Author: Kristin Stone

Many Mexican citizens are not aware that the government uses public funds to subsidize and promote the bullfighting industry. When they learn about this, a strong majority object. A recent poll found that 88 percent do not think it is right for the government to use taxpayer money to aid the bullfighting industry. Eighty-six percent oppose government use of public media to promote bullfighting.

Humane Society International (HSI) campaigns with Mexico City-based organizations Asociación Mexicana por los Derechos de los Animales (AMEDEA) and México Antitaurino to stop government support of bullfighting.

Our organizations speak out against this misguided use of public funds at the federal, state, and local levels. We confront government funding of bullfighting schools, including those that teach children how to bullfight. We oppose government sponsorship of festivals that feature bullfighting. We campaign against the use of public media to promote bullfighting. 

If you are a citizen of Mexico and would like to participate in this campaign, please contact HSI. 
 

“Even if a chemical is found to be nontoxic in animal studies, the safety of the chemical cannot be assured.”

– Dr. Barbara Shane, U.S. National Toxicology Program [1]

“Currently available animal models, used for evaluating potential therapies prior to human clinical trials, have limited predictive value in many disease states.”

– U.S. Food & Drug Administration [2]

“The problem is, we don’t know what the findings [from animal testing] really mean.”

– Dr. Robert Maronpot, U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [3]

“[E]ven if the LD50 could be measured exactly and reproducibly, the knowledge of its precise numerical value would barely be of practical importance, because an extrapolation from experimental animals to humans is hardly possible.”

– Dr. D. Lorke, Bayer AG, Germany [4]

“[R]egulators have chosen animal tests to forecast human cancer risks. To this end, animal data are filtered through a series of preconceived assumptions that are presumed to overcome a host of human/animal differences in biology, exposure and statistics—differences that in reality are insurmountable.”

– Dr. Gio Batta Gori [5]

“In the present state of the art, making quantitative assessments of human risk from animal experiments has little scientific merit.”

– Statisticians Drs. David Freedman and Hans Zeisel [6]

“Animal studies of lead, mercury, and PCB’s each underestimated the levels of exposures that cause effects in human by 100 to 100,000-fold. Regulatory decisions that rely largely on toxicity testing in genetically similar animals under controlled laboratory conditions will continue to fail to reflect threats to the capacities and complexity of the human brain as well as important gene-environment interactions.”

– Physicians for Social Responsibility [7]

“The one or two or three hundred millions of dollars a year that we’re now spending on routine animal tests are almost all worthless from the point of view of standard setting…. [I]t is simply not possible with all the animals in the world to go through new chemicals in the blind way that we have at the present time, and reach credible conclusions about the hazards to human health. We are at an impasse. It is one that has deep scientific roots, and we had better do something about it.”

– Nobel Laureate Dr. Joshua Lederberg [8]

---

¹ Shane BS. Human reproductive hazards. Environmental Science and Technology 30, 1193 (1989).
² FDA [Food & Drug Administration]. Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. Bethesda, MD: FDA (2004).
³ Maronpot R, cited in Brinkley J. Many say lab-animal tests fail to measure human risk. The New York Times, A-1 (23 May 1993).
⁴ Lorke D. A new approach to practical acute toxicity testing. Archives of Toxicology 54, 275-87 (1983).
^{5 Gori GB. The costly illusion of regulating unknowable risks. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 34, 205-12 (2001).
6 Freedman DA & Zeisel H. From mouse-to-man: the quantitative assessment of cancer risks. Statistical Science 3, 3-56 (1988).
7 Physicians for Social Responsibility. In Harms Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development. Boston: PSR (2000).
8 Lederberg J. A challenge for toxicologists. Chemical Engineering News 1, 5 (1981).}

The commercial trade in wild animals is a multi-billion dollar business that threatens the survival of many species and results in the inhumane treatment of billions of animals every year. Humane Society International has long been involved in international efforts to reduce or halt the international trade in wildlife and to ensure that animals that are traded are treated in a humane manner.

What is wildlife trade?

Each year, billions of animals of all types are captured from the wild and sold in the wildlife trade. Commercial uses of wildlife can be divided into the trade in wildlife parts and products and the trade in live wildlife.

