Issue Type: Wildlife

Wildlife

Two lion cubs with neurological condition confiscated, others suffering severe mange

Humane Society International / Africa

CAPE TOWN—Shocking photos from an anonymous source have revealed severely neglected lions covered in mange at a captive breeding facility in the North West Province of South Africa, providing a shocking insight into an industry that breeds an estimated 12,000 lions on approximately 200 farms across the country. Lion breeding farms in South Africa are part of what campaigners Humane Society International/Africa call the “snuggle scam” because they supply lion cub petting tourist attractions where visitors from around the world take selfies, oblivious to the suffering behind their holiday photos.

Upon investigation of the facility at Pienika Farm, officers at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals entered the property on the 11th April and discovered 108 neglected lions, as well as caracal, tigers, and leopards living in horrendous conditions. Humane Society International/Africa, which calls for an end to the captive lion breeding industry, praised NSPCA inspectors for their swift action.

The NSPCA’s senior inspector Douglas Wolhuter detailed how two lion cubs appeared to be suffering from a neurological condition and were found unable to walk. The cubs were confiscated for assessment and veterinary treatment by a specialist carnivore veterinarian. Wolhuter stated that, “Other issues such as small enclosures and inadequate shelter, no provision of water, overcrowding, and filthy and parasitic conditions were noted in the camps that contained the lions, caracals, tigers, and leopards. Twenty-seven of the lions had mange and the caracals were obese and unable to properly groom themselves.”

Photos of the lions show the animals almost entirely bald due to acute mange and poor, overcrowded living conditions.

Audrey Delsink, Wildlife Director of HSI/Africa, says: “South Africa’s captive lion breeding industry is a vicious cycle of exploitation, from cradle to grave. Lion cubs are ripped from their mothers at just a few days old, to be hand-reared by paying volunteers from countries around the world such as the United Kingdom, who are misled into believing the cubs are orphans. The cubs are exploited their whole lives, first as props by paying tourists looking for selfie shots whilst petting or bottle-feeding the animals, then later as part of “walking with lion” safaris. Once too big and dangerous for these activities, these lions are then killed for their bones which are exported to Asia for traditional medicines, or sold to be killed by trophy hunters largely from the United States in “canned” hunts in which hand-reared lions are shot in a fenced area from which they cannot escape.

As well as being barbaric and heartless, a lion colloquium (parliamentary conference) in August last year revealed that the captive breeding of lions is poorly regulated and fraught with welfare and ethical concerns. There is no better evidence of that than the atrocities discovered at the Pienika Farm.”

According to an article released on 4th May 2019, Pienika Farm is allegedly owned by South African Predator Association member and councilman, Mr Jan Steinman. SAPA has for years strongly supported South Africa’s captive lion breeding industry, and at the Portfolio Committee of Environmental Affairs during the Colloquium on the Captive Breeding of Lions in August 2018, SAPA President, Mr Kirsten Nematandani claimed that “SAPA sets very high standards for [its] members” and assured the PCEA that it had “implemented SAPA’s Norms and Standards [N&S] for Breeding and Hunting to make sure everything is above board”. And yet it would appear that one of SAPA’s own members could be in breach of several SAPA regulations including those regarding animal welfare, lion husbandry, minimum enclosure size, and the trade of lion products.

The NSPCA laid charges of contravention to the Animals Protections Act 71 of 1962 against Mr Steinman on May 2nd.

Karen Trendler, Manager NSPCA Wildlife Trade & Trafficking Portfolio, says: “The very fact that SAPA has included the word “undue” in its version of the Five Freedoms, an internationally accepted set of animal welfare guidelines, basically suggests that SAPA believes there are justifiable times for an animal to be hungry or thirsty, or suffer from fear, pain or disease, which is totally unacceptable in terms of animal welfare.”

The South African government sanctions the captive lion breeding industry and has established a quota for the international lion bone trade, despite growing global outrage.  A recent exposé by former Conservative Peer Lord Ashcroft of the United Kingdom revealed serious non-compliance issues regarding permitting and restricted activities (activities prohibited by provincial and national law) at South African breeding facilities, including alleged illegal “green-hunts” (where animals are darted with an immobilising agent as opposed to live ammunition) of lions, cross breeding of lions and tigers to produce larger offspring (ligers and tigons), and even plots to illegally export lion skins hidden in deer skin hides.

South Africa is a popular tourist destination that welcomed approximately 10.3 million foreign tourists and facilitated 17.2 million domestic tourism trips in 2017 (South Africa Tourism Report 2017). Most tourists come from North America, South and Central America, and Europe.

