Category: News

South Africa’s elephant population of approximately 24,000 is protected within enclosed game reserves and national parks. At around 12-15 years old, male animals leave their herds in search of a new home range and unrelated females. As they disperse, they sometimes encounter fences, resulting in conflicts with humans.

Repeat fence-breachers are often referred to as “problem” elephants and their control is guided by the 2008 Norms and Standards of Elephant Management in South Africa. The mitigating action most commonly adopted is to kill the animal.

Support our efforts to protect wildlife.

HSI/Africa is advocating for the use of non-lethal, alternative methods such as the use of tracking collars and notification systems. Recently, HSI/Africa and our local partner, Global Supplies cc, collared and facilitated the first “tusk-bracing” intervention on a wild, free-roaming elephant bull.

A conditioning technique to reaffirm the negative consequence of making contact with and trying to breach fences, it may prove to save many elephants who would normally be destroyed—especially crucial where the bulls in question are dominant, iconic or important for genetic variability.

Q: Who first came up with this idea?

A: The method has been used on captive elephants before. Our partner, Global Supplies, suggested that we try the intervention on the bull in question. HSI/Africa facilitated and sponsored the intervention with Global Supplies and Alex Vipond, inventor of the technique.

Q: How did you get permission to do it?

A:A proposal was submitted to the reserve, and we were granted permission to trial the method on the elephant.

Q: How was the elephant chosen?

A: This elephant is one of the most dominant bulls within this population. As such, he is incredibly important within the bull hierarchy and the reproductive behaviour and natural selection of the cows. He has been demonstrating fence-breaching behaviour which stemmed from, amongst other causes, fencing him out of an area that he had previously been using for 15 years. The normal course of action would be to class him as a “problem” elephant and have him destroyed. However, we have collaborated with the reserve and have deployed this methodology to mitigate the fence-breaching behaviour and hopefully spare him.

Q: How was he caught?

A: We combined the intervention with our annual elephant immunocontraception vaccinations conducted from a helicopter. The bull was darted with a sedative and once he was down, we moved in with the ground crew and vet to conduct the procedure.

Q: How was the wire applied?

A: Wire is embedded into the tusk with contact under the lip so that when the elephant attempts to break electrified fences with his tusks, the tusk wire acts as a conductor and the elephant receives a shock. The process of embedding the wire does not cause the elephant any pain and is conducted under sedation.

Q: What was his reaction on waking?

A: He was as cool as a cucumber. He stood up, urinated and ambled off. Its noteworthy that he was in full musth at the time. Musth is a condition of a surge in testosterone and is usually coupled with increased aggression. However, this bull remains incredibly relaxed. Watch a video.

Q: How has he been doing since then?

A: The satellite collar we deployed has enabled us to monitor him very closely. He has been seen mating with a cow and has been observed by the monitoring team and game drives. He seems completely unaffected by the presence of the collar or the tusk-bracing.

The tracking collar technology with notification systems sends an alert when a potential “problem” elephant is nearing a boundary fence. This affords managers time to react and prevent the animal breaching the fence using different intervention techniques. The bull’s movements have been monitored remotely via the satellite collar supplied and deployed by Global Supplies. The tusk-wiring worked and the fence-breaking activity was significantly curbed.

Q: Is there any concern he’ll have trouble competing for a female or otherwise become outcast?

A: Definitely not! The tusk-brace is just a tool to reaffirm the negative association of electric fences. It does not affect behaviour or dominance in any way.

Q: What is the reaction of the local people?

A: The bull is an icon for this reserve. In general, there is positive support. The concept is sound and should work but co-operation on the ground is needed. Fences must be adequately maintained and electrified in order for this to work.

Q: What is the testing timeframe?

A: We are currently in the height of winter and have just come out of the worst drought in decades. The testing period must be at least six months, when we move into the summer rainfall period, and conditions improve. As mentioned above, its a conditioning technique, so in theory, one he has been shocked a few times, he should realise that his tusks no longer work to snap the fences and hopefully that breaks the behaviour.

Q: Are there plans do to more?