The trade in wildlife parts and products includes:

• exotic leathers and fur (elephant skin boots, kangaroo skin soccer balls, cat, fox and coyote fur coats, ostrich skin boots, bird feather apparel, snake and lizard skin shoes, crocodile and alligator shoes and purses, eel skin purses and shark skin shoes),
• ornamental objects (elephant ivory jewelry, sea turtle shell cases, snail shells, matted butterflies),
• food (monkey and ape bushmeat, turtle soup, frog legs, bear paws, fish, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, clams and oysters), and
• traditional medicine (tiger bones, rhinoceros horns, deer antlers, bear gall bladders).

The trade in live wildlife includes:

• the exotic pet trade (birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish),
• biomedical research and teaching (primates, reptiles, amphibians and fish),
• stocking of public or private game farms and hunting ranches (deer, antelope, rhino and wild sheep),
• zoos and safari parks (elephants, giraffes, rhinoceros, large cats, monkeys, birds, reptiles) and
• food (reptiles, amphibians and fish).

There are many wildlife-based industries seeking to attract ever-increasing numbers of human consumers. Modern transportation methods facilitate delivery of wildlife and wildlife products from all corners of the globe to consumer markets. Increasing wealth makes wildlife and wildlife products that were once off-limits to the majority of people because of their high cost affordable. The wealthiest nations on Earth are the largest consumers of wildlife.

What conservation problems are caused by the wildlife trade?

Sadly, as the international wildlife trade has increased and becomes more lucrative, cash-poor, wildlife-rich nations have been unable to control the trade of their wildlife. Forty percent of vertebrate animals that are endangered or threatened with extinction today were brought to that point, in part, by the uncontrollable wildlife trade. Rarely are enough funds available for poor countries to study wildlife populations and to control wildlife extraction and trade to ensure that it is not causing conservation harm to the species.

What are the humane problems caused by the trade?

The trade in wildlife is inherently inhumane. Methods used to capture and kill wild animals whose parts are destined for the trade, particularly when this is done on a large scale, as are many commercial operations, are grossly inhumane. Animals are often poisoned, trapped or snared, or bludgeoned to death. Their parts are often removed even before they are dead.

The trade in live wildlife results in the injury and deaths of a large percentage of those animals captured for the trade. The mortality rates of course vary depending on the type of animal, the country of origin, the capture and transport techniques used, and ultimately, the ability of the species to withstand extreme physical and psychological trauma and adapt to a captive environment.

What can be done?

First of all, consumers should consider the conservation and humane problems caused by the wildlife trade when making purchasing decisions. Furthermore, the capture, transport, killing and trade in wildlife should be regulated by local, national, and international law. Where laws do not exist to protect species from destructive exploitation or where enforcement is not possible, governments should halt capture and trade of wildlife. Wildlife trade should also be halted where cruel capture, transport, and killing techniques cannot be reformed, regulated and enforced by the government.

To maximize the potential to protect wildlife species, in 1992 HSI and other groups launched an international alliance of non-governmental organizations, the Species Survival Network (SSN), which is committed to the promotion, enhancement, and strict enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The SSN coordinates efforts to foster international wildlife protection through CITES.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or the Bonn Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine, and avian migratory species throughout their range. There are now 102 countries that are parties or members of this convention.

The CMS has two levels of species protection. Species listed under Appendix I are migratory species that are at risk of extinction throughout all or a portion of their range. Strict conservation measures for these species are required from countries that are parties to the convention.

Species listed under Appendix II require or would significantly benefit from conservations measures taken by international agreements for their continued survival. A species does not have to be endangered to warrant listing on Appendix II. No direct protection measures are required from member countries for Appendix II species, but they are required to develop regional agreements to further the protection for these species according to guidelines established by the convention.

One of the regional agreements under the auspices of the CMS is the Indian Ocean–South-East Asia Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA MOU). This MOU provides a framework for countries in the region to increase protection for endangered sea turtles. It includes a conservation and management plan for reducing direct (e.g. human consumption) and indirect (e.g., incidental catch by fisheries) causes of sea turtle mortalities.

Read HSI’s Position Statement to the Convention on Migratory Species’ 10th Conference of Parties.