Audrey Delsink, HSI/Wildlife Director said “In the face of so much evidence supporting the significant welfare atrocities and illegal activities, and the bogus standards presented by the industry, the South African government cannot stand idle. We demand that the government shut down this industry once and for all; that is the only way brand South Africa can recover from this significant scourge.”

The eventual fate of the lions is uncertain and will depend on the outcome of the legal process. Even if the NSPCA is able to prove that the neglect was so severe as to justify confiscation of all the lions, there are no reputable facilities in South Africa able to immediately take in such a large number of lions.

Delsink says: “Caring for big cats requires really specialist expertise and facilities, as well as sufficient space. These animals can’t just be released into the wild as they’ve been captive bred and have no idea how to survive, plus if they are as sick as they appear, they’ll need veterinary treatment. There is sadly no quick fix to rehome more than 100 lions all at once. It’s an extremely sad situation, with these lions the innocent victims.” 

Take action by signing our petition and request the South African government’s conservation authority to shut down captive breeding of predators. The horrors at Pienika Farm demonstrate that the provincial authorities are failing to regulate this industry in any way.

Key facts:

  • With fewer than 3,000 wild lions, South Africa has more lions languishing in captivity than in the wild.
  • Between 6,000 and 8,000 lions are bred in captivity in some 260 facilities across South Africa, marketed to tourists as lion interaction experiences.
  • In its 2015 Biodiversity Management Plan, the government of South Africa stated “captive lions are bred exclusively to generate money.”
  • In the wild, lion cubs remain with their mothers for 18 months, and females rest for at least 15-24 months between litters. Cubs born on breeding farms are taken from their mothers when they are a few days or even hours old to be used as living photo props. The removal of cubs forces the mother into an exhausting and continuous breeding cycle while incarcerated in enclosures, sometimes without adequate food, hygiene, or the ability to express their natural behaviours.
  • Lions are a threatened species, listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). While the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) prohibits the trade of bones from wild lions, it does allow South Africa to export bones from captive ones.
  • It is impossible to differentiate body parts from wild vs. captive lions, so the legal export of captive lion bones facilitates the illegal export of wild lion bones.
  • Learn more about HSI’s lion exploitation campaign here: https://www.hsi.org/issues/wildlife-trade/
  • Take the Don’t Buy Wild Pledge to avoid buying items or experiences that compromise the welfare of wild animals. Leave souvenirs like ivory trinkets and exotic leathers, attractions that keep animals’ captive in inhumane conditions, or exotic pets for sale off your travel itinerary.

 

NEWSROOM: https://newsroom.humanesociety.org/fetcher/index.php?searchMerlin=1&searchBrightcove=1&submitted=1&mw=d&q=CaptiveLions0519

All to be credited as per the individual photo caption. Please click on any image and then select Sign Up to request access.

 

Media contacts:

  • Humane Society International – Africa: Social Media and Communications manager, Leozette Roode, lroode@hsi.org
  • HSI/UK: Director of International Media Wendy Higgins, mobile +44 (0) 7989 972 423, whiggins@hsi.org

Read a blog entry about this by HSUS President & CEO Kitty Block.

Humane Society International / Europe

BRUSSELS—Humane Society International celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the historic European Union ban on trade in commercial seal products. The EU ban, a watershed event in the global campaign to stop commercial sealing, was adopted by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament on 5th May 2009.

The impact of the EU ban — and of the many other seal product trade prohibitions that followed — is undeniable. Prices paid for seal fur in Atlantic Canada have declined by more than 70%, while 90% of licensed commercial sealers no longer participate in the slaughter because it is not profitable for them to do so. As a result, more than 3 million seals have been spared a horrible fate in the past decade alone. International prohibitions on the seal product trade contain clear exemptions for products of indigenous seal hunts.

Rebecca Aldworth, executive director for HSI/Canada, said: “Ten years ago, I watched firsthand as the European Parliament voted to prohibit commercial trade in seal products. In the minutes before the vote, images of so many suffering and dying baby seals kept flashing through my mind. When the vote was in, I knew that the beginning of the end of this brutal industry had just happened. As someone who has observed commercial sealing for 18 years, I will be forever grateful to the EU for its moral leadership and for saving so many seals from a horrible fate.”

