#animal welfare regulations

[the-shadows-request-candy-corn]

Trump may be about to sign the death sentence of the National Institute of Health, and, by extension, the Office of Lab Animal Welfare.

He gutted research animal protections.

Any vertebrate that isn't a mammal will have no rights.

Neither will mice or rats.

If NIH grants are stopped, researchers can't pay anyone. They can't perform research. They can't pay for veterinary services.

They won't be required to provide veterinary services.

The only medical research that will happen will be self funded by big pharma, and they can torture the animals and skew all the lab results that they want.

Just like Musk did to the primates in his neuralink research.

I don't know what's going to happen to me or anyone else at the university where I work. My job is to make sure the animals are treated humanely and to provide veterinary care. I'm especially scared about what's going to happen to those research animals if veterinary staff gets laid off. The USDA only covers mammals, and it doesn't even cover all of them. Every rat I've ever made a tiny paper gift box full of marshmallows for, every mouse I've ever watched grow up, every rodent I've ever separated from an aggressive dominant brother and then treated their tiny wounds, they have no protections if NIH goes down. Decades of research into humane handling, euthanasia, and animal behavior will be tossed aside and wasted.

Please, do everything you can. Protest. Contact your representatives. Anything you can do. Do it for science, for medicine, for people's lives, for people's jobs, and for the animals.

[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.

[petnews2day]

Humane Society's 'Horrible Hundred' list includes 15 Iowa dog breeders

New Post has been published on https://petn.ws/jQx5v

Humane Society's 'Horrible Hundred' list includes 15 Iowa dog breeders

Clark Kauffman  |  Iowa Capital Dispatch The Humane Society of the United States has released its annual “Horrible Hundred” report cataloging regulatory issues at 100 puppy mills nationwide, including 15 located in Iowa. The report is based on the findings of state and government inspectors. For the 12th year in a row, Missouri has the largest number […]

See full article at https://petn.ws/jQx5v #DogNews #Of, #Agriculture, #Animal, #AnimalProductsU0026Services, #AnimalWelfare, #Content, #Department, #Dogs, #Government, #GovernmentRegulations, #HumaneSocietyOfTheUnitedStates, #Humane, #Ia, #IAContentSharing, #Mills, #Negative, #Overall, #OverallNegative, #Point, #Products, #Puppy, #PuppyMills, #Regulations, #Services, #Sharing, #Society, #States, #The, #ToThePoint, #To, #US, #USDepartmentOfAgriculture, #U0026, #United, #Welfare

[rodspurethoughts]

US Approves Sale of Cultured Chicken Meat

"Big news in the food industry! US regulators approve sale of lab-grown chicken meat, paving the way for a more sustainable future. #culturedmeat #sustainability"

Cultured meat. (2023, June 21). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat This is a major milestone for the fledgling industry, which aims to address concerns about the environmental impact of traditional meat production and improve animal welfare by eliminating the need for slaughter. Cultured meat is made by taking cells from an animal and growing them in a lab under controlled…

[acti-veg]

All too often, sound scientific knowledge about animal cognition, emotions and consciousness is not recognised in animal welfare laws. We know, for example, that mice, rats and chickens display empathy, but this knowledge has not been factored into the US Federal Animal Welfare Act. Around 25 million of these animals, including fish, are used in invasive research each year. They account for more than 95 per cent of animals used in research in the US. I’m constantly astounded that those who decide on regulations on animal use have ignored these data.

[blackbackedjackal]

What are some actual problems in the animal product industry?

I'm mostly familiar with fur farming so that's what I'll comment on.

A big concern of mine is that because ARA campaigns against people using or farming fur there's been a decline in the public's trust of fur products in countries that traditionally had good animal welfare standards. This has caused an uptick in fur being farmed in places where the animal welfare laws aren't as regulated, so you're seeing many more unethical farms being able to sell furs cheaply to markets that buy fur for textile. The quality of the fur doesn't matter as much as in the clothing market, so the animals are raised to be as big as possible, exceeding thier healthy sizes and weights to produce as much fur on one animal as possible.

Simultaneously, these unethical farms and businesses are aware of the bad press that ARA groups have spread about the industry, and will sell off other byproducts that aren't as heavily scrutinized or regulated as fur. Many mislabeled blue fox skulls are being sold worldwide (often illegally) by oddities dealers that come from these farms as well as oils and fertilizers and other byproducts of fur farming. It's easy to tell if an animal was unhealthy due to the condition of the pelt, but when the fur is processes as wool or part of the animal people may not recognize came from a fur farm is distributed, it still funds these poorly regulated places.

Meanwhile, the farmers and workers who are being harassed are ones who are generally compliant with WelFur standards, meaning that their farms are up to the current welfare codes in place. It's causing many good farms to go out of business or in some cases close down due to entire states or countries banning fur farming or the use of fur products.

