Wednesday, April 20, 2011

My favourite quotes.

*Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is:  "Because the animals are like us."  Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is:  "Because the animals are not like us."  Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. 

*God loved the birds and invented trees.  Man loved the birds and invented cages.

*We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form. 


*The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

*Man is the only creature that consumes without producing.  He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits.  Yet he is lord of all the animals.

*Life is life - whether in a cat, or dog or man.  There is no difference there between a cat or a man.  The idea of difference is a human conception for man's own advantage.

*The woods were made for the hunters of dreams,
The brooks for the fishers of song;
To the hunters who hunt for the gunless game
The streams and the woods belong.

*God made all the creatures and gave them our love and our fear,
To give sign, we and they are His children, one family here.

*As long as man eats animals how can cruelty to animals be removed.

*Animals are such agreeable friends - they ask no questions, they pass no criticisms.

*Man is a dog's idea of what God should be.

*When a dog barks at the moon, then it is religion; but when he barks at strangers, it is patriotism! 

*Dogs laugh, but they laugh with their tails.

*God gives every bird its food, but He does not throw it into its nest.

Posted by at 5 comments:

Monday, April 18, 2011

Wildlife conservation

Wildlife conservation is the preservation, protection, or restoration of wildlife and their environment, especially in relation to endangered and vulnerable species. All living non-domesticated animals, even if bred, hatched or born in captivity, are considered wild animals. Wildlife represents all the non-cultivated and non-domesticated animals living in their natural habitats. Our world has many unique and rare animals, birds and reptiles. However the pressure of growing population in different parts of the world has led to the increasing need of using land for human habitations and agriculture. This has led to the reduced habitat of many wild animals.

Major threats to wildlife

Major threats to wildlife can be categorized as below:
  • Habitat Loss: Fewer natural wildlife habitat areas remain each year. Moreover, the habitat that remains has often been degraded to bear little resemblance to the natural wild areas which existed in the past.
  • Climate Change: Because many types of plants and animals have specific habitat requirements, climate change could cause disastrous loss of wildlife species. A slight drop or rise in average rainfall will translate into large seasonal changes. Hibernating mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects are harmed and disturbed. Plants and wildlife are sensitive to moisture change so, they will be harmed by any change in the moisture level.
  • Pesticides & Toxic Chemicals: Pesticides are deliberately spread to make the environment toxic to certain plants, insects, and rodents, so it should not be surprising that other plants and wildlife are deliberately harmed at the same time. In addition many chemical pollutants are toxic to wildlife, such as PCBs, mercury, petrolium by-products, solvents, antifreeze, etc.
  • Hunting and Poaching: Unregulated hunting and poaching causes a major threat to wildlife. Along with this, mismanagement of forest department and forest guards triggers this problem.
  • Natural Phenomenon: Floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, lightning, forest fires

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the most successful conservation model in world[1]. It has its origins in 19th century conservation movements, the near extinction of several species of wildlife (including the American Bison) and the rise of sportsmen with the middle class[2][3]. Beginning in the 1860s sportsmen began to organize and advocate for the preservation of wilderness areas and wildlife. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation rests on two basic principles – fish and wildlife are for the non-commercial use of citizens, and should be managed such that they are available at optimum population levels forever. These core principles are elaborated upon in the seven major tenets of the model.
  • Public Trust Doctrine: In the North American Model, wildlife is held in the public trust. This means that fish and wildlife are held by the public through state and federal governments. In other words, though an individual may own the land up which wildlife resides, that individual does not own said wildlife. Instead, the wildlife is owned by all citizens. With origins in Roman times and English Common law, the public trust doctrine has at its heart the 1842 Supreme Court ruling Martin V. Waddell[4][5].
  • Regulated commerce in wildlife: Under the North American Model, wildlife exist outside the market, removing any direct commercial value from wild game as they and the meat thereof cannot be bought or sold. Certain products such as antlers and fur may, however, be bought and sold. The end of market hunting was a major step in the restoration of North American species. By removing the pressure of market hunting allowed game and fish species to recover and eventually be taken by hunters and anglers at sustainable levels[6].
  • Hunting and angling laws are created through the public process: Through democratic representation, citizens create the policies that regulate, conserve, and manage wildlife within the United States and Canada. The creation and implementation of wildlife and natural resource management policy is an open and public process[7].
  • Opportunity for all, funded by all: All citizens have a right to hunting and fishing. Additionally the management of fish and wildlife is funded through the sale of licenses and in the taxation of hunting and fishing equipment. Additional funding comes from state and federal budgets, but the bulk of funding is through these sources[8].
  • Non-frivolous use: Under the North American Model, the killing of game must be done only for food, fur, self-defense, and the protection of property (including livestock). In other words, it is broadly regarded as unlawful and unethical to kill fish or wildlife (even with a license) without making all reasonable effort to retrieve and make reasonable use of the resource[9][10].
  • Wildlife as an international resource: As wildlife do exist only within fixed political boundaries, effective management of these resources must be done internationally, through treaties and the cooperation of management agencies[11][12].
  • Scientific Management: Effective management of wildlife and other natural resources must be based on continuous and sound scientific research[13][14].