Dr Joanna Swabe, senior director of public affairs for HSI/Europe, added: “The adoption of the EU Regulation on trade in seal products was certainly an amazing landmark victory for animal protection, but this was not the end of the story. In the years that followed, the legislation was subjected to and, most importantly, withstood separate spurious legal challenges in the European Courts and at the World Trade Organization. Most importantly, the WTO Appellate Body ruled that, while the legislation needed tweaking, the EU was justified in banning the cruel products of commercial seal hunts on the grounds of public morality. By 2015, I found myself back in the European Parliament talking about seals again as a legislative proposal to amend the ban to make it fully compliant with WTO rules was considered by MEPs. Yet again, the seal product trade ban survived cynical attempts from opponents to water it down and thankfully the EU’s borders remain firmly shut to commercial seal products.”

FACTS

  • In 2009, the European Parliament voted 550 to 49 in favor of a strong ban on trade in products of commercial seal hunts. In 2010, the EU ban came into force.
  • The commercial seal hunt in Atlantic Canada has been the largest slaughter of marine mammals on earth, with hundreds of thousands of seal pups clubbed and shot to death each year.
  • The seals are killed primarily for their fur. The Canadian government notes that the pelts of young seals are the most valuable and not surprisingly, more than 98% of the seals killed each year are less than three months of age.
  • The commercial seal hunt in Atlantic Canada is conducted by commercial fishermen who, on average, earn a tiny fraction (less than 5%) of their annual incomes from killing seals. Today, only a few hundred fishermen participate in the annual slaughter.
  • Harp seals—the primary targets of the Atlantic Canadian commercial seal hunt—are ice-breeding animals, and climate change is fast destroying their sea ice habitat. According to Garry Stenson, section head for marine mammals for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “We’re seeing two things: fewer animals pupping and when they do, there is a high mortality with it…The ice isn’t thick and it breaks up before the animal can survive on its own… We’ve been seeing years where ice mortality is very high. We’ve seen dead pups that have drowned. It has a big impact on mortality.”
  • To date, more than 37 countries—including the 28 Member States of the European Union—have prohibited trade in products of commercial seal hunts for conservation or animal welfare reasons.
  • Canada and Norway challenged the EU ban at the World Trade Organization. In 2013, the WTO upheld the right of the EU to ban the trade in commercial seal products on the grounds of public morality. In 2014, the WTO considered an appeal to that ruling. Although the WTO Appellate Body, once again, ruled largely in favour of the EU, the EU agreed to make minor amendments to the ban to achieve full compliance to WTO rules before 18th October 2015
  • The WTO ruling in seals set a legal precedent because it was the very first time that animal welfare has been recognised by the WTO as a legitimate public moral concern.
  • In September 2015, the European Court of Justice rejected an appeal brought by commercial sealing interests and some Inuit representatives with regard to the EU ban on trade in seal products. This appeal concerns a 2013 decision by the European General Court, which rejected the appellants’ request to find the legal basis and implementing measures for the EU ban on commercial seal product trade unlawful.
  • In October 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union preserved the EU ban on commercial seal product trade by dismissing an appeal by commercial sealing and fur trade interests and some Inuit representatives. The appeal sought to overturn a 2011 decision from the European General Court that the applicants’ action against the EU ban was inadmissible.
  • A separate application to have the EU seal product trade ban overturned was rejected in April 2010.

END

Media contact: Jo Swabe, jswabe@hsi.org

 

Humane Society International / United States

WASHINGTON—After a prod from a lawsuit filed by conservation groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that giraffes may qualify for protection under America’s Endangered Species Act.

The 2018 lawsuit — brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society International, Humane Society of the United States, and the Natural Resources Defense Council — seeks a response to their April 2017 legal petition for Endangered Species Act protection for giraffes. The species is gravely imperiled by habitat loss and fragmentation, civil unrest and overhunting, as well as the international trade in bone carvings, skins, and trophies.

The United States provides a large market for giraffe parts: More than 21,400 bone carvings, 3,000 skin pieces and 3,700 hunting trophies were imported over the past decade. Limiting U.S. import and trade would give giraffes important protections, and an ESA listing would also help provide critical funding for conservation work in Africa.

“The U.S. on average imports more than one giraffe trophy a day, and thousands of giraffe parts are sold domestically each year,” said Anna Frostic, attorney for the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International. “The federal government must now expeditiously take stock of the role we are playing in giraffe decline and how we can work to instead save these unique animals.”

Africa’s giraffe population has plunged nearly 40 percent in the past 30 years. It now stands at just over 97,000 individuals.

“This is a big step toward protecting giraffes from the growing use of their bones by U.S. gun and knife makers,” said Tanya Sanerib, international legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s disgusting that it took a lawsuit to prompt the Trump administration to act. Saving everyone’s favorite long-necked animal from extinction should have been the easiest call in the world.”

