Issue Type: Wildlife

Wildlife

Humane Society International / Europe

HSI

MILAN—After receiving hundreds of thousands of emails from compassionate consumers around the world, thousands of phone calls, countless social media posts and even having a hot air balloon flown over its headquarters in Italy asking it to go fur-free, Max Mara Fashion Group has officially announced a fur-free policy.

In an internal memo to staff, Max Mara said, “The Company does not sell, online nor in any of its physical retail locations, any products made with fur, nor is there the intention to introduce any products made with fur into any upcoming collections of Max Mara Fashion Group brands.”

This was confirmed by a Max Mara executive, who added, “Max Mara, including the MMFG and any subsidiaries, has adopted a fur-free policy and has no intention of introducing fur into any upcoming collection for any of the MMFG brands.”

This announcement comes after the Fur Free Alliance, a coalition of more than 50 animal protection organizations―including Humane Society International― from over 35 countries, launched a global campaign during fashion weeks in February 2024 in New York City, London, Milan and Paris urging the Italian fashion giant to adopt a fur-free policy.  The campaign saw more than 270,000 emails, 5,000 phone calls and countless social media posts delivering a clear message asking Max Mara to go fur-free.

Max Mara Fashion Group has 2,500+ stores in 105 countries and was previously selling items such as mink gloves, fox fur cuffs and a raccoon dog key chain. The brand now joins the world’s major fashion-houses that have already gone fur-free, including Dolce & Gabbana, Saint Laurent, Valentino, Prada, Gucci, Versace, Alexander McQueen, Balenciaga and Armani.

In February this year, Humane Society International/Europe and LAV flew a hot-air balloon over Max Mara’s headquarters in the city of Reggio Emilia during Milan Fashion Week, displaying a fur-free message.

P.J Smith, director of fashion policy at Humane Society International and the Humane Society of the United States, said: “Congratulations to Max Mara for joining so many other fashion brands and retailers that have already taken a stand against the cruel fur trade. Activists around the world came together to ask Max Mara to do the right thing, and they listened, making it clear fur has no place in fashion. Let’s celebrate this win for animals and a fur-free future!”

Joh Vinding, chairman of the Fur Free Alliance, said: “The Fur Free Alliance applauds Max Mara for going fur-free. Max Mara was one of the last global fashion brands that still sold fur, so we’re glad they have now joined a growing list of fur-free brands that want nothing to do with animal cruelty associated with the fur trade.”

Today, over 1,500 brands and retailers have pledged to go fur-free by joining the Fur Free Retailer Program.

Fur facts:

  • Tens of millions of animals suffer and die each year in the global fur trade. The majority of the animals killed for fur are reared in barren battery cages on fur farms.
  • Fur farming has been banned in 21 European countries – the 15 Member States of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia plus Bosnia and Herzegovina, Guernsey, Norway, United Kingdom, North Macedonia and Serbia. In addition, two countries (Switzerland and Germany) have implemented strict regulations which have effectively brought fur farming to an end and three countries (Denmark, Sweden, Hungary) have imposed measures that have ended the farming of certain species.  Mink farming has also been banned in the Canadian province of British Colombia. Political discussion of a ban is underway in Bulgaria, Romania and Sweden.
  • Israel became the first country to ban fur sales, in 2021. In the United States, fur sales are banned in the state of California as well as ins 16 towns or cities. Political discussion on a fur import ban is underway in Switzerland
  • Mink on almost 488 fur farms across 13 countries in Europe and North America have been found to be infected with COVID-19. Millions of farmed mink, in countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, were ordered to be killed on public health grounds. Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) has been found on 72 fur farms (one in Spain, 71 in Finland) to date. Around 500,000 animals, including mink, arctic fox, red fox, raccoon dogs and sable, have been ordered to be killed on public health grounds.

Download visuals of the Max Mara hot-air balloon stunt. 

Media contact: Yavor Gechev, EU communications director: ygechev@hsi.org

 

Consumers could unwittingly break new law banning glue traps, says Humane Society International/UK

Humane Society International / United Kingdom

videomane1/Pixabay

LONDON—England today becomes the third UK nation, after Wales and Scotland, to bring into force a ban on the use of rodent glue traps, which are described by leading animal protection organisation Humane Society International/UK as “inhumane, indiscriminate and indefensible”.