Government Involvement

The Wildlife Conservation Act was enacted by the Government of India in 1972.
Posted by at No comments:

Behavioral enrichment to any animal

Behavioral enrichment, also called environmental enrichment is an 'animal husbandry principle that seeks to enhance the quality of captive animal care by identifying and providing the environmental stimuli necessary for optimal psychological and physiological wellbeing'.[1] The goal of environmental enrichment is to improve or maintain an animal's physical and psychological health by increasing range or number of species-specific behaviours, increasing positive utilisation of the captive environment, preventing or reducing the frequency of abnormal behaviours such as stereotypical behaviors, and increasing the individual's ability to cope with captive challenges. In principle, enrichment can be beneficial to any relatively intelligent animal, including mammals, birds, and even octopuses.[2]
Environmental enrichment may be offered to any animal in captivity, including:

Types of enrichment

Any novel stimulus which evokes an animal's interest can be considered enriching, including natural and artificial objects, scents, novel foods, and different methods of preparing foods (for example, frozen in ice). Most enrichment stimulus can be divided into six groups:
  • Sensory, this category stimulates animals' senses: visual, olfactory, auditory, tactile, and taste.
  • Feeding, this is how keepers make feeding time fun and challenging. Different methods of food presentation encourage animals to think and work for their food as they would in the wild.
  • Manipulative Toys, these are items that can be manipulated in some way via hands, feet, tail, horns, head, mouth etc. simply for investigation and exploratory play.
  • Environmental, this category enables the keeper to enhance the animals' zoo habitat with opportunities that change or add complexity to the environment.
  • Social, the opportunities to interact with other animals.
  • Training, training animals with positive reinforcement.
Puzzles that require an animal to solve simple problems in order to access food or other rewards are considered enrichment. Additionally food collecting and/or gathering contributes to behavioral enrichment and provides occupation. Quite elaborate systems of food presentation (dead rats) have been developed (e.g. in Switzerland for wild cats), where computer programmed various mechanic devices allow the animals in the enclosure to search for prey as in their natural environment. An animal's environment may also be enriched by the presence of other animals of the same or different species. A stimulus can be considered enriching even if the animal's reaction to it is negative, such as with unpleasant scents, although stimuli that evoke extreme stress or fear should be avoided, as well as stimuli that can be harmful to the animal. Enrichment can also be auditory which may include animal sounds and music.
Many people also believe that a behavior modification program (animal training) can also be enriching to a captive animal. Also the use of behavioral training, as another method of behavioral enrichment, has often contributed to the animals well-being as well as allowed zoos to improve dramatically their ability to care for animals, while reducing animal stress and increasing safety for both keeper and animal during care procedures.
Enclosures in modern zoos are often designed with enrichment in mind. For example, the Denver Zoo's exhibit Predator Ridge allows different African carnivore species to rotate among several enclosures, providing the animals with a larger environment and exposing them to each others' scents.
Posted by at No comments:

Zoo

A zoological garden, zoological park, menagerie, or zoo is a facility in which animals are confined within enclosures, displayed to the public, and in which they may also be bred.
The term zoological garden refers to zoology, the study of animals, a term deriving from the Greek zōon (ζῷον, "animal") and lógos (λóγος, "study"). The abbreviation "zoo" was first used of the London Zoological Gardens, which opened for scientific study in 1828 and to the public in 1847.[1] The number of major animal collections open to the public around the world now exceeds 1,000, around 80 percent of them in cities.[2]

Appearance and type

Zoo animals usually live in enclosures that attempt to replicate their natural habitats, for the benefit of the animals and the visitors. They may have special buildings for nocturnal animals, with dim white or red lighting used during the day, so the animals will be active when visitors are there, and brighter lights at night to help them sleep. Special climate conditions are created for animals living in radical environments, such as penguins. Special enclosures for birds, insects, reptiles, fish, and other aquatic life forms have also been developed. Some zoos have walk-through exhibits where visitors enter enclosures of non-aggressive species, such as lemurs, marmosets, birds, lizards, and turtles. Visitors are asked to keep to paths and avoid showing or eating foods that the animals might snatch.

Petting zoos

A petting zoo, also called children's farms or children's zoos, features a combination of domestic animals and wild species that are docile enough to touch and feed. To ensure the animals' health, the food is supplied by the zoo, either from vending machines or a kiosk nearby.

Animal Theme Parks

 An animal theme park is a combination of an amusement park and a zoo, mainly for entertaining and commercial purposes. Marine mammal parks such as Sea World and Marineland are more elaborate dolphinariums keeping whales, and containing additional entertainment attractions. Another kind of animal theme park contains more entertainment and amusement elements than the classical zoo, such as a stage shows, roller coasters, and mythical creatures. Some examples are Busch Gardens Tampa Bay in Tampa, Florida, Disney's Animal Kingdom in Orlando, Florida, Flamingo Land in North Yorkshire, England and Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in Vallejo, California .

surplus animals

For every animal caught in the wild, several more are killed in the process. Therefore, the breeding of animals within zoos is encouraged.[22] Eric Baratay and Elisabeth Hardouin-Fugier of the Université Jean-Moulin, Lyon, say that the overall "stock turnover" of animals is one-fifth to one-fourth over the course of a year—with three-quarters of apes dying in captivity within the first twenty months. They say that the high mortality rate is the reason for the "massive scale of importations."[30]
The downside to breeding the animals in captivity is that thousands of them are placed on "surplus lists" each year, and sold to circuses, animal merchants, auctions, pet owners, and game farms. The San Jose Mercury News conducted a two-year study that suggested of the 19,361 mammals who left accredited zoos in the U.S. between 1992 and 1998, 7,420 (38 percent) went to dealers, auctions, hunting ranches, unaccredited zoos and individuals, and game farms.[31]
Zoos have advertised surplus animals in the Animal Finders' Guide, a newsletter in which the owners of hunting ranches post notices of sales and auctions.[32] Matthew Scully writes that many hunters prefer killing animals from zoos because they make better-looking trophies; the mane of a zoo lion will tend to be cleaner than that of a wild one.[32] In one case, a zoo owner named William Hampton was found to have been buying animals and systematically slaughtering them in order to sell their skins, heads, and pelts as trophies.[33]
Animals who breed frequently, such as deer, tiger, and lions may be killed for their meat; Nuremberg zoo's deputy director, Helmut Mägdefrau, has said, "If we cannot find good homes for the animals, we kill them and use them as feed."[34] Other animals may be sold to smaller zoos with poor conditions. PETA cites the example of Edith, a chimpanzee found in a concrete pit in a roadside zoo called the Amarillo Wildlife Refuge in Texas. She had been born in the Saint Louis Zoo, but had been sold just after her third birthday, and for the next 37 years was passed around five other facilities before landing in the roadside zoo.[35]
It was alleged in March 2008 that hundreds of the Berlin Zoo's 23,000 animals are missing, amid allegations that they have been slaughtered, and that some tigers and leopards were sent to China to make drugs for traditional Chinese medicine. Claudia Hämmerling, a Green Party politician, said she had evidence that four Asian black bears and a hippopotamus were taken from Berlin to go to a new home, but were transported instead to Wortel in Belgium, which The Guardian reports has no zoo, but does have a slaughterhouse. The zoo's director, Bernhard Blaszkiewitz, replied that the allegations were "untruths, half-truths and lies."[34]


