#Animal welfare

[curiositysavesthecat]

Video sent to us by the submitter. Trigger warning for possibly animal injuries and animal negligence

*This poll was submitted to us and we simply posted it so people could vote and discuss their opinions on the matter. If you’d like for us to ask the internet a question for you, feel free to drop the poll of your choice in our inbox and we’ll post them anonymously (for more info, please check our pinned post).

[strangebiology]

This is great journalism on animal welfare!

Germany has now banned "macerating"/grinding up/shredding male baby chicks, who egg farmers typically kill because these "brother roosters" can't lay eggs.

But my first question to that is, "Where will they go instead?"

DW, a German documentary service, looks at the alternatives that people could do, why those options aren't always realized, and they follow the chicks to see where they do tend to end up.

[kermit-the-fox]

On the dogs removed from the study:

Eight dogs were assigned to Group A, five to Group B, and six to Group C. Two dogs were removed from Group A as they received e-collar stimulation in excess of the 20 shocks approved by the IACUC, leaving six dogs in this group.

Literally 25% of your abysmal sample had to be removed. So not only your method didn't work, but it also hurt them for nothing. I feel generally that they realized in the discussion that they fucked up, but for some reason they didn't want to say that, even if this paper could have become an analysis about the correct application of reinforcement. The fact that they consider gentler methods ineffective because it requires time and a trainer, and then end the discussion saying that you have to do ecollar training with a trainer... lol.

Very wonky data.

This is an embarassingly bad paper based on the use of two aversive based dog trainers who are clearly incompetant in the use of +R - yet the e collar training community is taking a victory lap.

The fact that this got past an animal ethics review is honestly appalling and the university should be ashamed.

Let's go over the main huge flaws with this study:

The positive reinforcement protocol they are using to compare to e collars is laughably incompetant - with no management or use of distance, desensitisation. Just use a leash? Maybe?

Use of aversives to stop chasing is, unsurprisingly, effective. Because, yes, painful consequences tend to work to suppress behaviour. That isn't the problem that people have with e collars.

The author seems to think that use of e collars is justified because it "gets results" in a short amount of time to stop dogs chasing - again, apparently we haven't heard of a leash.

"Aside from presumably pain-induced yelps in the dogs with e-collars when they received shocks, none of the dogs in any groups showed any signs of stress or distress." So we're saying a pain vocalisation isn't a sign of distress? That's your welfare parameter? Jfc.

Love how they didn't even try to get fecal cortisol baselines and just collected samples from a few dogs but not all of them. You tried, I guess?

The fact that the trainers for the study is "Ivan and Ivan's Student" is ridiculously biased. Acting as if both these trainers know how to apply +R effectively as opposed to their heavy aversive tool use is laughable.

"We designed our study’s methods around current trainer practices as well as the recommendations of our senior trainer while attempting to keep continencies as simple as possible." - yeeeah that's a conflict of interest. Especially when your "senior trainer" has an axe to grind with R+ people using scientific papers to support their training methods.

You're chucking treats in a bowl after a few sessions and you think that's going to stop a dog chasing a lure? Oh yeah, you got us. We just throw kibble in a bowl to stop dogs running into traffic. I am genuinely floored that that's how they think a +R protocol for chasing works. They have no business comparing the two when they can't even do one properly.

"We also did not test whether the food rewards we deployed were highly valued." Okay so the majority of my client dogs will go nuts for my meaty high value treats because they've only had store bought dry treats and the client is shocked at how food motivated their dog suddenly is..... So this study was relying on whatever the guardian of the dog brought with them lmao rookie mistake.

"Dogs that chase livestock may be shot or otherwise euthanized, and dogs that chase cars may be killed in traffic." Put. Them. On. A. Leash.

"The practical applicability of either the LIMA or LIFE models is likely limited, at least in the United States where dog trainers are not required to be licensed or certified. In a sample of highly rated dog trainers, more than half did not document any relevant education." Does that include your "senior trainer"? It does. Because he doesn't have any formal education in canine behaviour, welfare and science. You know this. You chose him to be your trainer for your study.

"The speed and effectiveness with which the e-collar inhibited the dogs in this study from chasing may justify the limited number of painful stimulations the dogs experienced if the object the dogs were chasing had been something that could directly or indirectly cause them serious injury or death." Or..... OR.... you could not use electric shocks on your dog and potential cause long term damage, fear responses ect.... And use a leash.

Just baffled by this whole study. My high prey drive whippet will go feral for a lure but only when she knows the context for when she's being allowed to chase. She can be at a lure coursing trial for the whole day not worrying about the lure because 1) I keep her at a distance where the stimulus isn't saliant enough and 2) she gets reinforcement for calmly watching from a distance.