Entering into force today, the Glue Traps (Offences) Act prohibits use of glue traps by the public. The ban has been welcomed by HSI/UK, which led the Unstuck campaign to end the public’s use of glue traps. However, as glue traps remain on sale to the public throughout the UK despite their use by the public now being illegal, the charity is urging caution against accidental law breaking.

The rudimentary traps, widely available for as little as 99p from hardware and corner shops, immobilise small mammals in strong adhesive in which the animals can suffocate, rip off skin and fur and break their limbs in desperate efforts to escape. The traps also pose a serious risk to other species, including hedgehogs, cats and wild birds, with numerous reports every year of animals being caught and suffering often fatal injuries.

Claire Bass, senior campaigns and public affairs director for Humane Society International/UK, said: “We are delighted that it is no longer legal for members of the public to use these horrendously cruel traps which cause immense suffering to animals, who have been known to chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to escape. But confusingly, although it is now an offence for the public to use glue traps, it is not illegal to sell or buy them which means consumers could unwittingly commit an offence. We will be raising awareness of the new law so that people don’t unintentionally break it, and we’re also calling on retailers to voluntarily stop stocking these traps. We are urging the UK, Welsh and Scottish governments to unite on a glue traps sales ban.”

HSI/UK’s research on the welfare problems of glue traps is referenced in glue trap ban legislation passed in all three nations. It shows that when confronted with a dying animal on a trap more than 50% of the public say they either would not know what to do with them or would take an action that risks committing an offence under the Animal Welfare Act (2006) for causing unnecessary suffering, including 9% who said they would drown the animal.

As well as being inhumane, killing animals like mice and rats typically does not offer a permanent solution to the problems their presence might cause. Treating the symptom by eliminating a single rat or mouse—or even an entire colony—is ultimately futile unless the conditions that encouraged them to take up residence in the first place are addressed. Over time, others will simply move into the vacated territory. HSI/UK advocates humane methods of deterrence such as removing food sources and blocking up access holes which are ultimately more effective than the “quick fix” of killing. Read more here.

The ban explained:

  • The Glue Trap (Offences) Act 2022 requires rodent control professionals in England to apply for and hold licenses for glue trap use only in exceptional circumstances and where all alternative methods are impossible or have failed.
  • Anyone applying for a licence needs to complete required training and meet specific requirements, including the need to carry out regular inspections of the trap and prevent the capture of non-target animals.
  • Anyone caught setting a glue trap to catch a rodent, or in a way that risks catching a rodent (without a licence), or who permits a trap to be set to catch a rodent, could face up to 51 weeks in prison, or receive a fine, or both.
  • Anyone who finds a glue trap that risks catching a rodent and fails to act to stop the risk could be fined, unless they have a reasonable excuse for why they failed to act.
  • The Welsh Government introduced a full ban on use of rodent glue traps in 2023.
  • Earlier this year the Scottish Government passed a ban—with an allowance for Ministers to approve glue trap use in exceptional circumstances where all other methods have failed—and asked to be allowed an exemption to the Internal Markets Act to allow Scotland to unilaterally ban the sale of glue traps, but the UK Government has so far denied this.

ENDS

Media contact: Sally Ivens, HSI/UK, sivens@hsi.org ; 07590 559299

Humane Society International / United Kingdom

Pixaby

Glue traps, also known as glue or sticky boards, are trays coated with an extremely strong adhesive. Any animal who touches one becomes stuck and cannot escape.

Depending on how frequently the trap is checked, animals can be stuck anywhere from hours to days. Trapped animals struggle to free themselves, some rodents break bones and tear off, or even bite through, their own limbs in a desperate attempt to free themselves. Most often death comes from a combination of exhaustion and dehydration.

Glue traps are indiscriminate. Non-target animals have become trapped, including protected species like wild birds and bats, hedgehogs, fox cubs and even pet cats. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has concluded that there is “an undeniable risk of capture of non-target species”.

Advocacy efforts by HSI and other groups have been successful in bringing about legislation to ban or regulate the use and sale of glue traps. Legislation to ban the use and/or sale of glue traps is in place in several countries, including England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, the Australian state of Victoria and Iceland. We want to see a complete ban on the sale and use of these cruel, indiscriminate and indefensible traps, due to the suffering they cause to animals. Read our Humane Society International/UK report, ‘The Case for a UK Ban on Rodent Glue Traps’.