Dolphins and other small cetaceans are a diverse group of species that are found primarily in temperate and tropical seas, and in the case of river dolphins, even in fresh water.  Some hug coastlines; others live far out in the open sea. From the tiny vaquita in Baja California to the massive killer whale or orca (the largest of the dolphins, found in all oceans of the world, including polar seas), “small” cetaceans face an equally diverse set of threats, from entanglement in fishing gear to changes in their habitat, from pollution to live capture for public display, from hunting to new and emerging diseases.
 
HSI seeks to minimize the impacts of human activities that affect small cetaceans, directly and incidentally. From Taiwan to California and from New Zealand to the Black Sea, our campaign focuses on the live trade in dolphins, commercial and subsistence hunts, entanglement in discarded fishing gear, and the ever increasing degradation of habitat, particularly for coastal and riverine species, who must share their space with human development.

Read “A Blueprint for Dolphin and Whale Watching Development” by Erich Hoyt [PDF].

1986 animal experiments directive

Legislation governing the care and use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes was laid down more than 20 years ago under Directive 86/609/EEC. This directive—which is binding in all 27 member states of the European Union—stipulates that “[a]n experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.” Further,“[i]n a choice between experiments, those which use the minimum number of animals, involve animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiological sensitivity, cause the least pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and which are most likely to provide satisfactory results shall be selected.”

However, Directive 86/609 applies only to product-related tests using living, vertebrate animals. As a result, it broadly exempts all forms of “fundamental” scientific research, teaching and training, as well as experiments using non-vertebrate and foetal animals, which collectively consume many hundreds of thousands of animals each year.

The European Commission has been promising for years to revise this legislation to close loopholes, improve the protection and welfare of animals, and to prohibit the most painful experiments. Humane Society International (HSI) has been at the forefront in pressuring the Commission to publish a legislative proposal to set this process in motion. Read our political demands. 

European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes

This Convention contains many of the same provisions as Directive 86/609, but is more elaborate, including specific guidelines outlining minimum standards of animal care and husbandry.

Animal welfare action plan

The Treaty Establishing the European Community [PDF] includes a Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals, which “recognises animals as sentient beings and requires that full regard is paid to their welfare requirements in formulating and implementing the Community’s policies.” This Protocol applies to all areas of animal use, including agriculture, transportation, research and testing. However, given that EU policies in the field of animal welfare are currently fragmented amongst various Directorates General and Agencies, the European Commission has proposed a Community-wide Action Plan for the Welfare and Protection of Animals in order to clearly map out future activities in this area and to ensure a co-ordinated and coherent approach across the Commission.

In the context of animal use in research and testing, a 2006 European Commission working document [PDF] acknowledged the lack of coherence between EU legislation and Community strategies that mandate or sanction animal experiments and the animal protective requirements of Directive 86/609/EEC. The working document commits all divisions of the Commission to the philosophy view that the “final aim is to replace animal experiments with methods not entailing the use of an animal.” In the interim, “[f]urther work will need to be carried out to reinforce a full implementation of the 3Rs in all areas of animal use, ensure coherence between Directive 86/609/EEC and legislation requiring animal experiments, as well as examining in more detail the mutual acceptance of data and mutual recognition agreements as a means of reducing the numbers of animals used in experiments.” To this end, the working document outlines the following five broad areas as priorities for action by the Commission:

1. “Upgrading existing minimal standards for animal protection and welfare.”
2. “Giving a high priority to promoting policy-oriented future research on animal protection and welfare and application to the 3Rs principle.”
3. “Introducing standardized animal welfare indicators.”
4. “Ensuring that animal keepers/handlers as well as the general public are more involved and informed on current standards of animal protection and welfare and fully appreciate their role in promoting animal protection and welfare.”
5. “Continue to support and initiate further international initiatives to raise awareness and create a consensus on animal welfare.”  

The European Union is a confederation of 27 countries that operates according to a supra-national system of governance, under which member countries delegate some of their decision-making powers to a variety of EU institutions, including a Council comprised of member country representatives, an elected Parliament, and the Commission, an independent civil service.

These institutions are empowered to legislate on all matters within the EU’s jurisdiction, and laws passed at EU level have direct effect within the legal systems of member countries, in some cases overriding national laws.

