European Commission adopted a proposal for an EU Regulation on the control and management of ‘invasive alien species’. This legislation has significant implications for animal welfare and could, amongst other things, lead to restrictions on the trade of various exotic pet species.

HSI has been working to ensure that this legislative proposal is significantly improved by the European Parliament and Council.

What are Invasive Alien Species?

Invasive Alien Species are non-native animals or plants that have been introduced to environments where they are not usually found, either accidentally or deliberately. American mink, rose-ringed parakeets and raccoons are prime examples in Europe.

Why are IAS considered to be a problem?

IAS threaten biodiversity of native animals and plants through competing for resources, habitat alteration and degradation, being toxic, acting as a reservoir for parasites or a vector for pathogens, hybridising with related species or varieties, predating on native organisms, or altering local food webs.

Within the EU, damage attributed to IAS is estimated at more than €12 billion each year and it potentially costs many more millions to remove IAS from the environment or reduce their impact.

What are the main routes of introduction?

Some IAS are brought into the EU intentionally (e.g. exotic pets and plants), while others are introduced unintentionally (e.g. as contaminants of goods, as hitchhikers or stowaways in transport vectors or through international travel).

The global ‘exotic’ pet trade is a significant source of IAS. For example, red-eared terrapins have become established in many EU countries as unwanted pets released into the wild, and rose-ringed parakeets, after escaping from captivity.

The fur industry has also been a pathway for various invasive species, such as American mink, raccoon dogs, muskrats and coypu.

HSI’s position in brief

This proposed legislation seeks to identify and prioritise IAS pathways and species and to prevent invasion by non-native species. HSI believes that the most cost-effective way to deal with such species is to prevent them from entering the EU and, if already present, to prevent them from being released or escaping into the environment.

Some of the key issues that HSI is urging the European Parliament and Council to address when considering and amending the Commission’s legislative proposal:

  • If control of invasive species is deemed to be necessary, this should only be as a last resort and only humane methods should be used.
  • The Commission has arbitrarily proposed capping a ‘list of invasive species of Union concern’ at 50 species. We are calling for the list to be open, constantly revised and kept up to date according to the best available science.
  • The list should not just include individual species, but must also reflect groups of species with similar ecological requirements to prevent the exotic pet trade from switching from a listed species to a similar non-listed species.
  • HSI is opposing attempts to introduce derogations such as the exclusion of fur farming, since these would weaken the uniformity and effectiveness of the legislation.
  • In the case of invasive species that have become established in the wild as a result of escaped or deliberately released exotic pets, the exotic pet trade should be responsible for the costs of remedial action.
  • A scientific body to assess which species should be included on any list of Union concerns should include both scientific experts and NGO stakeholders with expertise in animal protection, conservation and welfare.

Global Field Manager

Humane Society International

Cynthia Dent is the Global Field Manager for Humane Society International.

Ms. Dent, who joined HSI in 2004, was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the first initiatives of the office as a program coordinator. Eventually, she became responsible for the development and implementation of a wide range of programs focused on animal welfare.

Recently, Ms. Dent has been working with the Costa Rican government to combat dogfighting and puppy mills.

As part of her regular responsibilities in her former position as Regional Director for HSI/Latin America, Ms. Dent liaised with government representatives in Central American countries in order to improve protection for farm animals, wildlife including marine mammals, and cats and dogs.

Humane Society International

  • An elephant carved out of ivory. Adam Peyman/HSI

  • Ivory to be destroyed. US FWS

Update, May 15, 2014: Hong Kong began incinerating part of its 28-tonne stockpile of seized ivory today, the entirety of which will be destroyed by the end of the year.

Earlier this month, the Chinese government destroyed more than six tons of confiscated ivory held in government stockpiles, signaling the new resolve of the People’s Republic of China to crack down on the illegal ivory trade and to reduce ivory consumption. On January 23, the Hong Kong government’s Endangered Species Advisory Committee (ESAC) of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) decided that it will destroy 28 tons of ivory stockpiles from past seizures—the largest cache of seized ivory to be destroyed to date, anywhere in the world. This action signals that the fight against the ivory trade is global, and it’s finding increasing favor in critical parts of Asia, among consumers and government officials.