A: Yes. We want to try and replicate this as a tool to mitigate human-elephant conflict. Normally, such bulls are shot, but [by dispersing in search of females and territory] they are only doing what is biologically hardwired in them. We cannot do anything about the fences that enclose elephant populations, but we can try and save elephants by deploying this technique and teach them to once again respect the fences. Give now to help save elephants and other animals.

In light of historic animal protection measures passed recently by the governments of El Salvador and Costa Rica, Humane Society International/Latin America orchestrated a set of workshops on how to deal with cases involving animals in the two countries, with the goal of improving implementation of the new laws.

El Salvador

In El Salvador, the provisions of the Law for the Protection and Promotion of Companion Animal Welfare include:

• the launch of a national policy for the protection of companion animals,
• the promotion of preventative education through the national education system, and
• a total ban on dogfighting.

The law also establishes mechanisms for the supervision and regulation of animal shelters and animal breeders, as well as for the use of companion animals for research.

Donate to support our life-saving work in Latin America and around the world.

In an effort to help cities comply with the legislation and increase the number of cruelty cases solved, HSI staff provided training to 150 public officials from eight municipalities and the National Police on how to look for signs of a problem—such as the physical condition of an animal and the state of the property—and properly collect evidence. Facilitators also taught that animal abuse often leads to other criminal activities, like drug trafficking and domestic violence.

Costa Rica

In Costa Rica, 56 officials from various government agencies overseeing health, agriculture, security and justice took part in workshops on investigation of dogfighting and other cruelty cases, mass confiscation of animals and the proper treatment of seized animals.

Over the past five years, HSI has provided training for more than 350 Costa Rican police officers and government representatives — but these officials now have an even bigger role to play in the investigation and handling of animal cruelty cases thanks to the recently passed Animal Welfare Law 9458. The law reforms the country’s penal code, thereby sanctioning animal cruelty, including dogfighting, with jail time –which will hopefully cause people to think twice before doing harm. It also allows the judicial system to gather a database of those who break the law against cruelty and allows the government to start gathering data on crimes related to animal welfare.

Better-equipped

The trainees will now return to their jobs better able to identify when animals have been used in fights, to act when animals are found in danger and to coordinate with the appropriate institution for the rescue of animals in bad situations. By request, two more workshops have been scheduled for later this year, to focus on animal handling. Give now to help.

Earlier this month, HSI organized a visit for Ovobrand, one of Argentina’s largest egg producers, to Hickman’s Family Farms, a leader in the United States’ cage-free movement. This allowed the producers from South America to learn about cage-free egg production first-hand from their North American peers who had already successfully transitioned to cage-free systems.

During the visit, which took place at a Hickman’s farm in Arizona, the farmers discussed the new management practices and technologies necessary for a transition to cage-free housing, the benefits of such systems for hen welfare, and the competitive advantage of cage-free producers in a market that increasingly values animal welfare.

Octavio Gaspar, general manager of Ovobrand, said: “We are very happy to have been able to visit the systems used by Hickman’s in person, since in Argentina there is an increasing level of consultation and interest around cage-free eggs and we want to be pioneers in offering them. We have been in talks with HSI for months, and both their experience and the coordination of this visit in the United States have been very helpful for Ovobrand to make progress on this issue.”

Organizing such exchanges is just one of the many ways in which HSI supports companies in a transition to cage-free housing. We also host technical workshops across the globe, bring food companies together for roundtables on animal welfare, and in some cases connect businesses with experts on cage-free housing for one-on-one technical support.

Major food companies around the world are working with HSI to shift away from the lifelong confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages towards higher welfare cage-free systems that provide the birds with greater opportunity to move and express natural behaviors. These partnerships are the result of HSI’s unique approach to animal advocacy.

We focus on empowering stakeholders at every stage in the supply chain for eggs and meat—including farmers, agribusiness companies, food manufacturers, food retailers, restaurants, hotel chains, governments, financial institutions, and individual consumers—with the information they need to make positive changes in the lives of animals.

Our goal: a cage-free future for egg-laying hens across the globe.