With fewer giraffes than elephants left in Africa, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature elevated the threat level to giraffes from “least concern” to “vulnerable” on its “Red List of Threatened Species” in 2016. That finding was confirmed in 2018 along with a critically endangered assessment of two giraffe subspecies and an endangered assessment for another.

“The United States has long been complicit in the trade of giraffe parts, so it’s time for the federal government to stick its neck out for this species,” said Elly Pepper with NRDC. “The United States has taken action to help staunch the trade of numerous species in trouble. Sadly, now it is time to take action to ensure giraffes remain on the planet. They need Endangered Species Act protections and they need them now.”

Known for their six-foot-long necks, distinctive patterning and long eyelashes, giraffes have captured the human imagination for centuries. New research recently revealed that they live in complex societies, much like elephants, and have unique physiological traits, including the highest blood pressure of any land mammal.

The IUCN currently recognizes one species of giraffes and nine subspecies: West African, Kordofan, Nubian, reticulated, Masai, Thornicroft’s, Rothchild’s, Angolan and South African. The legal petition seeks an endangered listing for the whole species.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has 12 months to decide whether Endangered Species Act listing is warranted.

For photos/video of the HSUS/HSI 2018 undercover investigation into the sale of giraffe parts CLICK HERE.

Humane Society International / Europe

Minke whale
Kevin Schafer/Alamy

STRASBOURG (16 April 2019)—At the European Parliament’s final plenary session before the EU elections, MEPs voted in favour of a new Regulation on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, following many months of difficult negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and Commission. The proposed Regulation is intended to merge and simplify 33 different pieces of EU legislation, including the existing rules on cetacean bycatch. While some positive advances were made, the legislation adopted misses important opportunities to improve the protection of marine species and their habitats.

Dr Joanna Swabe, senior director of public affairs for Humane Society International/Europe, issued the following statement after the vote:

“The revision of bycatch rules had great potential to significantly increase protections for European cetacean populations and prevent the horrific and needless deaths of porpoises, dolphins and whales accidentally entangled in fishing gear. Unfortunately, the legislation that passed will only marginally improve the status quo.

“In the past few weeks alone, the mutilated corpses of hundreds of dolphins have washed up on French beaches; these poor animals represent only a fraction of the thousands who are accidentally killed by the fishing industry in the EU each year. Sadly, the legislation adopted today will likely continue to fail these sensitive species since the measures adopted for marine mammals are not sufficient to mitigate bycatch effectively.”

Swabe faulted MEPs and Member States for ignoring key information during the legislative process, saying, “They turned a blind eye to the recommendations of scientific experts, such as the ICES1 Bycatch Working Group, ASCOBANS2 and ACCOBAMS3. They also failed to take up the Commission’s proposal to require the use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices in specific marine areas where they are much needed.”

The legislation did include minor improvements to existing cetacean bycatch rules:

  1. The adoption of overarching objectives for technical measures adopted under the new framework, and a mechanism for monitoring and reporting on their effectiveness;
  2. A new requirement for EU Member States to provide information on the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures and monitoring arrangements with respect to bycatch of sensitive species, including cetaceans, seabirds and sea turtles;
  3. A requirement that Member States submit joint recommendations for additional mitigation measures for the reduction of incidental catches of these species;
  4. The inclusion of sea turtles in the technical conservation measures regulation – a species that had been overlooked in the Commission’s original proposal.

“So much more could have been achieved if the politicians had been more concerned with protecting marine species and their habitats, rather than the interests of the fishing industry,” said Swabe.

Facts

  • The current EU cetacean bycatch legislation (Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004) has been found to have significant weaknesses and is being repealed and incorporated into the proposed regulation on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (2016/0074).
  • Technical measures are the rules for where, when and how fishing may take place. These measures are fundamental to regulating the impact of fishing on stocks and marine ecosystems, and they will play a key role in achieving some of the main objectives of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, such as implementing an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, minimising the impacts of fisheries on the wider environment and avoiding unwanted catches and gradual elimination of discards.
  • The Commission proposal to require the use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices in the following fishing areas, where there is documented evidence of negative impacts on cetacean populations, was disregarded: VIa (west of Scotland), ICES sub-areas VIII and IXa (southwest waters), the Mediterranean and Black Seas.

 

END

 

Media contact: Jo Swabe, jswabe@hsi.org

 

1 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

2 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas

3 Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area

Humane Society International / Canada

MONTREAL – HSI/Canada is calling on the BC provincial government to take immediate action in stopping all ‘wildlife killing contests’ across the province and enact the necessary legislation to make any and all future contests illegal.

In wildlife killing contests, contestants pay a fee and compete for cash and prizes to see who can kill the most or the largest animals in a specified period of time. Awarding prizes for competitive and indiscriminate killing of animals is unethical and inconsistent with respecting the important role each species plays in our ecosystem.