There are non-lethal ways of dealing with unwanted rodent visitors that are not only more humane, but also far more effective in the long-term, too. Read more about humane rodent solutions.

Where is it illegal to use or sell glue traps?

Several countries have already acted to ban or regulate the sale and use of glue traps on animal welfare grounds.

  • Australia: The state of Victoria has regulated both the sale and use of glue traps.
  • England: Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 (legislation.gov.uk) 2022 banned use of glue traps to control rats and mice without a licence. Licenses to use glue traps are only issued to rodent control professionals, in exceptional circumstances and where all alternative methods are impossible or have failed. Anyone applying for a licence to use a glue trap must complete required training and meet specific requirements, including the need to carry out regular inspections of the trap, keep detailed records and prevent the capture of non-target animals.
  • Iceland: The Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority announced the new ban citing Article 28 of Iceland’s animal welfare law, which makes it unlawful to use rodent control methods that cause unnecessary entrapment or pain.
  • Ireland: Glue traps are banned under the Wildlife Act, 1976, which forbids the use of certain traps ‘except where authorised in exceptional circumstances’. To date, no authorisations have been granted and since 2008 there have been eight prosecutions for the illegal possession of glue traps.
  • New Zealand: Outlawed the purchase and use of glue traps by members of the public since January 2015, under the Animal Welfare (Glueboard Traps) Order 2009.
  • Scotland banned the use of glue traps in 2024, but the Scottish government’s request for an exemption to the Internal Markets Act was rejected, meaning that a ban on glue trap sales was blocked.
  • USA: Two cities (Ojai and West Hollywood) have banned the sale and use of glue traps.
  • Wales: Banned all use of glue traps in October 2023.

More you can do

Although glue trap use is banned in Scotland, Wales and England (unless under licence in England), they are still commonly found for sale in shops and online. Not only is anyone who uses a glue trap or sticky board at risk from prosecution, they are also condemning animals to a slow and painful death.

Thank you for taking a stand to help animals and for supporting our campaign to end the sale and use of glue traps!

Humane Society International / Mexico

Hurricane Otis in Mexico
HSI

MEXICO CITY, Mexico—Today, leading animal protection organization Humane Society International launched a nationwide petition urging newly elected legislators to protect animals in Mexico’s supreme law, the Constitution. The earlier constitutional initiative by President Andres Manuel López Obrador, set to include specific provisions in art. 3, 4 and 73 of the Constitution to ban animal abuse, grant Congress powers to legislate on animal welfare and establish animal protection as a mandatory education guideline, was effectively paused by the 2024 election season. Now, Humane Society International is rallying the public to revive this crucial constitutional amendment against animal cruelty under the new government. 

Millions of dogs and cats roam the streets of major Mexican cities, suffering from cruelty, abandonment, disease and neglect. Mexico is home to billions of animals kept and killed for food, who are confined to cages or crates for months at a time, preventing them from extending their limbs or even walking, and forced to suffer in live transport and inhumane slaughter. As one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, Mexico is also a major source and distribution hub of wildlife for illicit trade; half of the wildlife trafficking seizures at US entry points originate from Mexico, which also supplies illegal markets in Europe and Asia. 

Anton Aguilar, HSI Mexico Executive Director, said: “Federal constitution-level safeguards would set a major legal precedent to prioritize animal protection in public policies, foster humane education and phase out cruel fiestas. It would reflect how social attitudes in Mexico have shifted away from cruelty and neglect towards a deep and genuine concern for animal welfare. We call on the incoming legislature, which will take office in September, to swiftly pass this consequential bill to turn Mexico into a leading example of animal protection legislation.”  

Animal protection in Mexico has emerged as a significant political focus. This commitment was solidified in 2017 when Mexico City’s constitution recognized animals as sentient beings. Most Mexican states have enacted animal protection laws, incorporating penalties for abuse into their penal codes. Bullfighting has been banned in five states, dogfighting has been criminalized nationwide, and animal testing for cosmetics was prohibited in 2021.  Moreover, President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum’s emphasis on animal protection during the presidential debate and her party’s majority position signal a promising path for a constitutional amendment securing animal protection.  

Sign the petition urging the new legislature to grant constitutional protection to animals.  