Please donate to help stop wildlife abuse.

More than 46,000 supporters of our global affiliate, Humane Society International, responded to our call to support the Hong Kong ivory destruction. HSI president and CEO Dr. Andrew Rowan wrote to the ESAC, laying out reasons in support of the destruction. HSI has met and communicated with AFCD and ESAC as well as collaborated closely with advocates of Hong Kong for Elephants. This campaign, coordinated with the work of local advocates during the past year, helped produce the government’s January 23 decision.

Elephant poaching has reached an unprecedented level. Last year, poachers massacred at least 35,000 African elephants. With less than half a million elephants left in the wild in Africa, if this killing rate persists, African elephants could be extinct in two decades. Poachers poisoned or shot elephants with machine guns, and hacked off the tusks of elephants while the animals were still alive. This slaughter of elephants, for jewelry, trinkets, or statuettes—conducted in many cases by the Janjaweed, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and Al-Shabaab, and other terrorist groups—is unconscionable, and it is robbing African nations of the value that live elephants would bring to these nations in the form of wildlife tourism for decades.

Reducing consumer demand for ivory reduces the incentive for poachers to massacre elephants and for traffickers to engage in illegal ivory trade. Destroying stockpiles of seized ivory, as the recent examples of the U.S. and China have demonstrated, is a great way to raise awareness about the elephant poaching crisis and reminds current and potential buyers to eschew ivory. So many people don’t connect their purchase of ivory with the epidemic of poaching, and we are reminding people that you can draw a straight line from the purchase of this product to the killing of elephants in their native habitats.

HSI will continue our public education programs with local partner groups in China and Hong Kong on elephant protection as well as work in concert with relevant government officials and agencies to implement stronger laws to reduce ivory consumption. Here in the U.S., as the second largest market in the world for ivory, there is work to be done. HSUS and HSI are working with lawmakers in Hawaii and New York to ban the sale of ivory to reduce the U.S. prominent role in the cruel ivory trade. We’re likely to expand that effort to other states, toward the goal of creating no safe haven in any part of the world for this blood trade in ivory. Support our campaign to stop wildlife abuse.

Humane Society International

  • Not a good pet. Martin Harvey/Alamy

Several thousand monkeys and other non-human primates are believed to be in private ownership in the UK.

The most commonly kept species, which include marmosets, tamarins and squirrel monkeys, don’t even need to be registered with the authorities.

The keeping of these primates as pets, along with the associated trade to supply the demand for them, raises serious concerns:

  • Unlike “traditional” companion animals such as dogs and cats, they have not undergone thousands of generations of domestication.
  • The complex needs of these highly intelligent animals cannot be met in a home environment. Primates who are rescued from private ownership—where they are often kept alone, in spite of the highly social nature of most species—invariably show serious problems such as stereotypical behaviours, self-harming, and nutritional disorders.

    • Send a message to the UK government: End the keeping of primates as pets.

  • Strong and unpredictable, they can pose a significant risk to public safety. In the U.S., more than 260 people have been injured by pet primates since 1990.
  • All non-human primates have the potential to carry a range of infectious diseases that can affect people (zoonoses), including Cercopithecine herpesvirus 1, hepatitis, tuberculosis, intestinal pathogens, and a variety of parasites.
  • The collection of some species of primates for the pet trade may also present a threat to their conservation status.

Support for a ban

A number of countries have already banned, restricted or regulated the private keeping of non-human primates, including Denmark, Bulgaria, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, 24 US states, Australia, Israel, Mexico and Honduras.

Many organisations and experts support calls for a ban, including the four Primate Advisory Groups of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in the United States, The Jane Goodall Institute, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Society of Primatologists, the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe and the British Veterinary Association.

“Primates are long-lived, intelligent, socially-complex animals and we can think of no circumstances where they would benefit from being kept as a pet.” British Veterinary Association President, Robin Hargreaves.