Julie MacInnes, wildlife campaign manager for HSI/Canada, stated: “These contests permit some of the most inhumane and cruel methods to kill our iconic and sentient wildlife. These bloodlust traditions need to be banned – rather than ignored, or worse, encouraged in 2019. Wolves and cougars are critical to increasing biodiversity and maintaining healthy ecosystems.”

Wildlife killing contests are unscientific, inherently inhumane, and go against the ethics of most Canadians. In BC, 94% of residents oppose trophy hunting. In the interest of creating a more humane society, HSI/Canada urges the BC Government to react swiftly and decisively by suspending any current wildlife killing contests and to take concrete steps towards making such contests illegal.

Facts:

  • In Williams Lake, until March 31, contestants can pay $20 to enter a ‘wolf-whacking contest’. As per the rules, hunters take photos of their wolf kills with time stamps or they can bring in the ‘critter’s head and hide.’ The person or team with the most kills wins the ‘grand prize.’
  • In another contest, hosted by the Creston Valley Rod and Gun Club (held March 16 to 24), contestants pay a $10 entry fee and there are cash prizes for those who have accumulated the most points. Points are won depending on which of the target species is killed. Target species include wolves, coyotes, cougars and raccoons.
  • To kill the most animals, participants are often encouraged to use high-tech weapons and other equipment like electronic calling devices, which lure animals in for an easy kill by mimicking the sounds of a fellow animal in distress. Hounds and GPS collars could also be used, in addition to cruel snares and traps.
  • Countless animals are left injured, and dependent young may be orphaned during these events, left to die from starvation, predation or exposure. Once the prizes are awarded, the bodies of the animals are often discarded as trash.
  • HSI/Canada sent an open letter to the BC government to ban wildlife killing contests, in coalition with 54 wildlife, conservation, and animal welfare specialists and organizations.
  • There is growing awareness that these cruel tournaments must be outlawed across North America. In the U.S., California was the first state to institute a ban on wildlife killing contests in 2014. In 2017, Maryland placed a moratorium on cruel aquatic killing contests for cownose rays in the Chesapeake Bay. In 2018, Vermont banned coyote killing contests. In 2019, bills are currently pending to ban wildlife killing contests in the states of New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico and Arizona’s wildlife agency is contemplating regulations that would ban wildlife killing contests.

Media Contact: Christopher Paré – office: 514 395-2914 x 206 / cell: 438 402-0643, email: cpare@hsi.org

Humane Society International / United States

WASHINGTON—A newly released public opinion poll of registered voters in the United States shows overwhelming disapproval of a proposal to lift the ban on trophy hunting in Botswana and to initiate regular culls of the country’s elephants. On February 21, a Botswanan cabinet subcommittee recommended lifting the hunting ban and starting regular elephant culling to President Dr. Mokgweetsi Eric Keabetswe Masisi, who is expected to make a decision soon.

The United States is Botswana’s second largest source of tourists. The results of the U.S. poll show that 75 percent of respondents think it is important to protect elephants from trophy hunting. An overwhelming 78 percent of respondents do not support the proposed culling. Furthermore, 73 percent of respondents believe that if trophy hunting and elephants culls are started, Botswana’s image as a leader in wildlife conservation would be harmed. With reports of elephant poaching on the rise in Botswana, 75 percent of those surveyed were worried about elephant poaching.

In a historic move, Botswana banned trophy hunting in 2014. After the ban went into effect, the country became a popular tourist destination for travelers who want to support ecotourism and the country’s iconic wildlife. In fact, this highly productive industry is considered to be under threat since many visitors choose Botswana as their safari destination specifically because of its firm anti-hunting stance. Using data from the CITES international trade database, Humane Society International estimates that Botswana’s trophy hunting ban has saved nearly 2,400 elephants and 140 leopards from the bullet so far. Leading tour operators have stated that the proposal goes against everything the country stands for and implementation thereof would amount to taking regressive steps rather than building on a sound ecotourism record.

Sign the petition to protect Botswana’s elephants

In 2018, travel and tourism in Botswana experienced 3.4 percent growth, contributing US$2.52 billion or 13.4 percent to the country’s economy and supporting 84,000 jobs or 8.9 percent of Botswana’s total employment. Leisure travel accounted for 96 percent of travel and tourism spending, and almost 3/4 of spending came from international travelers. With tourism now the second largest contributor to the country’s GDP and a significant employer, reinstating trophy hunting and starting elephant culls could hurt the country’s economy.