ENDS

Media contact: Magaly Garibay, +52 5538762199, mgaribay@idee.agency

Humane Society International and Polish Members of Parliament advocate for legislation to halt trophy imports

Humane Society International / Poland

HSI

WARSAW, Poland—Humane Society International and members of the Polish Parliament are urging Poland to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered species. This call comes alongside the inauguration of the “Still Life. #NotInMyWorld” photographic exhibition by Britta Jaschinski at the Polish Parliament organized by HSI in Poland and the Parliamentary Group for the Protection of Animal Rights. The exhibition aims to expose the harsh reality of trophy hunting. 

Britta Jaschinski’s photographs capture haunting images of animal bodies, skins, paws and heads. The once living creatures have been reduced to lifeless trophies. Her work draws a poignant parallel between the objectification of endangered animals and the traditional concept of “still life,” where inanimate objects, including hunting trophies, are depicted. This powerful visual narrative underscores the negative ethical and ecological implications of trophy hunting. 

Iga Głażewska, Poland country director for HSI/Europe, said: “Hunting trophies are often perceived as symbols of status, but they represent an outdated and colonial view of nature. This exhibition challenges that perception and highlights the severe impact of trophy hunting on both the animals themselves, and on biodiversity and the environment. We firmly believe that Poland should follow the lead of other European countries and adopt a ban on the import of trophies from imperiled species. In the face of the climate and biodiversity crises, it is imperative to eliminate practices that threaten the extinction of more species.” 

Following the opening of the exhibition, where Britta Jaschinski, Professor Rafał Kowalczyk from the Mammal Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and MP Katarzyna Piekarska spoke, a meeting of the Parliamentary Group for the Protection of Animal Rights took place. The meeting focused on trophy hunting and the need for stricter regulations in this area.  

Between 2013 and 2022, the European Union imported hunting trophies from over 27,000 animals threatened by trade and regulated under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Poland alone imported nearly 1,400 such trophies during this period, including those from species like the brown bear, African lion, black bear, cheetah, leopard and rhino. 

Through the #NotInMyWorld campaign, HSI is advocating for a global shift in policies related to trophy hunting. The campaign has already achieved success in several countries. In January 2024, Belgium banned the import of trophies from numerous endangered species. Finland enacted a similar ban in December 2022, and similar legislation is under consideration in France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. 

The “Still Life. #NotInMyWorld” exhibition not only raises awareness about the cruelty of trophy hunting but also reinforces the call for legislative change in Poland. Banning trophy imports would align Poland with other nations taking steps to protect endangered species and support global conservation efforts.

ENDS

Media contact: Iga Glazewska, Poland country director for HSI/Europe: iglazewska@hsi.org 

Fitness check of EU rules: Speak out for seals!

Humane Society International / Europe

In 2009, the EU adopted Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 on trade in seal products to address public moral concerns about the welfare of seals killed during commercial hunts, mainly in Canada, where young seals are clubbed, shot, impaled on hooks and skinned for their fur, very often while still alive. Since its introduction, this Regulation has saved hundreds of thousands of seals as it banned the placing of seal products from commercial hunts, such as seal skins and derived products, meat, oil and omega-3 capsules, on the EU market.

But now, as part of a periodic review of legislation to ensure it is “fit for purpose,” the European Commission has launched a re-evaluation of the ban, potentially putting it at risk. EU citizens are invited to participate in a public consultation on the matter until 7th August 2024.

Speak out for seals by choosing one of the available options:

  • Have your say by leaving a comment on the consultation page. This will take not more than 5 minutes of your time. If you choose that option, please note that you should provide feedback by using your own words.
  • Fill in a questionnaire to provide more detailed feedback. This option requires more detailed knowledge on the issue, but can have a greater impact.

If you decide to go for the latter option, you might want to check our suggestions on how to answer some of the questions (please see at the bottom of this page).

Background

The EU adopted Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 on trade in seal products to address public moral concerns about the welfare of seals killed during commercial seal hunts. The trade ban applies to seal products (i.e. fur, leather, oil and meat) produced in the EU and to imported seal products, aside from those imported occasionally for personal use and those that qualify under an “Inuit and other Indigenous communities”. The latter have not been the focus of campaigning efforts of animal protection organisations, because indigenous seal hunting is not commercial in nature and contributes to the subsistence of these communities.

Another exception that allowed the sale of products derived from seals killed incidentally for marine resource management purposeswas deleted from the legislation in 2015 after the World Trade Organisation ruled that it violated its principles.