I'm honestly getting second hand embarassment reading this study. It's just such bad science should never have gotten past an ethics board.

[autism-freaks]

I think it's a common misconception that domesticating animals is somewhat like enslaving them. It really is more of a symbiotic relationship. No wild animal would have willingly put up with early humans if they didn't get something out of it. Wolves wouldn't have stayed with us and become dogs if they weren't getting food and safety out of it. Many large herbivores that are now domesticated could and would have easily trampled their early human captors or broken their enclosures open if they didn't have a reason to stay. Sometimes individual animals still do if we don't give them what they need.

The animals that have stayed with us for thousands of years have evolved to cooperate with us better. Dogs have additional facial muscles around their eyes that wolves lack in order to mimic human facial expressions. Sheep grow their wool perpetually while their wild counterparts don't because a bigger fleece means they're more likely to be allowed to breed and be kept around. Domestic dairy cows produce much more milk than wild bovine species and domestic hens lay more eggs. Do you know how energy costly producing eggs or milk is for an animal? It's pretty intense! They wouldn't be able to do that if we hadn't given them the food and safety from predators and the elements to.

And we really need to show these animals respect and gratitude for what they give us by taking excellent care of them. They gave up a lot to be with us, often including the means to take care of themselves in the wild. That's a huge reason why I'm not against using animal products, but I hate factory farming. They are still living, breathing creatures with needs and feelings. They deserve a comfortable life and, when the time comes, a humane death.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

average United States contains 1000s of pet tigers in backyards" factoid actualy [sic] just statistical error. average person has 0 tigers on property. Activist Georg, who lives the U.S. Capitol & makes up over 10,000 each day, has purposefully been spreading disinformation adn [sic] should not have been counted

I have a big mad today, folks. It's a really frustrating one, because years worth of work has been validated... but the reason for that fucking sucks.

For almost a decade, I've been trying to fact-check the claim that there "are 10,000 to 20,000 pet tigers/big cats in backyards in the United States." I talked to zoo, sanctuary, and private cat people; I looked at legislation, regulation, attack/death/escape incident rates; I read everything I could get my hands on. None of it made sense. None of it lined up. I couldn't find data supporting anything like the population of pet cats being alleged to exist. Some of you might remember the series I published on those findings from 2018 or so under the hashtag #CrouchingTigerHiddenData. I've continued to work on it in the six years since, including publishing a peer reviewed study that counted all the non-pet big cats in the US (because even though they're regulated, apparently nobody bothered to keep track of those either).

I spent years of my life obsessing over that statistic because it was being used to push for new federal legislation that, while well intentioned, contained language that would, and has, created real problems for ethical facilities that have big cats. I wrote a comprehensive - 35 page! - analysis of the issues with the then-current version of the Big Cat Public Safety Act in 2020. When the bill was first introduced to Congress in 2013, a lot of groups promoted it by fear mongering: there's so many pet tigers! they could be hidden around every corner! they could escape and attack you! they could come out of nowhere and eat your children!! Tiger King exposed the masses to the idea of "thousands of abused backyard big cats": as a result the messaging around the bill shifted to being welfare-focused, and the law passed in 2022.

The Big Cat Public Safety Act created a registry, and anyone who owned a private cat and wanted to keep it had to join. If they did, they could keep the animal until it passed, as long as they followed certain strictures (no getting more, no public contact, etc). Don’t register and get caught? Cat is seized and major punishment for you. Registering is therefore highly incentivized. That registry closed in June of 2023, and you can now get that registration data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Guess how many pet big cats were registered in the whole country?

97.

Not tens of thousands. Not thousands. Not even triple digits. 97.

And that isn't even the right number! Ten USDA licensed facilities registered erroneously. That accounts for 55 of 97 animals. Which leaves us with 42 pet big cats, of all species, in the entire country.

Now, I know that not everyone may have registered. There's probably someone living deep in the woods somewhere with their illegal pet cougar, and there's been at least one random person in Texas arrested for trying to sell a cub since the law passed. But - and here's the big thing - even if there are ten times as many hidden cats than people who registered them - that's nowhere near ten thousand animals. Obviously, I had some questions.

Guess what? Turns out, this is because it was never real. That huge number never had data behind it, wasn't likely to be accurate, and the advocacy groups using that statistic to fearmonger and drive their agenda knew it... and didn't see a problem with that.

Allow me to introduce you to an article published last week.

This article is good. (Full disclose, I'm quoted in it). It's comprehensive and fairly written, and they did their due diligence reporting and fact-checking the piece. They talked to a lot of people on all sides of the story.