“Strong evidence supports the argument that primates are not suitable pets; it is unlikely that the welfare of pet primates can be adequately addressed in normal households” … “[This report] identifies a wide range of concerns about keeping pet primates and concludes that this practice should end.” Soulsbury et al. 2009. The Welfare and Suitability of Primates Kept as Pets. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12

Current UK legislation

Owners of pet primates are required to provide for the health and welfare of their animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. However, the Animal Welfare Act does not provide for any form of registration or inspection of pet primates.

The only licensing and inspection requirement that applies to some privately owned non-human primates comes under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act of 1976, but the most commonly kept species in the UK are not covered by it. Non-compliance by owners and a lack of enforcement are also problematic.

A voluntary Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates introduced in 2010 is too generic, and not legally binding.

Opportunity for change

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is considering whether to recommend a ban on the private keeping of non-human primates. In our submission to the EFRA Committee, HSI/UK called for a ban on the private keeping and the associated trade in these animals.

Public opinion and significant expert and scientific opinion support a ban. A 2013 poll carried out by ICM Research, revealed that 65 percent of British people thought that the keeping of primates as pets in the UK should be illegal, with just 11 percent believing it should remain legal.

HSI/UK is campaigning to protect primates. They belong in the wild, not in our homes. Take action to help.

Humane Society International

  • Rhinos are disappearing. Bob Koons

On January 11, 2014, the Dallas Safari Club auctioned off a permit to hunt a black rhino in Namibia. The winner paid US $350,000. The black rhino is a critically endangered species, facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. About 1,700 black rhinos live in Namibia and fewer than 5,000 exist in the world.

Q: The Dallas Safari Club says the US $350,000 will go to rhino conservation. Is that true?

A: There is no guarantee that the money will be used to conserve black rhinos. It will go to Namibia’s “Game Products Trust Fund,” a general pot of money allocated to all manner of projects—including those that have nothing to do with rhinos, and, in fact, could even be harmful to rhinos, such as “rural development.” The group that decides which projects will be funded is, comprised of diverse interests including community representatives, and Ministries of Agriculture and Finance.

It’s not too late. Urge the U.S. FWS to deny a rhino trophy import permit.

Q: Does killing one male black rhino harm the survival of the species?

A: Yes. The survival of critically endangered species depends on maintaining genetic diversity. The removal of even one rhino will remove that individual’s future genetic contribution to the population, thus reducing genetic diversity. This increases the extinction risk for the species.

Q: But I thought the rhino to be killed is old, no longer fertile, “post-reproductive,” and therefore “surplus.”

A: No, that is not true. Old, sick rhinos are not the ones trophy hunters want to kill; they want to kill a rhino in his prime. And the rhino targeted to be killed, while older, is dominant. Like a lot of mammals, male rhinos fight one another to achieve and maintain dominance. Male rhinos continue to breed throughout their lives until they become too old and sick to maintain their dominance.

Q: The DSC says the rhino to be killed is dangerous to other rhinos, or a “rogue.” Is that true?

A: Black rhinos fight one another to achieve and maintain dominance—it’s a natural behavior that ensures the fittest males will breed, thus enhancing the genetic fitness of the species as a whole and ensuring its continued survival.

Q: What does killing the fittest male mean to the future survival of the species?

A: Nature has created a mechanism to ensure that the most fit male black rhinos rise to dominance and pass their fit genes onto the next generation. If these rhinos are killed and prevented from continuing to pass their fit genes along, the species weakens and becomes more susceptible to extinction.

Q: How much money would a hunter need to contribute to Namibia to offset the killing of a black rhino?

A: No amount of money will offset the death of a member of a critically endangered species in terms of the survival of the species.

Q: Is it true that killing the older male black rhino will allow the black rhino population size to increase?

A: Black rhino populations can be manipulated to improve population growth rates. But this can be achieved without killing any members of the species. Black rhinos should be allowed to maintain their natural behaviors, including the ability of the fittest males to achieve and maintain breeding dominance, as this strengthens the genetic fitness of the species as a whole and ensures its continued survival. To do otherwise is a form of human domestication.

Please take urgent action to help and share on Facebook and Twitter to ask your friends to do the same. Then, please consider donating to help us stop wildlife abuse.

Learn More Button Inserter