August 2017 will mark the four-year anniversary of Humane Society International’s campaign in cooperation with the Vietnamese government to reduce demand for rhino horn.

So far, the campaign has reached an estimated 37 million people across the country, including primary school and university students, members of the women’s union and businesses. We are now focused on continuing our outreach to high school students to raise their awareness of the plight of rhinos and enlist their help in protecting these animals.

Support our campaigns against wildlife abuse.

With only about 29,000 rhinos remaining in the wild, they need all the help they can get. One factor driving poaching is the belief that rhino horns can provide medicinal benefits—a myth that was disproven through scientific studies some 40 years ago. Along with protecting the rhinos where they live, another key aspect of the effort to save them is to reduce demand for their parts and products, which helps to eliminate the market for smugglers and ultimately, poachers. As Viet Nam has been identified as a major destination for rhino horn trafficking, our work with the government is critical to the fight.

Since January, we’ve supported events in four cities, during which students formed teams and participated in competitions focused on protecting rhinos and urging their fellow classmates, teachers, and communities not to buy or use rhino horn. Nearly 4,000 young people from 10 schools participated. The energy is palpable on these occasions, with everyone eager to show off their erudition, passion for rhino conservation, and talent. Moving theatrical performances, student art contests, dancing, singing, and persuasive speeches are combined with knowledge-quizzing matches in these rhino-themed showdowns, and the winning teams are awarded prizes.

It is truly inspiring to see the youth of Viet Nam expressing their heartfelt concern for rhinos, and their commitment to refusing to buy or use horns will go a long way toward protecting these animals for future generations.

Update, June 16, 2017:

Chinese activists have asked Humane Society International to help circulate video filmed yesterday (June 15) at Nanqiao market in Yulin, China showing Yulin law enforcement officers closing down dog meat stalls and enforcing the compromise sales ban. As HSI reported earlier, a last-minute compromise deal was reached between angry dog meat vendors and the Yulin authorities whereby vendors are permitted to sell dog meat but limited to two dog carcasses per stand, a dramatic reduction for most vendors.

It seems that many dog meat traders have gravitated towards Nanqiao market as trading at Dongkou market, a hub for the dog meat trade, has become more problematic. HSI’s Chinese partners spotted traders at Nanqiao market to be selling in apparent violation of the new order. They reported the activity to the authorities in Yulin. This was then followed by a crackdown whereby the traders were told to close down their stands, as shown in this video.

HSI’s partner groups are also reporting that the Yulin police department has set up a temporary office in the main Dongkou market for daily inspections to enforce the order, and so HSI would encourage Chinese activists on the ground to swiftly report any violations they see. HSI’s partner groups will continue to monitor the situation and assist the Yulin police in taking action against dog meat vendors who violate the order.

Dr. Peter Li, HSI’s China policy specialist, said: “It is encouraging to see the Yulin authorities enforcing the compromise ban that they themselves struck with Yulin officials. It shows that while the restricted sales order is by no means perfect, it is absolutely having an impact and Yulin law enforcement want to be seen to be taking it seriously. Our Chinese partners share the frustration of animal campaigners around the world that change in Yulin is a long time coming, but they are keen for this video to go viral so that people can see that progress is being made and the dog traders are definitely feeling the pressure. This kind of crackdown is certainly causing vendors to hold off buying more dogs, and word is spreading.”

---

Update, June 15, 2017:

Chinese animal campaigners have traveled to the city of Yulin to assess the impact of a ban on dog meat sales introduced by Yulin officials starting June 15.

Chinese animal protection groups are monitoring the main dog meat market called Dongkou, as well as other locations around Yulin, and confirm that while some dog meat is still on sale, it is currently in much smaller volumes than they have witnessed in previous years. Some dog vendors have reported that the Yulin authorities have been persuaded to make concessions to them in the last few days, although others are reducing their trade in anticipation of the ban’s being more robustly implemented later this week.