Iris Ho, senior specialist for wildlife programs and policy at Humane Society International, said, “Millions of foreign tourists travel to Botswana to shoot majestic wild animals, not with guns, but with their cameras. Wildlife watching and photographic tourism is on the rise around the world, outstripping the revenue from trophy hunting and the number of trophy hunters by a wide margin. The current ban on trophy hunting is a win-win policy for Botswana’s economy, for the local community and for the animals. There cannot be a more drastic shift for a country known as a safe haven for elephants to become an elephant canning factory for pet food. With poaching of elephants across Africa on the rise, legalized hunting and culling is severe blow to Africa’s rapidly declining elephant population.”

In conjunction with the release of the polling results, more than 87,000 people from around the world signed HSI’s petition to the president of Botswana, asking him to keep the trophy hunting ban in place and to reject plans to cull the country’s elephants. HSI also led a sign-on letter from 33 animal welfare and wildlife conservation organizations from around the world with similar appeals.

The poll of 1,091 registered voters was conducted by the Remington Research Group from March 3-5, 2019, with a margin of error of +/-3 percent and a 95 percent level of confidence.

ENDS

Media contacts:
United States: Nancy Hwa, (202) 676-2337 (office), (202) 596-0808 (mobile), nhwa@hsi.org
Africa: Leozette Rood, +2771 360 1004 (mobile), lroode@hsi.org

Humane Society International / Europe

BRUSSELS—Alesha Dixon, Martin Clunes OBE, Deborah Meaden, Anneka Rice, Susan George, Virginia McKenna OBE, Brian Blessed OBE, Fiona Shaw CBE, Steve Backshall and Lucy Watson have written to EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella urging him to support a proposal by African nations to protect the imperiled giraffe. The species has declined by up to 40 percent in the past 30 years. The proposal will be discussed at a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Colombo, Sri Lanka starting in late May, but it has little chance of success without the support of the EU voting bloc.

In an open letter co-signed by the Born Free Foundation, Humane Society International, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Pro Wildlife, Animal Defenders International, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Welfare Institute, and Avaaz, the stars urge the EU Commission to “stick its neck out for the giraffe” by supporting the of listing the giraffe on Appendix II of CITES.

The letter reads: “The world’s tallest mammal is beloved by many for its beauty and grace. These gentle giants are icons of the African savannah, and every child knows that “G” is for giraffe. But sadly, this iconic species is suffering a “silent extinction” because few are aware of their plight. Giraffe populations have decreased approximately 40% in the last 30 years. If we do not act quickly the giraffe could disappear forever.”

The proposal has been put forward by the Central African Republic, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Niger and Senegal, and is supported by the 32 African nation members of the African Elephant Coalition, which released a declaration last month in recognition of the steep decline in giraffe populations. An Avaaz petition has also received 1.3 million signatures of support from citizens around the world.

Scientists have labeled the plight of giraffes a “silent extinction” due to the lack of attention and support the species is receiving. Securing the support of the voting bloc of EU Member States is absolutely critical for the giraffe proposal to succeed, but as yet the EU is hesitant to support. EU representatives are due to meet and agree their position on this and other proposals on 28th March, so the celebrities and animal groups have come together to increase their call on the EU to act.

Virginia McKenna OBE, actress and co-founder of The Born Free Foundation, said: “The trivial items – giraffe bone handles, a Bible cover, a giraffe foot – made from the parts of dead giraffes – should be objects of shame. The world has gone mad if people value these more than the living, beautiful creatures which play such a vital role in the survival of the African savannah. Animals suffer and feel pain as we do- or don’t we care?”

Singer Alesha Dixon said: “It saddens me to think that our children or grandchildren could grow up in a world without giraffes, so I hope that policy makers do the right thing and support the proposal to protect this beautiful species.”

Adam Peyman, Humane Society International’s wildlife programs and operations manager, said: “The giraffe is going quietly extinct as they are slaughtered for trophies and their body parts used for trinkets. As there are currently no regulations on trade in giraffes, a CITES listing would provide critical measures to ensure giraffes are not pushed to the brink of extinction, and the EU’s vote holds the key to its success.”

Jan Creamer, President of Animal Defenders International, said: “We must act now to prevent the further decline of this iconic species. African nations need our help to protect threatened giraffe populations, and we urge the EU to step up and support this important measure, before it’s too late.”