So now good farms are being held accountable for bad practices done at other farms, and it's becoming more and more difficult to find places that do hold up to ethical animal husbandry standards. It's also promoting the use of plastics to make faux fur products which are far worse for the environment then just using fur. And due to the scrutiny many farmers face, it's becoming less worth it for them to sell thier animals as pelts and instead sell them to the exotic pet trade (i.e. people like saveafox who buys foxes directly from an unethical fur farm with bad breeding practices).

It's bad because it feels like there's very little room for changes and improvements to the fur industry because of the chokehold ARA groups have on the public's understanding of fur farming. For example, I'd like to see more ethical breeding practices done based on studying certain color generics and how they effect the health of certain species (we know some color mutations also cause genetic issues with certain species and I would like to have more information as to why that happens and how it can be avoided). However, it's difficult to discuss topics like that and push for change within the industry because most fur farms have to be extremely cautious with who they discuss thier practices to. ARAs will often lie to them to infiltrate thier farms to "expose" them by fabricating lies or stealing and releasing thier animals.

[strangebiology]

The Science of Humane Slaughter

I asked an expert on humane livestock slaughter how we decided on certain methods of slaughter as more or less humane than others, from a scientific perspective.

He pointed me to this document (PDF) from the European Food Safety Authority called “WELFARE ASPECTS OF ANIMAL STUNNING AND KILLING METHODS:” Scientific Report of the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods.

It's long, and old (from 2004) but it's a pretty useful document summarizing a lot of the science of why certain methods of killing may be more or less humane.

You can test a method, for example, by hooking an animal up to an EEG and monitoring its brainwaves after stunning it, or delivering a fatal blow (functionally killing it, but it won't always die instantly following a fatal injury, so you can still monitor it.)

Other ways of monitoring and measuring suffering include recording: how many times does an animal vocalize (moo, grunt etc) after being put in a chute? If it moves, does that matter, or is that a post-mortem or unconscious spasm? Does it immediately collapse, does it blink when you touch its eye (corneal reflex)? Is the animal permanently brain-damaged (which is a good thing when you want it to die fast!) or is it only a little knocked out and immobile, with the potential for recovery if you were to not bleed it out? (Which is bad in that circumstance!) A scientist can test that by testing a stunning method on a group of animals and then seeing if they recover. Those individual animals are likely not happy if they do return to consciousness with a hole in their heads, but such is science.

Anyway, while the testing might sound gruesome, I thought you'd like to know that slaughter regulations are pretty serious and well-studied. And those regulations seem pretty consistent among everywhere I've seen (EU, Norway specifically, the US.) With some minor differences here and there.

Perhaps we will discover better ways to slaughter meat animals in regard to their welfare, or perhaps we will find one day that our preferred method wasn't as good as we thought! There might also be people doing things in very bad, unintentionally cruel ways because of silly, disproven myths (but, if someone is legally selling meat, any US slaughterhouse is required to have a USDA rep see every death.)

I don't want to imply that every animal death goes perfectly well, or that it's even acceptable, or that the meat industry is perfect or good! But I do want to share that there is scientific precedent for why people kill livestock the ways they do, and you can read the studies in the aforementioned document. There are tons.

PS. If you have any interesting insights on the science of humane slaughter, I'd love to see them! Or, even, just tell me how it's done in your country, the role of the government, etc.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Hello! Recently my family discovered a place called "Sustainable Safari" that promised people they could pet kangaroos and see exotic wildlife. It ended up being a store in a mall, with no windows and claustrophobic amounts of space. I don't know enough about kangaroos or the behavior of the other animals, but they seemed lethargic, one kangaroo was attacking another and had to be wrestled by an employee, and one weasel-like creature was running and pacing the length of his cage. Is there somewhere I could report this place to? Or some sort of welfare check?

Oh America why are you like this? Researching this place gave me psychic damage so I apologise for the long winded response.

What you've described sounds like an absolute nightmare. So I looked through their website... And it's... really bad. They boast over 100 species - they have a Coati! Binturongs! Capybaras! Thomson Gazelles! In a mall in very small enclosures! And they say they're getting even more species! What the heeckkkkkk

Most of them are species that have absolutely no business being in a mall under artificial light all day - including endangered and threatened species and nocturnal species (Bush Babies have eyes specifically for seeing the the dark but sure lets flood them with light all day). This facility is very much prioritising "exotic" encounters over practical and reasonable species with the welfare of the animals in mind.

Way too many hands on that Binturong - please give him some trees to climb omg

Not appropriate substrate for red kangaroos, no grazing/foraging, way too many animals (not surprising they're probably needing to breed a lot of them for the joey holding)

They also have a timed holding of wild animals (including a need to have a constant supply for kangaroo joeys for holding - just a new form of cub petting with a less regulated species), with nothing said about whether they're rotating multiple animals, if animals are getting breaks ect.