HSI’s Chinese activist partner Sean Long said: “It doesn’t look like business as usual at Dongkou market in Yulin. It’s disappointing to see dog meat still on sale, but nothing like the amount we’ve seen in the past. Business was slow at the market, with far fewer buyers. Some vendors we spoke with said they believed they were allowed to sell dog meat again, and hinted that some kind of concession had been gained from the authorities just in the last couple of days. However, other vendors expressed doubt that they would be allowed to continue selling dog meat for long and said that there was so much genuine uncertainty that they had decided not to order more dogs in case they can’t sell them.”

Humane Society International has campaigned for several years for an end to the Yulin dog meat festival, and is tackling the trade in dogs and cats for human consumption that takes place all year round and nationwide across China. HSI believes that while it is discouraging to see that Yulin authorities may be bowing to the interest of the dog meat traders, the impact the reported ban on sales of dog meat appears to be having on reducing sales is still a significant step in the right direction.

Dr Peter Li, HSI’s China policy specialist, said: “It’s so easy to be disheartened because of course we all want to see a total and immediate end to the sale of dogs and dog meat at Yulin, and we want to see the authorities act decisively in the public interest. But we’ve always known that ending the dog meat festival at Yulin won’t be as simple as switching off a light. Instead, it’s lots of smaller victories that build toward the end goal. From our sources in Yulin, we have learned that the authorities were taking some actions such as sending inspectors to the market to enforce the sales restriction order and starting to stop inbound dog trucks.”

We shall monitor the situation in Yulin directly through our partner group activists further up to and during the “festival” on June 21.

Media contact:

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

Motivated by growing public concern for animal welfare throughout Asia and recent commitments by multinational food companies and governments around the world to eliminate extreme confinement systems—including battery cages for egg-laying hens and gestation crates for mother pigs—from their supply chains for eggs and meat, leading food and hospitality companies operating in Asia came together for the Asia Animal Welfare Roundtable, organized by Humane Society International in Singapore on 6th March.

Participants believe that the treatment of animals raised for food is an important moral and ethical issue, and agreed to continue working together to improve farm animal welfare in their supply chains, including through annual meetings and information exchange, and by leveraging the services offered by HSI. These services include 1) workshops on the technical aspects of cage-free egg production for companies’ suppliers in Asia; 2) an online forum for companies to share ideas and learn from each other as they work to improve animal welfare in their supply chains; and 3) continued identification and development of resources, including cage-free egg supplies, throughout Asia.

Roundtable participants, including Sodexo, Compass Group, Subway International, AccorHotels, Hilton Hotels, Six Senses Resorts & Spas, Marina Bay Sands, AsureQuality, and Freedom Range Farms, welcome other companies and stakeholders in the food industry to join in this shared commitment to improve farm animal welfare throughout Asia. IKEA has also since joined in this commitment.

In a move that provides an opportunity for China to move away from its longstanding animal testing requirement for all imported cosmetics, the China Food and Drug Administration has announced an adjustment to administrative regulations and examinations for general cosmetics imported through Shanghai. The temporary measure will be in place from 1 March 2017 through 21 December 2018, during which times such products may be imported under a simplified filing system.

Although implementation procedures announced thus far by the CFDA do not explicitly mention changes to the animal test requirements for imported cosmetics, the CFDA introduced a similar move in June 2014 leading to a simplified filing scheme for domestically manufactured general cosmetics and subsequently removed mandatory animal testing requirements.” 

Support our work to end animal testing in China and worldwide.

“This change by the CFDA reflects a trend towards further regulatory harmonization with global cosmetic markets,  and presents a real opportunity for China to make additional progress in moving away from mandatory animal testing for cosmetics,” said HSI #BeCrueltyFree Campaign Director Claire Mansfield. “We encourage Chinese officials to waive the new pre-market animal test requirements for this new filing system, just as they did for domestic regular cosmetics in 2014, and then expand the change beyond Shanghai Pudong.”

In 2015, the Chinese government approved 9,317 new imports of general cosmetics. Assuming each product was tested in three different animal studies, each using at least three rabbits in accordance with national regulations, as many as 83,853 animals may have been used in China for pre-market testing of these cosmetic imports in that year alone. This figure does not reflect animal use in the testing of special-use cosmetics, both domestic and imported. 