 

Posted by at 1 comment:

Cruelty to animals

Cruelty to animals or animal abuse is the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals, other than humans, for purposes other than self-defense. More narrowly, it can be harm for specific gain, such as killing animals for food or for their fur. Diverging viewpoints are held by jurisdictions throughout the world.
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to the issue. The animal welfare position holds that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, entertainment, and research, but that it should be done in a humane way that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering. Animal rights theorists criticize this position, arguing that the words "unnecessary" and "humane" are subject to widely differing interpretations, and that the only way to ensure protection for animals is to end their status as property, and to ensure that they are never used as commodities. Laws concerning animal cruelty are designed to prevent needless cruelty to animals, rather than killing for other aims such as food, or they concern species not eaten as food in the country involved, such as those regarded as pets.

In law

Many jurisdictions around the world have enacted statutes which forbid cruelty to some animals but these vary by country and in some cases by the use or practice

Australia

In Australia, many states have enacted legislation outlawing cruelty to animals, however, it is argued that welfare laws do not adequately extend to production animals.[1] Whilst police maintain an overall jurisdiction in prosecution of criminal matters, in many states officers of the RSPCA and other animal welfare charities are accorded authority to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty offenses.

Japan

Animal experiments are regulated by the 2000 Law for the Humane Treatment and Management of Animals, which was amended in 2006.[2] This law requires those using animals to follow the principles outlined in the 3Rs and use as few animals as possible, and cause minimal distress and suffering. Regulation is at a local level based on national guidelines, but there are no governmental inspections of institutions and no reporting requirement for the numbers of animals used.[3]

Hong Kong

As of 2010, Hong Kong has supplemented or replaced the laws against cruelty with a positive approach using laws that specify how animals should be treated.[13] The government department primarily responsible for animal welfare in Hong Kong is the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD).
Laws enforced by the AFCD include these:
  • the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (also enforced by the police)
  • the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (including regulations for licences imposed on livestock keepers and animal traders and a Code of Standards for Licensed Animal Traders)
  • the Dogs and Cats Ordinance
  • the Pounds Ordinance
  • the Rabies Ordinance
  • the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance
In addition, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) does the following:
  • enforces the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, which includes regulations for slaughterhouses and wet markets
  • publishes a Code of Practice for the Welfare of Food Animals (which describes their transport)
  • publishes Operational Guidelines for the Welfare of Food Animals at Slaughterhouses
The Department of Health does the following:
  • enforces the Animals (Control of Experiments) Ordinance.
  • publishes a Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes
As of 2006, Hong Kong has a law titled "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance", with a maximum 3 year imprisonment and fines of HKD$200,000.[14]

Taiwan

The Taiwanese Animal Protection Act was passed in 1998, imposing fines up to NT$250,000 for cruelty. Criminal penalties for animal cruelty were enacted in 2007, including a maximum of 1 year imprisonment.[15]

Europe

Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria have all banned battery cages for egg-laying hens. The entire European Union is phasing out battery cages by 2012.[21] It is also illegal in many parts of Europe to declaw a cat.[22]

Germany

In Germany, killing animals or causing significant pain (or prolonged or repeated pain) to them is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or a financial penalty.[23] If the animal is of foreign origin, the act may also be punishable as criminal damage.[24]