In most cases, legislative proposals are initiated by the European Commission, which submits draft regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions to the Parliament and Council for amendment and approval. The Commission is divided into a number of Directorates General (DGs), each of which is responsible for overseeing different EU regulatory sectors. The following DGs with the greatest influence on animal use in testing and research:

• Enterprise & Industry(responsible for chemicals, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, vaccines)
• Environment(responsible for biocidal products and revision of the EU animal experimentation directive)
• Health & Consumer Protection(responsible for agricultural pesticides, food additives, flavourings, genetically modified foods, and other food safety issues)
• Joint Research Centre(responsible for intramural research, and home to the European Centre for the Validatin of Alternative Methods)
• Research & Technology Development (responsible for EU-wide research policy and extramural funding).

A critical adjunct to the policymaking function of the Commission DGs is the practical implementation of EU law and policy, including the development of guidance concerning acceptable approaches to satisfying information requirements prescribed under EU legislation. In certain regulatory sectors, this implementation function has been delaged to several independent Agencies, including the following:

• European Chemicals Agency
• European Food Safety Authority
• European Medicines Agency

Australia

• Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes

Canada

• CCAC Guidelines
• CCAC Policy Statements

European Union

• EU Regulation of Animal Experiments 
• Council Directive 86/609/EEC Regarding the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes
• European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes
• Guidelines for the Accommodation and Care of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes

New Zealand

• Animal Welfare Act

United Kingdom

• Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986

United States

• Animal Welfare Act
• Health Research Extension Act of 1985
• U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrat Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training
• Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals[PDF]
• National Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

 

Few animals personify the beauty and grandeur of the Canadian wilderness as well as the grizzly bear. Their strength and beauty, their devotion to their young and their intelligent curiosity enrich our lives and inspire us. Sadly, in Canada, there are fewer than 25,000 adult grizzly bears left in the wild. Populations of this species have been lost in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba already due to unrestricted hunting and agricultural practices in the pioneer era. BC grizzlies are now classified as “Special Concern” (or vulnerable) by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Despite this status and the ever increasing degradation and loss of their habitat, Canadian grizzlies continue to face the very real, completely unnecessary and terribly cruel threat of hunting.

Leading cause of death for grizzlies: humans

Most grizzlies die as a result of human activities such as hunting, poaching, accidental killing or nuisance/self-defense killing. Grizzly populations in most areas of Canada are hunted. Licensed hunters kill more than 450 grizzly bears each year, accounting for about 84 percent of documented human-caused mortality. About eight percent of the grizzly bear’s range in Canada is classified as “protected”. But even in some of these “protected” areas, hunting and activities that may degrade their habitat are permitted. While all provinces and territories have restrictions on hunting (closed seasons, limited-entry permits, harvest quotas, banning of bait, banning trade in bear parts and protection for females and cubs) the fact remains that every province and territory the grizzly bears inhabit allows hunting by First Nation, resident and in some cases non-resident hunters.

A cruel death

Wildlife hunts occur in an uncontrolled environment. Animals are targeted from great distances and these animals are moving. The accuracy of the hunter is further affected by environmental conditions. Under these circumstances, humane killing is often impossible. For example, bow hunting (a common method used to hunt grizzlies) injures more animals than it kills. Dozens of scientific studies show that bow hunting yields more than a 50 percent wounding rate. For every animal killed and retrieved by hunters, at least one animal is left wounded to suffer an agonizing death—through either blood loss or infection by parasites and diseases.

A vulnerable species

Female grizzlies give birth to young every two to four years, many of whom die before reaching the breeding age of 6-7 years, making grizzly bears the slowest reproducing land mammal in North America. This means they are slow to recover from population depletion and are very vulnerable to over hunting. According to COSEWIC, grizzly bears are extremely difficult to manage due to this low reproductive potential, their long life-span, and the difficulty inherent in monitoring their populations. They advocate a high degree of caution in the management of grizzly bears.

Why ecotourism?

Latin America contains the world’s two highest concentrations of biodiversity, with well over 700 animal species found nowhere else in the world. With little access to infrastructure and markets, communities often engage in activities that are harmful to these animals and their habitat. Hunting for food, selling animals for the international pet trade, cutting trees for sale or clearing land for agriculture all have devastating effects on wildlife. Ecotourism gives local communities a non-extractive method for capitalizing on their natural resources.

HSI is working with local partners in Latin America to develop community ecotourism programs that highlight local wildlife and culture. When increased income from ecotourism motivates communities to protect wildlife, everyone wins!