There's no informations about animal living conditions outside of the mall except that they rotated from "a farm" - big red flag for transparency.

I really hate what is essentially "conservation washing" with something like this. They claim this is all about education and conservation of species - but these animals aren't in anything that resembles their wild habitat to make those conservation message connections work. And there's just no way that nocturnal animals and animals that live in very isolated areas of the world - in jungles, rainforests ect. Are appropriate ambassador animals for conservation messages.

I'm actually shocked at this list: https://sustainablesafari.net/safari-species/ this is insane.

The emphasis on each holding being so cheap and only 4 minutes feels like a way to get as many people through the door holding animals. And you'd have to have *a lot* of Fennec Foxes and kangaroo joeys to make that sustainable and not just an animal that's forced to be touched for hours.

Every "Guided Safari" has about 5 time slots which all involve handling and interactions with "exclusive species". It honestly makes me physically ill seeing the species list.

Yeah no animals should be kept like this. Ambassador species should be appropriate for the environment they're brought out into. Not just the most exotic and rare species you can get (seriously how the hell did they get these animals this is insane, not even accredited zoos have some of these species)

Since they're licensed by the USDA, that would be the place to send a complaint. The fact they got a license for interaction programs with these animals is insane to me. USDA is.... not great at holding facilities accountable.

Maybe someone knows more about this facility and will say its fine but honestly I cannot ethically condone any sort of interaction program like this.

[sw33t-l1ttle-b]

Pet play but your husbandry has to be abide by the animal welfare (licensing of activities involving animals) (England) regulations 2018, or I'm calling the rspca on you

[darkwood-sleddog]

I keep thinking about this CDC thing and taking psychic damage because one of my coworkers (who lives in Florida) was being terrorized a couple weeks ago by this stray/feral cat that was attacking her and her dog every time they stepped outside and she and her neighbors were calling animal control like 'there is a VERY aggressive cat here, we think it might be rabid or otherwise sick because this is very atypical cat behavior' and animal control was like 'oh we can't do anything unless there's a hospital report about someone being bit. You should try to catch it yourself if youre so worried' So I'm thinking perhaps border restrictions are not our biggest problem if we're worried about diseased animals.

100%.

I'm a Town Clerk for a small rural community. Our resources to deal with (increasing) animal issues is SO limited and it is wild what the state often puts on our shoulders to be responsible for. (For example me having to organize rescue, transportation, & welfare of animals prior to rescue for an animal neglect/abandonment case for the past two weeks, something which is not part of my normal job duties, but if i didn't do it the animals would have be literally left to rot and die...). The State Police can be very unhelpful. They don't communicate with us or the Game Wardens who then have to scramble to work with us.

There is SO much that could be done in our country to assist in these matters, but what is always at the forefront of my mind with this is to FUND MORE LOW COST VACCINATION CLINICS & BEGIN TO ENCOURAGE HUMAN RABIES VACCINATION AT A HIGHER % (usually only recommended for animal professionals atm). Like truly if they are that worried we should be doing those things, but imo I think a lot of this is just laziness on educating border patrol to nuance as well as a way for the federal government to wipe their hands clean of trying to stop the retail rescues falsifying paperwork. Now they can point to these new regulations and say "look we're doing things!". It's bullshit because we barely can solve our own problems here, so why we're SO concerned about Canada and Mexico when we share a border is wild to me.

[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.

[petnews2day]

Report finds dog breeders pay few penalties for USDA violations

New Post has been published on https://petn.ws/MHN3r

Report finds dog breeders pay few penalties for USDA violations

Clark Kauffman |  Iowa Capital Dispatch A new analysis of the federal government’s enforcement of animal-welfare laws has found that regulators penalize only 1% of the breeders who are cited for violations. The analysis by the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals found that in 2023, inspectors with the U.S. Department of Agriculture […]

See full article at https://petn.ws/MHN3r #DogNews #Of, #Agriculture, #Animal, #AnimalCruelty, #AnimalProductsU0026Services, #AnimalWelfare, #Congress, #Content, #Crime, #CrimeU0026Justice, #Cruelty, #Department, #Dogs, #Enforcement, #Federal, #FederalRegulations, #Ia, #IAContentSharing, #Iowa, #Justice, #Law, #LawEnforcement, #Legal, #Local, #LocalNews, #Mills, #Negative, #News, #Overall, #OverallNegative, #Party, #Products, #Puppy, #PuppyMills, #Regulations, #Republican, #RepublicanParty, #Services, #Sharing, #US, #USCongress, #USDepartmentOfAgriculture, #U0026, #Welfare

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Nation of Change:

Farmed animals in the United States have minimal legal protections, and much of the abuse they endure is legal. Unfortunately, the federal Animal Welfare Act—which establishes protections for pets and nonhuman animals used for exhibition (like in zoos) and research—does not apply to farmed animals. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a poorly conceived regulatory framework regarding animal rights and the enforcement of the few protections that exist for animals raised and slaughtered for human consumption.