HSI and its partners have done extensive work in China to support and fund the development of educational resources, hands-on training courses, and high-profile scientific conferences to support increased dialogue and confidence in modern, internationally recognized methods for safety assessment based on validated non-animal technologies. Please donate to help further our campaign.

The Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change today published draft rules prescribing a comprehensive procedure for care, cost, maintenance, veterinary treatment and overall well-being of animals seized from markets and from cases of animal cruelty. The draft rules are now up for public comments for a period of 30 days. 

Humane Society International/India and People for Animals have played a significant role approaching the judiciary for the government to implement these rules.

Every year, tens of thousands of cattle are routinely smuggled across the borders into Nepal for sacrifice and Bangladesh for slaughter. Animals confiscated during such transport are either returned to the accused pending litigation, or auctioned. In both scenarios, the animals return to the trade, defeating the purpose of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In a similar vein, the absence of regulation means animals in livestock markets are routinely denied access to food, water, veterinary facilities and other basic amenities.

In a petition filed in Supreme Court against smuggling of cattle to Nepal for the Gadhimai sacrifice, the Hon’ble Court sought for recommendations from the stakeholders for preventing such activities. The recommendations included formations of State Animal Welfare Board at state level, Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCA) at district level, regulation of livestock markets, establishment of procedures to deal with case property animals among other things. The Hon’ble Court observed the necessity of these aforementioned regulations and recorded the recommendations in its order.

Gauri Maulekhi, trustee at PFA and government liaison for HSI/India said, “We welcome this move of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. If the Government implements these rules, this move will help save indigenous breeds of cattle.These rules will also bring much-needed respite to tens of thousands of animals who are subjected to unthinkable cruelty in livestock markets.”

These rules are being framed in compliance with the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Media Contact: Navamita Mukherjee, email: nmukherjee@hsi.org, mobile: 91-9985472760

In the 1980s and 90s, wearing fur became seriously uncool. Stars went naked instead of wearing it, catwalks were boycotted because of it, and the British public, animal welfare experts and politicians got behind a campaign which led the Labour government to ban fur farming in 2000. So why did the UK turn its back on this trade? Two very powerful words: ‘public morality’. In proposing the Bill, the Minister responsible for animal welfare, Elliot Morley, told MPs:

“Morality is important when it comes to the treatment of animals. Fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animal life should not be destroyed in the absence of a sufficient justification in terms of public benefit. Nor should animals be bred for such destruction in the absence of sufficient justification. That is the essence of our argument for applying morality to a Bill of this kind.”^[1]

In 1989, long before the ban, the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council found that fur farms could not satisfy some of the most basic needs of the (essentially wild) animals kept in them, such as comfort, shelter, and freedom to display normal patterns of behaviour.^[2]

The evidence, and the verdict, were unequivocal: fur farming wasn’t humane, couldn’t be made humane, and wasn’t morally justifiable in the UK. All fur farms had to be closed by January 1st 2003. The UK has been free from the cruelty of fur farms for thirteen years. But Britain is sadly not free of fur, far from it.

Today we import fur from countries whose fur farm conditions are as bad, or worse, than those we outlawed in our own country. In fact since 2003, according to government statistics, the UK has imported hundreds of millions of pounds of fur, peaking at £62.6million in fur imports in 2014 (more than half of this value was then re-exported).

With UK opinion polls still indicating consistently high levels of consumer disapproval of fur, where is all this imported fur going? Last year Humane Society International/UK documented the widespread problem of cheap animal fur being mis-sold or mis-labelled as faux, so it’s probable that millions of pounds worth of fur is sold each year to consumers who don’t realise that it’s animal fur, and wouldn’t buy it if they did. And at the other end of the market, fur still defiles the shelves of stores like Harrods and Harvey Nichols. The high-end fur-wearer’s choice grows ever more limited, as more and more designers join the ‘Fur-Free’ list, renowned luxury brand Armani being the latest high-profile example this year.