Italy

Acts of cruelty against animals can be punished with imprisonment, for a minimum of three months up to a maximum of three years, and with a fine ranging from a minimum of 3.000,00 Euro to a maximum of 160.000,00 Euro, as for the law n°189/2004.[25] The law was passed mainly to crush the phenomenon of dog fighting, which in Italy is a clandestine blood sport fully controlled by organized crime.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, cruelty to animals is a criminal offence for which one may be jailed for up to 51 weeks and may be fined up to £20,000.[26]
On August 18, 1911, the House of Commons introduced the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (c.27) following lobbying by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). The maximum punishment was 6 months of "hard labour" with a fine of 25 pounds.[27]
In the London Police Act 1839, "fighting or baiting Lions, Bears, Badgers, Cocks, Dogs, or other Animals" was prohibited in London, with a penalty of up to one month imprisonment, with possible hard labour, or up to five pounds. The law laid numerous restrictions on how, when, and where animals could be driven, wagons unloaded, etc.. It also prohibited owners from letting mad dogs run loose and gave police the right to destroy any dog suspected of being rabid or any dog bitten by a suspected rabid dog. The same law prohibited the use of dogs for drawing carts.[28] Up until then, dogs were used for delivering milk, bread, fish, meat, fruit, vegetables, animal food (the cat's-meat man), and other items for sale and for collecting refuse (the rag-and-bone man).[29][30] As Nigel Rothfels notes, the prohibition against dogs pulling carts in or near London caused most of the dogs to be killed by their owners[31] as they went from being contributors to the family income to unaffordable expenses. Cart dogs were replaced by people with handcarts.[32] About 150,000 dogs were killed or abandoned. Erica Fudge quotes Hilda Kean:[31]
At the heart of nineteenth-century animal welfare campaigns is the middle-class desire not to be able to see cruelty.
—Hilda Kean, Animal Rights, 1998[33]
The Protection of Animals Act 1911[34] extended the ban on draft dogs to the rest of the kingdom. As many as 600,000 dogs were killed or abandoned.

United States

The primary federal law relating to animal care and conditions in the US is the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002 and 2007. It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimum acceptable standard.[38]
The AWA has been criticized by animal rights groups for excluding birds, rats and mice bred for research, and animals raised for food or fiber as well as all cold-blooded animals.[39]
The Animal Legal Defense Fund releases an annual report ranking the animal protection laws of every state based on their relative strength and general comprehensiveness. In 2008's report, the top five states for their strong anti-cruelty laws were California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, and Oregon. The five states with the weakest animal cruelty laws were Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Dakota.[40]
In Massachusetts and New York, agents of humane societies and associations may be appointed as special officers to enforce statutes outlawing animal cruelty.[41]
In 2004, a Florida legislator proposed a ban on "cruelty to bovines," stating: "A person who, for the purpose of practice, entertainment, or sport, intentionally fells, trips, or otherwise causes a cow to fall or lose its balance by means of roping, lassoing, dragging, or otherwise touching the tail of the cow commits a misdemeanor of the first degree."[42] The proposal did not become law.[42]
In the United States, ear cropping, tail docking, the Geier Hitch, rodeo sports, and other acts are legal and sometimes condoned. Penalties for cruelty can be minimal, if pursued. Currently, 46 of the 50 states have enacted felony penalties for certain forms of animal abuse.[43] However, in most jurisdictions, animal cruelty is most commonly charged as a misdemeanor offense. In one recent California case, a felony conviction for animal cruelty could theoretically net a 25 year to life sentence due to their three-strikes law, which increases sentences based on prior felony convictions.[44]
In 2003, West Hollywood, California passed an ordinance banning declawing of house cats.[45] In 2007, Norfolk, Virginia passed legislation only allowing the procedure for medical reasons.[46] However, most jurisdictions allow the procedure.