Although the current legislation does not prevent EU Member States from killing seals in the context
of fisheries management, if done in accordance with EU Habitats Directive rules, a few EU Member States have continued to complain that it is a hindrance to seal hunting for marine resource management purposes. This is one of the main reasons why a public consultation, which every EU citizen can take part in, is happening.

Suggestions on answering some of the questions from the public consultation questionnaire

It is entirely up to you to decide how you answer these questions, and it is important that you do so in your own words. Some questions require expert knowledge, so also do not be afraid to answer ‘don’t know’.

On Question 2, please note that there is no complete ban on the placing of seal products on the EU market and products from seals hunted by Inuit and other indigenous communities who hunt seals for their subsistence, as well as occasional imports of seal products when these goods are exclusively for the personal use of travellers or their families are allowed into the EU. Also, EU Member States can continue to hunt seals for the sustainable management of their marine resources, following the Habitats Directive, but they can no longer place the products from these hunts on the EU market.

On Question 4, up until this date, seal hunting is raising numerous animal welfare and moral concerns, regardless of the hunting method used, especially when it comes to the hunting of several-week-old pups.

On Questions 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, experience from the past 15 years confrms that the current legislation fully addresses the public moral concerns related to seal hunt and has been very successful in regulating the import and placing on the EU market of seal products, while at the same time allowing the import and placing on the EU market of seal products from Inuit and other indigenous communities. The ban has impacted the socio-economic interests of certain stakeholder groups, especially fishers and seal hunters and has led to the reduction of the number of hunted seals, thus having a huge positive impact on seal populations within or outside the EU.

On Question 11, over the years prior and after the adoption of the EU ban on the trade in seal products, we have not observed any change in the seal hunt practices. Seal pups are still being clubbed unconscious, impaled on hooks and skinned, sometimes while still alive. Adult seals are being shot from a large distance by inexperienced marksmen and are often left to bleed to death or drown.

On Questions 13 and 14, Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 on trade in seal products was adopted to address public moral concerns about the welfare of seals killed during commercial seal hunts. Its success in doing so and in saving hundreds of thousands of seals from suffering justifies any possible direct or indirect costs of this piece of legislation. We do not see any potential for simplification and/or cost reduction, as this will come at the price of increased animal suffering.

On Questions 15 and 16, we believe that the Regulation on Trade in Seal Products and the Seal Pups Directive and their requirements are fully coherent with one another, as well as with other EU policies and priorities, such as the EU Habitats Directive or the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Lastly, on Questions 19 and 20, bearing in mind the existing seal hunting practices that cause immense suffering of seals, we are convinced that the objectives of the Regulation on Trade in Seal Products are still very relevant and that there is added value for EU level action compared to national or regional action.

Thanks to the joint work of animal welfare organizations, 41 parrots return to their natural habitat

Humane Society International / Latin America

HSI

PETEN, Guatemala—A group of 41 parrots of different species (Amazona autumnalis and Amazona alfibrons), iconic in the Latin American region, were released in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve after they were rescued and confiscated from illegal wildlife trafficking.

The release of these birds into their natural habitat was the result of the joint work of animal welfare nonprofit organizations, Asociacion Rescate y Conservacion de Vida Silvestre and Humane Society International/Latin America, who have worked together since 2007 to protect wildlife in Guatemala.

Most of the parrots were seized in 2021 by the authorities while they were being held captive in wooden boxes in a hotel in Flores, Peten. The rest of the group was brought to ARCAS after a series of rescues throughout the rest of 2021 and, after their quarantine period, they all joined the initial group and have progressed together in their rehabilitation process.

Andrea Borel, executive director of HSI/Latin America, explained that negative interactions between people and wildlife, as well as illegal trafficking of wild birds such as parrots, are becoming more common in the region.

“The capture of wild animals for the national and international pet trade is a real problem in Guatemala. These animals are often kept in cramped, inadequate conditions and denied the ability to exhibit their natural behaviors, which can further cause them physical and psychological distress,” Borel said.

Borel continued: “By supporting and working with our local partner, ARCAS, this rescue, rehabilitation and release program is giving these birds back their freedom as well as increasing their wild populations to ensure future breeding in their natural forest habitat where they belong. We also work together on raising awareness and urging citizens not to buy products from wildlife and to report any suspicious activity to the authorities.”