HSI’s wildlife ecotourism projects in Latin America

Costa Rica. In Corcovado National Park and the surrounding area, we are working to protect important sea turtle nesting beaches and other critical wildlife habitat. As an alternative to collecting and selling endangered sea turtle eggs , we offer locals the opportunity to take hospitality and English courses for local guides and small business operators so they can capture a larger share of the booming Costa Rican tourism market. We also provide funds for maintenance and administrative costs for Corcovado’s turtle hatchery program.

Dominican Republic. Just a stone’s throw away from the generic mega resorts that dot the Southeastern coast, we work with the community of Bayahibe to protect its resident dolphin population.  We assist in the development of responsible dolphin watching tourism, and the cultivation of an authentic and enjoyable tourism experience. In addition to generation of guidelines, providing guide courses, and scientific research on the local dolphins, we are helping to create a community map to be distributed to tourists, as well as signposts for routes and trails around the town.  We also provide funding for trail maintenance and development,  adding benches to sites of interest, and architectural improvements on historical sites.

El Salvador. El Imposible National Park is El Salvador’s largest national park, with one of the last examples of Pacific coastal rainforest in Mesoamerica. HSI is working with the park staff to increase visitation to the park and make it a memorable and educational experience for all tourists. Our program is helping to create a protocol for visitor entry into the park including fees, guides, and visitor information. We are also assisting with the production of an interpretational video of the flora and fauna in the park to be shown at the visitors’ center.

Honduras. A few miles off the coast of mainland Honduras, Cayos Cochinos is a marine protected area comprised of 13 pristine cays, and home to the endemic pink boa constrictor. To discourage the capture of these uniquely hued snakes for sale in the international pet trade,  we are collaborating with our local counterpart and the community of East End to develop a small ecotourism complex. The plans include two cabins, a small restaurant, and an oceanview patio, with an eco-friendly waste disposal system to protect the local environment funded by HSI. Future plans include guide training, trail improvement and an informational center about the pink boa.

Guatemala. Guatemala’s Izabal region contains some of the highest levels of biodiversity in the country. Rare wildlife such as manatees and jaguars that frequent the area are bringing attention to this jungle ecosystem as a new ecotourism destination. HSI is working with our local counterpart to develop eco-friendly infrastructure, better road access, and training local tour guides to accommodate the budding ecotourism industry. Our program focuses on two community-based ecotourism projects in communities in the buffer zones of Cerro San Gil National Park, and the Río Sarstún Protected Area.

Nicaragua. Chacocente Wildlife Refuge is comprised of several important ecosystems that support populations of  many beautiful and endangered species such as howler monkeys, exotic birds, and the highly endangered leatherback turtle. HSI is working with local community cooperatives to increase visibility of the refuge and train members of the cooperatives in basic hospitality and biology. Future funding will be used to build cabins and bathroom facilities, workshops on business management, and to rebuild trail infrastructure that was washed away during this year’s unusually strong rainy season.

Peru. HSI has been working with local partners in Peru for 10 years in order to improve the welfare of animals in the country. Over the past year, we worked with local NGOs and government agencies to bring about a resolution by the artisanal fishing federation to cease the hunting of dolphins, a reduction in availability of illegal dolphin meat in local markets, and an international press conference on sustainable dolphin watching as a new national tourism product. HSI is currently seeking partners to continue developing a sustainable dolphin watching program.

Long-Term Goals. Since our ultimate goal is to create sustainable economic alternatives, HSI plans to continue working with our programs in Latin America throughout the project development process. Once the current projects are viable tourism options, HSI hopes to offer trips to these sites for our constituents and donors.

Help protect wildlife during your travels

• Taking fauna and flora is prohibited in most protected areas and can be devastating in many sensitive ecosystems. Take a photograph—but leave plants, wildlife and corals behind for all to enjoy.
• Beware of products and foods made from wildlife. Even though they are often sold openly, many species of animals and plants are endangered and protected by local and international laws.
• Never feed, disturb, or get too close when viewing wild animals—for your safety and theirs!
• Look for hotels and tour operators that are environmentally responsible and support local communities. Always ask about their certifications, policies and regulations.
• Research before you go—many guidebooks and websites have valuable information to help you responsibly enjoy your vacation.