“The failure of regulatory oversight in the U.S. slaughter industry is actually multifold, negatively affecting workers, animals, and the environment (including the communities that live near slaughterhouses),” wrote Delcianna J. Winders, an associate professor of law and director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute Vermont Law and Graduate School, and Elan Abrell, the vice president of community planning and partnerships at the Phoenix Zones Initiative, in 2021 for the Health and Human Rights Journal.

Most state anti-cruelty laws also exempt farmed animals or allow standard practices that are patently cruel. No federal law in the United States explicitly regulates the treatment of animals on farms, except for the small percentage raised organically.

“Cattle are subject to many unique forms of legal bodily exploitation,” wrote Katalina Hadfield, former editor-in-chief of Ecology Law Quarterly, in 2022. “Perhaps the most well-known form of exploitation is, of course, the slaughter of cattle to produce beef. Another common endeavor is to forcibly impregnate cows and collect their milk for processing and distribution. Cattle are also routinely branded, sometimes on the face, for humans to lay legal claims to their bodies. Cattle are subject to agitation, mutilation, and general discomfort in rodeos across the United States. Nearly all these practices are completely legal—and sometimes encouraged—in U.S. law.”

Even more concerning are the claims—some made by former USDA employees—that animal welfare officials purposely ignore breaches in animal welfare regulations in favor of business interests. In 2021, National Geographic reported that former USDA employees said, “inspectors were discouraged from documenting poor welfare,” revealing “a pattern of federal officials’ failure to act on potential welfare violations.”

While federal protection for farmed animals is largely nonexistent, the few instances of protection that do exist are on the state level. Since the turn of the 21st century, several states have enacted measures to improve the welfare of farmed animals. These laws are often the result of public concern, and in many cases, they are reflected in citizen-initiated ballot measures.

[moscahbriar]

final part of this series. i was running out of continents but wanted four so did some islands as well! transcription under the cut (hopefully without the typos), and part one here and part two is here!

Domestic dogs by continent pt. 3

Aeyoratica - south pole continent; is inhabited except besides scientists - all dogs came on expeditions for travel (sled pulling) - all thick-furred sled dog breeds bred for the cold - dogs eventually banned from the continent due to damaging seal populations via spreading disease - most famous dogs to travel to Aeyoratica were Peary, Seguin, Nobu, Rangiora, Shirase, and Yamana

Fríveidinouson - island, not continent - dogs suited to the island's cold climate - a lot of working dogs - working dogs mostly sled and hunting dogs - outside animals generally banned from being imported, dogs included - dog/animal exports also regulated, but not banned - many dogs to Aeyoratica from Fríveidinouson

Nhauisse - island, not continent - lots of both companion and working dogs - many working dogs are gun dogs, especially water dogs - dogs for policing banned; not allowed to be used for such matters - strict laws about animal welfare, including dogs; good animal welfare - strict regulations re dog breeding, such as only native breeds being allowed to be bred - most dogs imported; companion dogs specifically very often imported rescues

Shwooletsa - island, not continent - almost exclusively companion dogs; dogs extremely popular - certain degree of flamboyance, such as in accessories, toys, grooming, etc - dogs that are pure-bred tend to be flashy and unique looking - dog shows and competitions very popular, both for sports and for looks - very strict dog welfare laws; strict penalties

[theleafpile]

there goes environmental regulations there goes immigration reform there goes animal welfare rights there goes abortion rights there goes breathable air there goes having more than a week between food recalls for listeria and e coli outbreaks there goes this country down a shithole we were just starting to crawl out of, again

[devoted1989]

things the leather industry doesn't want you to know

Every year, the global leather industry slaughters more than a billion animals.

If you’re wearing leather, it probably came from China or India. More than half of the leather produced comes from China or India, where animal welfare and environmental regulations either don't exist or are not enforced.

Along with cattle, other animals—cows, pigs, goats, and sheep as well as exotic animals such as alligators and ostriches are slaughtered for their meat and skin in China, which exports around the world. Two million dogs and cats are killed for leather in China. Because leather is normally not labelled, you never really know where (or whom) it came from. 

Dog and cat leather is often intentionally mislabelled, so you could be wearing dog leather and not even know it.

In India, cows are forced to march for days—without food or water—to their own deaths.

Cattle who collapse from exhaustion have their tails broken or chili peppers rubbed into their eyes in order to force them to keep moving.

There is virtually no way to tell where leather comes from. Even if a product says that it was made in Italy or the U.S., the raw materials probably came from India or China.

With thanks to care2com./causes, Huffington Post, The Telegraph, Vegankit, Vegan Respurce Group, The Guardian & One Green Planet.