While giraffe populations continue to wane, the species has become common in the wildlife trade. A Humane Society International report shows that the United States imported nearly 40,000 giraffe specimens between 2006 and 2015, such as hunting trophies, decoration items, and knife handles, in addition to large shipments of live animals. The EU is also a key consumer of giraffe products; online research detailed in the proposal records over 300 giraffe products for sale by sellers based in seven European Union countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

The proposal seeks to provide giraffes with protections to bring under control international trade in the currently unprotected species. An Appendix II listing would require exporting countries to prove that giraffe specimens were legally obtained and that the export is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Additionally, the listing would provide researchers and governments with important data to track the trade in giraffes throughout the world.

The nine organisations and the 32 African countries also strongly encourage CITES Parties, the CITES Secretariat, inter-governmental organisations and non-governmental organisations to support the proposal.

Notes to Editors:

  • The US, the only country for which import data is available, imported a total of 39,516 giraffe specimens between 2006 and 2015, some of these originating in countries where giraffe populations are Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable.
  • The 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES will take place in Colombo, Sri Lanka, from 23 May to 3 June.
  • Members of the Africa Elephant Coalition, which announced support for the giraffe proposal, include Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Togo, and Uganda.
  • Watch a short awareness video on the giraffe’s silent extinction here.

Media contacts:

Humane Society International (UK): Wendy Higgins, whiggins@hsi.org +44 (0) 7989 972 423

DOWNLOAD: video and photos of giraffe skin, bone and other items sold in the USA for the wildlife trade here.

Humane Society International / Europe

BRUSSELS—International animal conservation and protection organisations — the Born Free Foundation, Humane Society International, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Pro Wildlife, Animal Defenders International, and the National Resource Defense Council — are calling on European Union (EU) Member States to support a proposal by African nations to protect the imperiled giraffe from international trade that has contributed to the species’ decline by 40 percent in the past 30 years. The Central African Republic, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Niger and Senegal want giraffes listed on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), but they need the support of the EU’s voting bloc, without which the proposal is likely to fail.

The six nations have the backing of fellow members of the African Elephant Coalition (AEC), a consortium of 32 African countries, which released a declaration stating its support for the proposal last month, in recognition of the steep decline in giraffe populations.

Scientists have labeled the plight of giraffes a “silent extinction” due to the lack of attention and support the species is receiving, so the animal groups are urging the European Union to stand in solidarity with the 32 African countries. Winning the support of the EU Member States is absolutely critical for the giraffe proposal to succeed, but as yet a number of MSs look minded to oppose. EU representatives are due to meet and agree their position on 28th March, so the animal groups are increasing their call for the EU to stand in solidarity with the 32 African nations that want to see the giraffe proposal pushed through.

Daniela Freyer from Pro Wildlife, said: “We call on the EU to join the majority of African countries in their efforts to better protect giraffes. The species is endangered, populations have plummeted to less than 100,000 animals and we must ensure that over-exploitation for international trade is not fueling declines.”

While giraffe populations continue to wane, the species has become common in the wildlife trade. A Humane Society International report shows that the United States imported nearly 40,000 giraffe specimens between 2006 and 2015, such as hunting trophies, decoration items, and knife handles, in addition to large shipments of live animals. The EU is also a key consumer of giraffe products; online research detailed in the proposal records over 300 giraffe products for sale by sellers based in seven European Union countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

The proposal, to be voted on at the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in May, seeks to provide giraffes with protections to bring under control international trade in the currently unprotected species. An Appendix II listing would require exporting countries to prove that giraffe specimens were legally obtained and that the export is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Additionally, the listing would provide researchers and governments with important data to track the trade in giraffes throughout the world.

Adam Peyman wildlife programs and operations manager for Humane Society International, said: “The giraffe is going quietly extinct as they are slaughtered for trophies and their body parts used for trinkets. As there are currently no regulations on trade in giraffes, a CITES listing would provide critical measures to ensure giraffes are not pushed to the brink of extinction, and the EU’s vote holds the key to its success.”

The six organisations and the 30 African countries also strongly encourage CITES Parties, the CITES Secretariat, inter-governmental organisations and non-governmental organisations to support the proposal.

Jan Creamer, President of Animal Defenders International, said: “We must act now to prevent the further decline of this iconic species. African nations need our help to protect threatened giraffe populations, and we urge the EU to step up and support this important measure, before it’s too late.”

Notes to Editors:

  • The US, the only country for which importing data is available, imported a total of 39,516 giraffe specimens between 2006 and 2015, some of these originating in countries where giraffe populations are Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable.
  • The 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES will take place in Colombo, Sri Lanka, from 23 May to 3 June.
  • Members of the Africa Elephant Coalition, which announced support for the giraffe proposal, include Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Togo, and Uganda.
  • Watch a short awareness video on the giraffe’s silent extinction here.