But thing that really gets me?

Multiple representatives from major advocacy organizations who worked on the Big Cat Publix Safety Act told the reporter that they knew the statistics they were quoting weren't real. And that they don't care. The end justifies the means, the good guys won over the bad guys, that's just how lobbying works after all. They're so blase about it, it makes my stomach hurt. Let me pull some excerpts from the quotes.

"Whatever the true number, nearly everyone in the debate acknowledges a disparity between the actual census and the figures cited by lawmakers. “The 20,000 number is not real,” said Bill Nimmo, founder of Tigers in America. (...) For his part, Nimmo at Tigers in America sees the exaggerated figure as part of the political process. Prior to the passage of the bill, he said, businesses that exhibited and bred big cats juiced the numbers, too. (...) “I’m not justifying the hyperbolic 20,000,” Nimmo said. “In the world of comparing hyperbole, the good guys won this one.”

"Michelle Sinnott, director and counsel for captive animal law enforcement at the PETA Foundation, emphasized that the law accomplished what it was set out to do. (...) Specific numbers are not what really matter, she said: “Whether there’s one big cat in a private home or whether there’s 10,000 big cats in a private home, the underlying problem of industry is still there.”"

I have no problem with a law ending the private ownership of big cats, and with ending cub petting practices. What I do have a problem with is that these organizations purposefully spread disinformation for years in order to push for it. By their own admission, they repeatedly and intentionally promoted false statistics within Congress. For a decade.

No wonder it never made sense. No wonder no matter where I looked, I couldn't figure out how any of these groups got those numbers, why there was never any data to back any of the claims up, why everything I learned seemed to actively contradict it. It was never real. These people decided the truth didn't matter. They knew they had no proof, couldn't verify their shocking numbers... and they decided that was fine, if it achieved the end they wanted.

So members of the public - probably like you, reading this - and legislators who care about big cats and want to see legislation exist to protect them? They got played, got fed false information through a TV show designed to tug at heartstrings, and it got a law through Congress that's causing real problems for ethical captive big cat management. The 20,000 pet cat number was too sexy - too much of a crisis - for anyone to want to look past it and check that the language of the law wouldn't mess things up up for good zoos and sanctuaries. Whoops! At least the "bad guys" lost, right? (The problems are covered somewhat in the article linked, and I'll go into more details in a future post. You can also read my analysis from 2020, linked up top.)

Now, I know. Something something something facts don't matter this much in our post-truth era, stop caring so much, that's just how politics work, etc. I’m sorry, but no. Absolutely not.

Laws that will impact the welfare of living animals must be crafted carefully, thoughtfully, and precisely in order to ensure they achieve their goals without accidental negative impacts. We have a duty of care to ensure that. And in this case, the law also impacts reservoir populations for critically endangered species! We can't get those back if we mess them up. So maybe, just maybe, if legislators hadn't been so focused on all those alleged pet cats, the bill could have been written narrowly and precisely.

But the minutiae of regulatory impacts aren't sexy, and tiger abuse and TV shows about terrible people are. We all got misled, and now we're here, and the animals in good facilities are already paying for it.

I don't have a conclusion. I'm just mad. The public deserves to know the truth about animal legislation they're voting for, and I hope we all call on our legislators in the future to be far more critical of the data they get fed.

[theclassicalhorse]

Cat people sure do love making it everyone else's responsibility to keep their outdoor cat safe.

[rebeccathenaturalist]

A study that just came out demonstrates that outdoor cats are known to prey on over two thousands species of wild animal, from mammals to birds to insects. That includes 347 species that are endangered, threatened or otherwise of concern, and they've been a key factor of the permanent extinction of over 60 species. And while cats may not always bring home what they catch, chances are if your cat is allowed to roam unsupervised outside, they're killing your local wildlife.

Why is this so important? Worldwide, wild animal populations have decreased in number by 69% in the past fifty years; that means that in my lifetime (born in 1978), the sheer number of wild animals in the world has been decreased by over half. Even "common" wild species are less numerous than before. While habitat population is the single biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction overall, outdoor and indoor/outdoor cats are a significant cause as well. In fact, they are the single biggest cause of human-caused mortality in wild birds.

Most importantly, it's very, very simple to fix this problem: keep your cats indoors, and spay and neuter them. If your cat is bored, they need more enrichment, and there are plenty of ways to make your home more exciting for them, from bringing home cardboard boxes for them to explore, to playing with them more often. If you want your cat to get some outdoor enrichment, leash train them (yes, it can be done!) If you have the space and resources, build them a catio where they can be safe from outdoor dangers like predators and cars, while also keeping local wildlife safe from them.