Fernando Martinez, ARCAS director, said, “In our Rescue Center, the animals’ physical, medical and ethological rehabilitation is carried out under strict standards and in compliance with protocols for the different species that are brought in, as a result of illegal trafficking or negative interactions with human beings, to later be released into the Mayan Biosphere Reserve.”

Martinez continued: “Our mission is to protect wildlife and, with these parrots’ release, we contribute to maintaining genetic diversity and thus ensure the survival of the species. These birds will be monitored for 15 days, through direct observation methods on previously designed platforms and trails.”

ARCAS Wildlife Rescue Center and HSI staff facilitated the parrots’ release in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve. under the supervision of the governmental National Council of Protected Areas, or CONAP.

Download Photos

ENDS

Media Contact: Andrea Borel: aborel@hsi.org

Humane Society International / Europe

Simon Eeman/Alamy Stock photo

BERLIN—In an interview published yesterday evening, former Botswana President Ian Khama called on the German government to ban the import of hunting trophies, countering a recent political push to squash commitments made by Minister Steffi Lemke to protect species already threatened by trade. As the EU’s largest importer of such species as hunting trophies, Germany has the opportunity to enhance national regulation to safeguard against the illogical trade protection exemptions for hunting trophies currently permitted under the Convention on Threatened and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

“Many species that are now endangered were not at risk before; some have already become extinct,” said Ian Khama in the interview. “Animals whose populations are relatively stable today could one day face the same danger. We all bear responsibility for this world. I urge the German people and government to take this courageous step. Ban the import of hunting trophies.”

Sylvie Kremerskothen Gleason, country director for HSI/Europe in Germany, stated: “Attempts to politicize the issue of trophy hunting imports won’t change the facts that there are real biological, ecological and social detrimental impacts from trophy hunting. Germany must take responsibility at the national level to promote alternative sustainable solutions to protect wildlife where Germany has a direct influence, such as through their own international trade in hunting trophies. Commitments to reduce hunting trophy imports, made by Minister Lemke, are in line with public opinion in Germany, and must be progressed.”

Through the #NotInMyWorld campaign, Humane Society International/Europe is advocating for national and EU-wide bans on the import of wildlife species threatened by trade, a policy that several EU member states have already partially or fully implemented, including Belgium, France, Finland and the Netherlands. According to a survey, 89% of German citizens support such a ban, which would represent a significant step toward wildlife conservation. HSI/Europe is working with champions across Europe to support countries in moving from extractive, harmful industries such as trophy hunting, into sustainable, humane industries that could provide a much wider suite of benefits for both animals and humans alike.

END

Media contact: Eva-Maria Heinen, communications senior manager at HSI/Europe: emheinen@hsi.org; 3338608589

Polling data reveals cracking down on animal cruelty could be a seat winning pledge in marginal constituencies as 23 leading animal groups launch new campaign

Humane Society International / United Kingdom

HSI

LONDON—With the general election just weeks away, UK political parties are being urged to harness the untapped ‘paw power’ of animal-loving voters after a new report shows that political parties are failing to match the British public’s high level of demand for strong animal protection policies. Analysis of opinion poll data suggests there are opportunities for candidates pledging anti-cruelty policy actions to influence thousands of animal-loving voters, especially in tightly contested seats. 

The report analyses several national opinion polls, including constituency-level MRP polling. It concludes that despite a supermajority of public support for progressive policies to prevent animal cruelty, voters’ expectations are insufficiently reflected in British political discourse, policy commitments and government policymaking. In a 2023 YouGov poll, nearly one third (33%) selected animal welfare as one of their top three most important causes and Focaldata 2023 polling revealed that one in six (15.4%) ranked ‘whether or not a party will protect animals from cruelty’ as one of their top three most important policies that will influence which party they vote for. 

Analysis of the top 10 target seats for major parties reveals that while the top Labour target seat requires only a 128-vote swing, and the top Conservative target seat requires just a 66-vote swing, more than 3,800 people in those constituencies have signed a sample of 10 government e-petitions on animal protection between 2017-19 alone. 

Dr Steven McCulloch, Senior Lecturer in Human-Animal Studies at the University of Winchester, said “Polls consistently show supermajority levels of support for stronger animal protection laws across England, Scotland and Wales, and for voters of all main political parties. And one in six British voters place animal protection within the top three concerns that will influence their vote.”   Paul Chaney, professor of policy and politics at Cardiff University School of Social Sciences noted “Parties and candidates with a strong offer to tackle animal cruelty could speak to a significant cohort of voters in the upcoming election. Additionally, polling indicates that such policies provide indications to voters on parties’ and candidates’ broader values, including association with competence and compassion.” 