But can you strip fur from any animal, pop it on a coat hanger and sell it here? No. Public campaigns by HSI and others drove a 2007 EU ban on the import and sale of cat and dog fur, and then a 2009 ban on trade in seal products. In response to a complaint by Norway and Canada, the World Trade Organisation affirmed the seal ban, declaring it necessary to protect European public moral concerns. At present, fur from all other species can be legally traded in the EU and, although a number of countries across Europe have banned fur farming, several still continue to farm animals for their fur.

So, do the views of the Great British public chime with current European regulations, which say that some fur-bearing animals are OK to wear and some are not? It turns out, they don’t. HSI commissioned a YouGov opinion poll ^[3] listing nine species, including domestic dog, mink, seal, fox and rabbit, and asking people whether or not they found it acceptable for fur from these animals to be bought and sold in this country. Encouragingly, the results show that the British public overwhelmingly reject the fur trade, regardless of species.

Unsurprisingly, less than 10% of people feel it is acceptable to be able to buy and sell products containing domestic dog fur (7%), seal fur (8%), and cat fur (9%), respectively, and indeed such imports are banned by law. But critically the poll also shows similar distaste for fur items from other species that can still be legally sold here – only between 8 and 12% of people said that they found it acceptable to buy or sell fur from foxes (12%), mink (12%), chinchilla (9%), raccoon dogs (8%) and coyotes (8%) (the last of which are not farmed, but wild trapped). Rabbit fur had the highest approval rating, but even so is still only acceptable to one in five people despite being one of the most commonly found fur trim items on the high-street.

So, back full circle to public morality. The UK’s moral compass clearly points away from animal fur in fashion – not just cat, dog and seal fur, but all fur. And now we have an opportunity to make that moral standpoint count. On the Brexit path ahead, the government must now evaluate all EU regulations and decide which to write into UK law, which to lose and which to maintain and amend. So why would the UK, a nation that has outlawed all fur farming as immoral, continue to cherry-pick just cats, dogs and seals and ban trade in their fur, but leave our ports open to fur from other equally maltreated animals?

Shockingly, not only are our borders open to cruel fur products produced in other countries, there’s not even a legal requirement to clearly identify them as “real fur” so that compassionate consumers can avoid inadvertently buying them. Urgent steps need to be taken to ensure that all real animal fur products are clearly labelled. But we can do better than just labelling: Brexit is a clear opportunity for us to ditch fur once and for all, to be a fully fur-free nation and to ensure that we no longer bankroll a trade in products that we deem morally unacceptable to produce within our own borders.

Notes:
[1] Elliot Morley, Hansard (15 May 2000) (London: HMSO, 2000) Vol. 350, No. 99, p. 76; see also pp. 40-

[2] ‘Farm Animal Welfare Council Disapproves of Mink and Fox farming’, Press Notice, 4 April 1989, p. 1

[3] All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2051 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 9th and 12th September 2016. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Moran Market is South Korea’s largest dog meat market. It supplies one third of all the dog meat consumed in the country, selling an estimated 80,000 dogs—dead or alive—each year.

Now, we welcome an incredible announcement: It’s shutting down.

According to The Korea Herald, all 22 dog meat vendors will start removing slaughter facilities and dog cages next week and will completely move them out by early May.

Seongnam City has agreed to provide financial support for them to refurbish their shops for new businesses—a model very similar to the one HSI has been using to transition dog meat farmers out of the trade.

Although we were not involved in this particular decision, it is clear proof that our model is succeeding and being considered and adopted by government officials as they work to strengthen South Korea’s commitment to safeguarding animals from cruelty. Seongnam Mayor Lee Jae-myung, quoting Mahatma Gandhi, told The Korea Herald: “Seongnam City will take the initiative to transform South Korea’s image since ‘the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.’”

To date, HSI has closed five dog meat farms and rescued and transported 572 dogs to the United States and Canada to be placed in loving new homes. Our team has also been working to change the perception of “meat dogs” as being somehow different from “pet dogs.” Our many happy adoption stories demonstrate to South Korea—where companion animal ownership is rising rapidly—that this is not the case.

Our ultimate goal is a ban on the dog meat trade, and our strategy is to create the right political and societal circumstances to make this possible.

Today, we’re celebrating a remarkable step forward.