If you just give into their whining and pawing at the door, then they know that that's what they have to do to get their way; I know it's a tough transition, but it's worth it in the end for everyone involved. Cats are domesticated, which means they are not native anywhere in the world; there are exactly zero ecosystems in which they belong, save for the safety of your home. It is your responsibility to give them an enriching environment without taking the shortcut of letting them go wreak havoc outside.

[jesse-pinko]

As someone who works w animals “animals are not mindless automatons, they actually do have feelings and individuality and are capable of feeling acute physical and emotional pain and of forming deep attachments with other animals and people” and “animals are not human infants and have a limited capacity to communicate with humans so you have to familiarize yourself with their boundaries bc if they feel threatened or overstimulated they will fall back on their basic instincts and if you fuck around you are going to find out” are statements that can and should coexist

[luphus]

honestly people are way more ignorant about the welfare of the animals than they think they are

animal rights activists are even worse regarding that, because instead of actually learning about what an animal needs and how it behaves they rely solely on how they *think* animals feel and need

and it's the reason why the public views feeding and interacting with wild animals as "being good and kindhearted :) " and keeping animals in zoos as "poor animals suffering in cramped cages >:( "

and it kills animals

[typhlonectes]

[despazito]

pulling the pin on this grenade of a meme and sprinting for the nearest shelter

[specimentality]

Adding a tiny piece of text saying “they’re not pets guys” doesn’t mean this isn’t HORRIBLY irresponsible “science” communication. Multiple studies have shown that images and videos like this can and do encourage the exotic pet trade.

This is NOT how you interact with animals that you will send back to the wild.

The fact that she has 1.3 million followers is disturbing

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

What a fantastic example of what accredited zoological facilities can acheive for the welfare of their animals when they collaborate.

Monarto Safari Park is creating an amazing open plains elephant habitat, along with a state of the art elephant barn/shelter for quarantine and medical care.

They've just welcomed Burma, the last elephant housed in human care in New Zealand, to this facility with more elephants from around zoos in Australia set to join her.

A lot of the elephants set to arrive are now alone after herd members passed away. Since we know these are highly social animals that live in matriarchal societies, it's important that they have a herd. So instead of leaving them where they are, the zoos are working together to bring these lone elephants together so they can form a new herd.

I'm really excited to see this project come together and I can't think of a better team to pull this off than Monarto!

Check out the habitat map - it's going to be massive! But also have the means to provide care and allow visitors to see these gorgeous animals, so that's really exciting!

[sayruq]

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

Hey uh I just found this out and I'm FURIOUS but miami zoo has a kiwi bird. Which is fine if they were doing what we do here and keeping it in a darkened enclosure with clear notices to be quiet and not bang on the glass. But instead this shy, solitary nocturnal bird is being kept in broad daylight and people are being allowed to pet it. NZ twitter is out for blood right now. https://twitter.com/zoomiami/status/1637864741954637824

���fucking yikes.

The kiwi I’ve seen in other AZA zoos have been kept according to the practices you describe: dark exhibit on a flipped light cycle, in a signed quiet area. What it looks like Zoo Miami is doing is… not good.

Here’s the link to their tweet with a video about the encounter (so it’ll embed):

The video shows a kiwi out of its exhibit: on a table in what looks like a back room with bright overhead fluorescent lighting. The kiwi has no room to move around and no place to hide as people pet it and reach around it to take selfies.

What do you pay to bother the kiwi four days a week - a species which in NZ is apparently illegal to touch without permission from the Department of Conservation? $25.

Obviously it just started and I don’t know anything more about it than what’s online, but even so, this is such a bad look for an AZA zoo, holy shit. I know a bunch of new ambassador animal rules just got promulgated… I wonder if this meets them. I’ll have to go do some reading. Also, USDA is now promulgating new bird rules (it didn’t regulate birds until just recently, only mammals) so this will also have to pass their muster soon.

The guy who runs Miami’s PR, and manages the animal media like the birth of their first kiwi chick in 2019, is known for big media stunts. I’m not surprised by this but I don’t think it’s going to go over well. There’s a lot of pressure on zoos to offer new encounters and programs to help make up for inflation and pandemic losses but this not how to do it.

I’d honestly suggest New Zealanders who are upset about this contact Zoo Miami formally (more than just on twitter) using the contact form on their website, and maybe even the AZA to express concerns about this program animal’s welfare - as well as the lack of cultural awareness at one of their accredited facilities.

Edited to add: a statement from Zoo Miami is supposed to be forthcoming tomorrow. I’ll update once we have it.