Media contacts:

Humane Society International (UK): Wendy Higgins, whiggins@hsi.org +44 (0) 7989 972 423

Humane Society International / United Kingdom

Through extensive research, HSI UK has discovered that many animal fur items for sale in the UK, especially in independent boutiques, in markets and online, are either not labelled at all, or are incorrectly labelled or marketed as synthetic.

For the vast majority of British shoppers who reject the cruelty of the fur trade, trying to buy only fake fur can be a real challenge. Whether it’s raccoon dog fur bobble hats, rabbit fur key chains, or hooded coats trimmed with fox fur, misleading labelling or incorrect marketing is leading would-be ethical consumers to purchase real fur trim items in the mistaken belief that they are faux fur.

Don’t be misled—check out our guide to telling the difference between real and faux fur.

This is a double scandal—violating the rights of consumers who are not being protected from unfair trading, and artificially inflating the market for animal fur, causing immense suffering.

We believe that all retailers have a duty to ensure that they have rigorous buying and quality control procedures in place in order that they do not mislead customers.

Each year, HSI/UK finds more examples of ‘fake faux fur’ for sale, from well-known outlets on the UK high street to independent shops and markets, in London and other UK cities. The problem appears to be growing particularly acute online.

How can this happen? Isn’t fur expensive?

Shockingly, real fur can now be produced and sold for less than fake fur—a calculation that’s costing animals their lives.

Life is cheap in the animal fur industry; miserably poor conditions in countries such as China—where much UK fur trim comes from – means real fur can be produced and sold very inexpensively. At online wholesalers such as Alibaba.com, retailers can bulk-buy a 70cm raccoon dog fur hood trim for £3 per piece, or a raccoon dog fur pompom for a bobble hat for just 30p per piece.

This translates into cheap items on the high-street. Here are just a few of the items we’ve recently found in the UK:

  • A knitted hat with real marmot fur bobble costing £3.50
  • A handbag charm/keyring pom pom made from rabbit fur for sale at £5 each
  • A parka with real raccoon dog fur trim around the hood priced at £35
  • A gilet made from real raccoon dog fur with a £75 price tag
  • A short sleeveless jacket made of rabbit and marmot fur for sale at £35

Check before you buy, but please do not simply rely on labels or price when taking a decision on whether fur is real or fake—an animal’s life could depend on it. Check out our guide to telling the difference between real and fake fur—and if in any doubt, please leave it on the shelf.

Buyer beware: what’s (not) on the label

Shockingly, there’s no legal requirement for animal fur to be specifically listed on a garment’s fabric content label. We’ve recently found, for example:

  • A ladies’ coat with a real fur trim on the hood, labelled polyester 100%
  • A pair of fingerless gloves with real fur trim, labelled 100% acrilico [sic]
  • A knitted hat with a real fur bobble, labelled 100% acrylic
  • A pair of woolen gloves with real fur trim, labelled 80% wool, 20% polyester

By law, under the EU Textile Products Regulation (2011) a “textile product” that include parts of animal origin (for example, feathers, bone, or animal fur) must be clearly labelled or marked using the phrase “contains non-textile parts of animal origin”.

However, our retail surveys show extremely low compliance with this new Regulation, meaning consumers can’t rely on labels to avoid buying real animal fur. In addition, the fur labelling requirements under this Regulation do not apply to any non-textile items (for example a coat made primarily out of fur, or leather, which are not textiles would not legally require any fur labelling), plus shoes or accessories such as pom pom keychains are also exempt.

Current EU fur labelling laws are inadequate and poorly implemented, creating a confused marketplace.

Customers care—and deserve better

Opinion polls for decades show that the vast majority of the British public want no part in the cruel fur trade, and would not buy or wear real animal fur.

A poll commissioned by HSI/UK and conducted by YouGov shows that the vast majority (85%) of consumers expect to see real animal fur clearly labelled as such in the clothes and accessories they buy. The poll also reveals that, in addition to labelling, people rely most heavily on fur feeling synthetic (50%) and a cheap price (47%) as lead indicators to assess whether fur is real or fake. In fact, neither represents a reliable method to distinguish real from fake fur, and labels are unreliable.

UK shoppers are not getting the information they need to make informed, ethical buying choices.

The Advertising Standards Agency recently upheld two complaints from HSI/UK where real fur had been described as faux fur. It has since issued an Enforcement Notice and guidance to retailers reminding them of their responsibilities when it comes to describing fur.

Read our blog: Lacking Infurmation

View details of our recent investigation

Found fake faux fur? Send us the details

Humane Society International / Canada

Ask Canadian politicians to shut down the country’s factory fur farms.

Learn More Button Inserter