The report coincides with the launch of ‘Crackdown on Cruelty’, a joint campaign by more than 20 leading animal protection organisations. The groups aim to mobilise half a million compassionate voters to contact their candidates and urge them to commit to be a voice for animals in Parliament if elected.  

Candidates are being called on to pledge to 10 key commitments which would strengthen legal protections for millions of animals, such as bans on trading in cruelty including stopping imports of fur and hunting trophies, government support to help farmers transition away from factory farming, stronger protections for wildlife including a ban on snares in England, and the appointment of an Animal Protection Commissioner. Pledge commitments will be shared on the website votesforanimals.org.uk, which will also host copies of animal protection pledges made by major political parties in their manifestos. 

Claire Bass, senior director of campaigns and public affairs at Humane Society International/UK, said: “We identify as a nation of animal lovers and there is keen voter interest in politicians cracking down on cruelty, so we’re urging parties and candidates to pledge action. On 4th July we’ll see thousands of dogs proudly posing outside polling stations, there is a lot of paw power to be won at the ballot box! MPs elected in July will hear from their constituents about animal protection more than any other issue, so progressive animal protection policies could very well help swing voting decisions.” 

Iain Green, Director of Animal Aid, said: “Supported by so many animal protection organisations, Votes For Animals will mobilise hundreds of thousands of voting public who care about animals. Together, we will ensure that the Parties and candidates understand that we want them to pledge to crackdown on cruelty if elected, we want strong laws that will protect all animalkind. But moreover, we are at the forefront of a movement that will change hearts and minds forever – and will ensure that all animals have rights, and are treated with respect and compassion.” 

The report, titled ‘Political animals’ and authored by Dr Steven McCulloch, Dr Lisa Riley and Professor Paul Chaney, from Winchester and Cardiff Universities, is fully referenced and available to view here. 

ENDS

Media contact: Sally Ivens, HSI/UK,   sivens@hsi.org ; 07590 559299

This is a rejection of once-in-a-generation opportunity to end slaughter at sea, says Humane Society International

Humane Society International / Global

Minke whale
Nature Picture Library/Alamy

REYKJAVÍK, Iceland—As news breaks that Iceland’s Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Minister Bjarkey Olsen Gunnarsdóttir will renew a one-year commercial whaling licence to whaling company Hvalur hf., despite clear evidence of immense animal suffering, global animal protection charity Humane Society International calls it a devastatingly disappointing decision.

An independent report published last year by the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority revealed some whales killed in Icelandic hunts had taken up to two hours to die, with 41% of whales suffering immensely before dying for an average of 11.5 minutes. Such suffering was deemed in contravention of the country’s Animal Welfare Act.

Adam Peyman, director of wildlife programs at Humane Society International, said: “It is devastatingly disappointing that Minister Gunnarsdóttir has set aside unequivocal scientific evidence demonstrating the brutality and cruelty of commercial whale killing and allowed whales to be killed for another year. There is simply no way to make harpooning whales at sea anything other than cruel and bloody, and no amount of modifications will change that. Whales already face myriad threats in the oceans from pollution, climate change, entanglement in fish nets and ship strikes, and fin whale victims of Iceland’s whaling fleet are considered globally vulnerable to extinction. With the need for whale protection so critical. This is a rejection of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to end the slaughter at sea. There is a new shameful entry in the conservation history books―Iceland had a chance to do the right thing and it chose not to.”

Fast facts:

  • The International Whaling Commission agreed to enact a global moratorium on all commercial whaling in 1986.
  • Iceland left the IWC in 1992 but returned in 2002 with an exception to the moratorium, despite objections from multiple nations. Since re-joining the IWC, Iceland had killed more than 1,500 whales, including fin whales.
  • Iceland suspended hunting fin whales in 2016 due to a declining market for whale meat in Japan. Hunting resumed for the 2018 season when 146 fin whales were killed, including a pregnant female and a rare fin-blue hybrid whale, plus six minke whales. Icelandic whalers killed a single minke whale between 2019 and 2021, and 148 fin whales in 2022.
  • Fin whales are classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as globally vulnerable to extinction despite decades of recovery since the commercial whaling moratorium.

ENDS

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

Learn More Button Inserter