TV & film making

Animal cruelty has long been an issue with the art form of filmmaking, with even some big-budget Hollywood films receiving criticism for allegedly harmful—and sometimes lethal—treatment of animals during production. One of the most infamous examples of animal cruelty in film was Michael Cimino's legendary flop Heaven's Gate, in which numerous animals were brutalized and even killed during production. Cimino allegedly killed chickens and bled horses from the neck to gather samples of their blood to smear on actors for Heaven's Gate, and also allegedly had a horse blown up with dynamite while shooting a battle sequence, the shot of which made it into the film. After the release of the film Reds, the star and director of the picture, Warren Beatty apologized for his Spanish film crew's use of tripwires on horses while filming a battle scene, when Beatty wasn't present. Tripwires were used against horses when Rambo III and The Thirteenth Warrior were being filmed. An ox was sliced nearly in half during production of Apocalypse Now, while a donkey was bled to death for dramatic effect for the film Manderlay, in a scene later cut from the film.
Cruelty in film exists in movies outside the United States. There is a case of cruelty to animals in the South Korean film The Isle, according to its director Kim Ki-Duk.[65] In the film, a real frog is skinned alive while fish are mutilated. Several animals were killed for the camera in the controversial Italian film Cannibal Holocaust.[66] The images in the film include the slow and graphic beheading and ripping apart of a turtle, a monkey being beheaded and its brains being consumed by natives and a spider being chopped apart. In fact, Cannibal Holocaust was only one film in a collective of similarly themed movies (cannibal films) that featured unstaged animal cruelty. Their influences were rooted in the films of Mondo filmmakers, which sometimes contained similar content. In several countries, such as the UK, Cannibal Holocaust was only allowed for release with most of the animal cruelty edited out.
More recently, the video sharing site YouTube has been criticized for hosting thousands of videos of real life animal cruelty, especially the feeding of one animal to another for the purposes of entertainment and spectacle. Although some of these videos have been flagged as inappropriate by users, YouTube has generally declined to remove them, unlike videos which include copyright infringement.[67][68]
The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has contracted with the American Humane Association (AHA) for monitoring of animal use during filming or while on the set.[69] Compliance with this arrangement is voluntary and only applies to films made in the United States. Films monitored by the American Humane Association may bear one of their end-credit messages. Many productions, including those made in the US, do not advise AHA or SAG of animal use in films, so there is no oversight.[70]
Simulations of animal cruelty exist on television, too. On the September 23, 1999 edition of WWE Smackdown!, a plot line had professional wrestler Big Boss Man trick fellow wrestler Al Snow into appearing to eat his pet chihuahua Pepper.[71][72]

Circuses

The use of animals in the circus has been controversial since animal welfare groups have documented instances of animal cruelty during the training of performing animals. The Humane Society of the United States has documented multiple cases of abuse and neglect,[73] and cite several reasons for opposing the use of animals in circuses, including confining enclosures, lack of regular veterinary care, abusive training methods and lack of oversight by regulating bodies.[74] Animal trainers have argued that some criticism is not based in fact, including beliefs that animals are 'hurt' by being shouted at, that caging is cruel and common, and the harm caused by the use of whips, chains or training implements.[75]
In 2009, Bolivia passed legislation banning the use of any animals, wild or domestic, in circuses. The law states that circuses "constitute an act of cruelty." Circus operators had one year from the bill's passage on July 1, 2009 to comply.[76]
In 2010, Lebanese animal rights groups became enraged when it was learned that wild performing animals belonging to the Monte Carlo Circus were transported from Egypt to Lebanon without being provided with food and water.[77]

Restrictions

Following the campaign, new regulations were enacted that prohibit the use of animals in circuses in Israel. Finland and Singapore have restricted the use of animals in entertainment. The UK and Scottish Parliaments have committed to ban certain wild animals in travelling circuses and approximately 200 local authorities in the UK have banned all animal acts on council land.[citation needed] Animal acts are still very popular throughout much of Europe, the Americas and Asia. In the United States animal welfare standards are overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture under provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. Efforts to ban circus animals in cities like Denver, Colorado have been rejected by voters. Some circuses now present animal-free acts.[78]

Posted by at No comments:

List of animal advocacy parties

In recent years, several political parties were founded that have as their main goal the improvement of animal welfare and the recognition of animal rights:
Posted by at No comments:

List of animal welfare groups

Animal welfare groups endorse the responsible use of animals to satisfy certain human needs. These range from companionship and sport, to uses which involve the taking of life, such as for food, clothing and medical research. Animal welfare means ensuring that all animals used by humans have their basic needs fulfilled in terms of food, shelter and health, and that they experience no unnecessary suffering in providing for human needs. Unlike animal rights groups, animal welfare groups do not argue that animals should never be used, or kept as property, by human beings. Nor do any animal welfare groups advocate violence. These groups tend to seek legal, social and financial strategies.
The following is a list of animal welfare groups. For animal rights, see the list of animal rights groups.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)